Energy, Nuclear Power and the Future of the American Economy

I have argued since December 2007 that the future of energy lies with nuclear energy.
I have argued that this is the case even if the problem of Anthropogenic Global Warming is discounted. My argument in no small measure has rested on the limitations of renewable energy and the high costs of overcoming those limitations. Although my argument is not yet reflected in mainstream discussions of energy, there is growing recognition that the problems I point to cannot be easily solved.

I have also pointed to problems with the conventional nuclear option. I have defended the conventional nuclear option from the ritualized, mythic criticisms from anti-nuclear spokes-persons, but this does not mean that I think the the conventional nuclear option is without flaws. My view is that despite some flaws, the conventional nuclear option comes in at a lower cost than renewables, once the flaws of renewables are corrected and the corrections paid for. I have been criticised for taking this viewpoint. I have also been criticized for pointing to the flaws of conventional nuclear power, even though there is no real disagreement with my account of those flaws.

Now some of my critics, critics who would say I should not talk about the issues, are people I respect, including Rod Adams and Bill Hannahan. But they must understand that the issues that I raise are not new issues and they are not trivial issues. Nor do I view these issues as trivial in their implication. I will not shove issues-related technological progress in nuclear energy under the rug.

I have a stake in both sides of the issues I discuss. My brother David came by my apartment on Saturday. He brought with him two boxes of my father's publications which he had brought back from Oak Ridge. In one of the boxes was a letter acknowledging that my father's assignment of patent rights to the industrial process for the separation of zirconium and hafnium. This was an important patent for the development of conventional nuclear power. My father looked with satisfaction on this achievement, and his role in the development of conventional nuclear technology does give me something of a personal stake in conventional nuclear power production.

The two boxes of my father's papers contained copies of many of my father's papers documenting his Molten-Salt Reactor chemistry research. So I have another stake in that. Although my father's nearly 20-year involvement with Molten Salt research was not crowned with success my father never stopped believing in the idea and my LFTR advocacy gave him much satisfaction during the last year of his life.

My father also holds a patent for the fuel formula used in the first MSR prototype. As I have documented elsewhere in this blog, his Molten-salt research at ORNL included numerous accomplishments. Although he was proud of his accomplishment in the development of conventional reactors, even during the last year of his life, in conversations I had with him, he saw MSR/LFTR technology as the way into the energy future.

Thus even if I had no views independent of my father's views. I would still be forced to acknowledge his views, that the LFTR represents the future of nuclear technology. I simply, and in all honesty cannot keep quiet on the relative merits of the LWR and the LFTR, and it is not fair to ask me to do so.

The debate between the LFTR and the conventional reactor is far too important to be allowed to pass without noting. We are in urgent need of addressing the emissions of CO2 in energy because of global warming. The issue of peak coal was recently placed on the table. I am not convinced by the case for peak coal yet, but even without arguing either for peak coal or for Anthropogenic Global Warming, a strong case can be made for the elimination of coal use in the generation of electricity. I expect that energy concerns are very quickly going to become much more important in the public mind, and in the mind of decision makers. I also expect that there will be growing awareness of the short comings of renewables, and no small amount of dismay at the inability of renewables to cut the mustard.

Between Anthropogenic Global Warming, peak oil, and the liabilities of coal, society faces a looming energy gap. This will be no where more significant than in the United Kingdom, where the need to close reactors and old fired power plants in the next decade will almost certainly lead to significant electrical shortages. It is unlikely that the British Government's plan to build 33 GWs of wind powered generating capacity can be accomplished within the timeframe projected as a project goal. Constructing enough nuclear generating capacity to fill the gap would be a realistic alternative, if the British Government were willing to go beyond a business as usual approach, and assign the construction of nuclear power plants a war-time-like priority.

The case for urgency in resolution of the British power gap is very powerful, and it failure to do so would be a disaster for the political system. In the short run politicians who might be aware of the problem are afraid to get out ahead of the public. Thus national leaders are are failing to provide leadership. I am aware of the problem from the writings of Christopher Booker and Richard North, and discussions on the Oil Drum. A number of reports have also discussed the energy gap problem, but to date the problem has not gotten sufficient traction with the British public to become important.

But within less than a decade the British Energy Gap will begin to tell. Whatever else will happen, electricity will be in short supply in the UK. The insecurity of the British gas supply, which Mr. Putin demonstrated this winter, can potentially aggravate the problem. New electrical capacity, whether nuclear or wind, is likely to be more expensive than the old plants that are being shut down. The term "energy poverty" is beginning to pop up in discussion of the inability of the poor members of society to pay for electricity. Energy poverty is very much a life and death issue in the United Kingdom where winters, while hardly Arctic, can still be very cruel to those who cannot afford to pay for heat.

In addition, there are serious implications for the British economy. First the energy intensive industries that remain in the United Kingdom must look at the future reliability problems of the British electrical system. Chinese reactor costs are currently running between $1565 and $1760 per KW. The Chinese plan to have as many as 100 reactors under construction or completed by 2020, with the capacity to rapidly expand that number between 2020 and 2030. Yesterday I pointed out that Indian reactor costs appear to be even lower, with construction costs for Generation IV Liquid Metal Fast Breeders coming in at $1400 per KW. The Indians also possess an long term assured reactor fuel supply, and the Indian nuclear program, although complex is well thought out and technologically more advanced than the Chinese program.

Thus the British Industrialist, contemplating future energy shortages and electrical costs, might well be tempted to move his production to one of the emerging Asian superpowers. Such temptation is widely shared and acted on, would contribute to an economic decline for the United Kingdom. Even if the British government acquired the cojones needed to prevent the energy gap, the cost of a high priority nuclear solution would leave British electricity more expensive than Chinese or Indian electricity. Thus the Chinese and the Indians would possess a considerable competative advantage over the UK. Add to that advantage, the advantage of lower labor costs, and you get a formula for a long term economic decline of the UK. Of course this would not make the greens weep, not at first at least. But eventually the Greens would come to see that they did not solve the problems associated with human wealth, rather the problems would be transfered from Europe to Asia.

Unfortunately current understandings, or rather misunderstandings of American energy have distorted public thinking about our options. Renewable advocates are both dishonest and confused. I have on Nuclear Green, Energy from Thorium, and Daily Kos, explored the renewable options, and the cost of making renewable electricity dependable. Renewable advocates when confronted with the shortcomings of renewable electricity usually resort to talking about three options. They are:

1. Energy efficiency
2. the smart grid
3. energy storage

Separately, and in combination energy efficiency and a smart grid will not produce electricity if the wind stops blowing on a cold winter night. Curiously when confronted with these facts, renewables advocates fall back on the carbon emitting grid back up as if we will never dispense with it. When it comes to negative comparisons with nuclear, renewables advocates will argue that renewables electrical generation will always be supported by and will require the burning of CO2 emitting fossil fuels.

I have documented the conceptual problems involved in the claim that energy efficiency can fill the gap. Nothing about a smart grid allows it to deliver energy that is not produced or stored. I have looked at a number of proposed systems for storing electricity from wind generation under very favorable wind conditions. Even under favorable wind conditions, no wind energy storage system can make reliable West Texas wind cost competitive with conventional nuclear generated electricity. Nor will West Texas wind even with energy storage ever be as reliable or flexible as conventional nuclear. The problem then with conventional nuclear is not its cost competitiveness with renewables, rather it is the fact that both renewables and conventional nuclear cost too much.

My advocacy of the LFTR then is not simply motivated in my father's role in its development. My father never looked at the potential of the LFTR for lowering electrical costs. Thus in addition to solving the major issues of nuclear power, including outstanding safety, and largely resolving the problem of nuclear waste, cutting CO2 emissions to next to nothing, and eliminating the need to mine for nuclear fuel for thousands of years, LFTRs have the potential of being built at a fraction of the cost of renewables or conventional nuclear.

My view has always been that a rapid conversion to a post-carbon energy system that is safe, efficient, reliable and affordable is not an option. If the American economy is to have a future, and the American people are to live in relative prosperity, comfort, safety, security, and good health, then the potential of the LFTR is not an option. The only post-carbon energy source that has the potential to realize these goals is the LFTR. I believe then that it is appropriate for me to discuss the relative advantages of the LFTR over both conventional nuclear and renewable electrical sources.

British Windmills Are Not Turning in a Cold Wave

The UK is experiencing an exceptionally cold wave. Power demand is high. Richard North of EU Referendum has taken a look at the effects of the cold wave on wind in the UK. This is not an academic exercise, British Government Plans call for the construction of a 33 GW wind generation system during the next 10 years. But if winds fail at periods of peak electrical demand, then the entire electrical generation system could fail, and if the failure occurred during a cold wave, there could be a health disaster.

North pointed to a letter to the editor of the Telegraph (London) by Peter Mosley of Croachy, Inverness in Scotland who wrote:

I got into my car at 9am on Tuesday and the display said that the temperature outside was -13C. On my journey I went past a windfarm and observed that the turbines were not turning. They had been the same for the previous few cold days.
Does this mean that the 132,000 homes this installation claims to supply are without power, or do they manage to get electricity somehow from elsewhere?

The current winds peed map for the United Kingdom shows that as of 1:16 PM GMT, wind speeds were under 5 MPH in almost all Scotland and over half of England. Offshore wind speeds for the British Isles also appear to be low.

A 5 to 7 trillion dollar subsidy to the wind industry?

Yesterday, the Abilene Reporter-News published a guest column by Professor Patricia A. Lapoin of Abilene's McMurry University. The column's title is "There's a price for subsidizing wind energy with taxpayer dollars."

Abilene has good, although not not outstanding wind resources. And wind farms are spring up there. In addition, Abilene is just a Texas hop, skip and jump away from the Texas Panhandle, whose wind resources are considered to be among the best in the country. Thus criticism of wind power, coming from an Abilene source, would tend to go against local interest.

Lapoin, who in addition to teaching Business Administration at McMurry University is the President of P&L Consultants, is an opponent of wind generated electricity for personal reasons. Lapoin lives next to a wind farm in Taylor County, Texas and complains that neighborhood windmills are extremely noisy, are eyesores and generally destroy the the quality of rural life. The huge 421 turbines Horse Hollow Wind Energy Center in Taylor and Nolan Counties comes within a half mile of her home. "The land in Taylor County is forever damaged," Lapoin says.

In yesterday's Abilene Reporter-News, Lapoin laid out an analysis of the US Department of Energy's most recent wind energy report, "20% Wind Energy by 2030". She reports:

"According to a recent report by the National Renewable Technology Laboratory (DOE), wind energy could account for 20 percent of the nation's electricity by 2030. To reach this target, wind turbines would have to produce 300,000 MW of power or 1,000,000 MW installed capacity. The 500,000 plus wind turbines would cost the taxpayers between $5-7 trillion."

Lapoin compares land use with wind, and nuclear:

"For a comparable amount of electricity output, a nuclear power plant requires approximately 50 acres of land vs. 80,000 acres of land for wind farms -- 1,600 times the land usage for wind generated power! For the same or less taxpayer money, why not put those taxpayer dollars into more nuclear power plants and protect our natural environment from the thousands of square miles of industrial wind turbines dotting the landscape?"

I did a brief analysis of some of the assumptions that underlay "20% Wind Energy by 2030," and found that estimates for future cost did not acknowledge the realities of materials inflation, and other factors that would affect wind facilities construction costs.

Key assumptions of "20% wind Energy" are highly questionable. For example it is assumed that the cost of wind estimated to be $1,730/kW in 2005 would remain constant until 2010, and then would decreasing 10% by 2030. This is preposterous. The cost of installing windmills rose to something like $1900/KWh in 2007 and the cost of materials is projected to continue the inflationary pattern of this decade. The assumptions about offshore wind are even more preposterous: $2,520/kW in 2005, decreasing 12.5% by 2030. In fact, the cost of offshore wind projects was closer to $5,800 in 2007 and was rapidly ascending. The expectation of a 12.5% drop in the cost of installing off shore wind facilities by 2030 is a pipe dream. The expectation that there would be a capacity factor improvements about 15% on aveover all wind classes between 2005 and 2030, is unrealistic given the European experience, of declining capacity factors with each new windmill facility.

Professor Lapoin's estimates partially rest on what are extremely unrealistic assumptions by the wind industry. Hence her estimate of a 5 to 7 trillion subsidy required to meet the 20% wind penetration by 2030 goal may be if anything conservative. And that 5 to 7 + trillion dollars subsidy will be expended on an energy generation system that still requires fossil fuel back up, and will produce at most only 20% of our current electrical needs. The 20% wind power idea, fails the "economic rationality" rest.

Update 6/9/08: Mike commented yesterday about the lack of detailed analysis in support of Patricia Lapoin's major contentions. I had already begun an attempt to verify Lapoin's numbers before I saw Mike's comment. My calculations were that given Lapoin's assumptions, I could only find an annual subsidy that was over 100 times smaller than Lapoin's 5 to 7 trillion. This does not mean that she simply tossed out a huge number, or that she does not have such an analysis, simply that she her numbers cannot be verified by my "rough and ready" methods. It would be most desirable if Lapoin has such an analysis that she publish it quickly.

Wind power in West Denmark

Wind power in West Denmark. Lessons for the UK. ©
By Dr V.C. Mason (October 2005)

Summary: Although one fifth of the electrical power produced annually in West Denmark is generated by its enormous capacity of wind turbines, only about 4% of the region’s total power consumption is provided from this source. Most of the output of wind power is surplus to demand at the moment of generation and has to be exported at reduced prices to preserve the integrity of the domestic grid. Savings in carbon emissions are minimal. To diminish exports and lower carbon emissions, plans are now in hand to use surplus wind power for resistance heating at local combined-heat-and-power plants.

Background
Denmark (pop. 5.4 million) operates some of the world’s most efficient coal, gas and bio-fuelled CHP plants for central and local electricity production and district heating. It has also become a leading pioneer of renewable energy in an attempt to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels and imported power. In this context its Wind Turbine Industry has become an important aspect of the national economy, employing about 20,000 Danes and currently supplying about 40% of the world market (Nielsen, 2004). The country has also made considerable progress in the development of solar power and bio-fuel technologies.

Denmark’s renewable energy programme is based principally on wind power. Since 1985, about 3,317 MW of mega wind turbine capacity have been installed (Bülow, 2004a), of which 420 MW are sited offshore (Nielsen, 2004). More is planned for the future (Bendtsen and Hedegaard, 2004). Until recently, these developments were heavily subsidised, directly and indirectly. They were under-pinned by a statutory obligation on Transmission System Operators (and indirectly on electricity consumers) to buy the total output of power from wind and local district heating sources at elevated prices fixed by Government. In addition, direct subsidies were paid for renewable energy produced under obligatory purchase and free market conditions. Between the end of 2000 and 2003, the associated costs were officially said to be DKK 3.40-3.85 billion per annum (Bendtsen, 2003), although some have claimed that in 2001 consumers were paying an extra DKK 8-10 billion every year in capital and operational costs for the combined conventional + renewable energy package (Krogsgaard, 2001). A serious consequence is that Danish householders pay almost double the UK price for electricity.

Since 1985, the size and number of Denmark’s industrial wind turbines has grown steadily in attempts to improve their efficiency, economy and output. According to one prediction, 20MW wind turbines as high as the Eiffel Tower may be a reality by 2015 (Andersen, 2001). Towards this end, a subsidised ‘re-powering’ scheme recently encouraged the replacement of 1,200 small turbines (< 150 kW) by 300 bigger ones (Nielsen, 2004), and under a similar arrangement a further 900 turbines of under 450 kW capacity will soon be displaced by 175 larger machines (Sandøe, 2004a). Such upgrading seems likely to continue. Most of the turbines scrapped to date operated for less than 16 years (Bülow, 2002), so it is very difficult to assess their effective lifespan or economy. Furthermore, there has been little, if any, closure of conventional power plant in response to the advent of wind power.

Western Denmark
Denmark operates two unconnected and largely autonomous grid systems, located west and east of the Great Belt, respectively. Each benefits from having large, long-established inter-connectors which facilitate the exchange of power with the bigger systems of Norway, Sweden and/or Germany. The balance of the international flow of electricity is usually in a southerly direction, although in 2003 drought conditions in Norway and Sweden encouraged a net movement northwards (Bülow, 2005a).

Wind conditions in West Denmark are comparable to those found in most of the UK (see Troen & Petersen, 1989), but are somewhat better than in the east of Denmark. Consequently, three-quarters of the country’s capacity of wind turbines is found in the western region, their concentration (c. 820 MW per million of population) being amongst the highest in the world. Indeed, there are few areas in the region’s rather flat or gently rolling countryside where turbines are not visible, and in particularly windy locations concentrations are high. For many residents this has seriously detracted from the former charm and beauty of their traditional, largely agricultural surroundings and coastlines, and it has also had a detrimental impact on associated wildlife habitats. A leading national newspaper has commented: “[It is true that Denmark has placed itself in a leading position with regard to the utilisation of wind energy, but until now this has certainly occurred at great cost to nature and with considerable public subsidy]” (Jyllands Posten, 2004).

Patterns of wind power generation
In Western Denmark (principally Jutland and Funen; pop. c. 2.9 million) electrical power is provided by about 11 primary units (3,516 MW i.c.), 558 district heating plants (1,593 MW i.c. (inc. 40 MW bio-boilers)) and 4,161 wind turbines (2,379 MW i.c.) (Eltra, 2005). Despite the high proportion of wind turbine capacity, however, the bulk of domestic electricity is still provided by central and local CHP plants on the basis of fossil fuels derived from the North Sea. This reflects unpredictable wind conditions, and an inability to assimilate widely fluctuating quantities of wind power into the domestic grid in significant amounts:

a) Despite relatively favourable wind conditions in the region, only 20-24% of the potential annual output of West Danish wind turbines has actually been achieved over the last five years. This compares with the 24.1% load or capacity factor recorded in 2003 for the much smaller number of UK onshore turbines (DTI, 2004), but is higher than the 15% calculated for Germany over the same period (see Reuters, 2004). The Union for Co-operation on Transmission of Electricity (UCTE) claims an average load factor (LF) of only 20% for its European TSO members (Refocus Weekly, 2004). Clearly, the economy of a wind turbine is greatly affected by its LF, which in turn is influenced by local wind speeds, turbulence, midge or salt accumulations on blades, and breakdowns. Serious technical problems have been recorded for the transformers of offshore wind turbines at Horns Rev (Andersen, 2004a; Renewable Energy Access, 2004) and Middelgrunden (Møller, 2005).

b) The output of wind power is highly variable and unpredictable. In strong winds, up to 2,379 MW of wind power can be generated for a domestic system in which the demand throughout the year can range between about 1,300 and 3,800 MW. In contrast, adverse conditions can greatly restrict production (Bülow, 2004a). Throughout February 2003, for example, wind speeds and the generation of wind power were very low (Bülow, 2003), while in January 2005 a hurricane forced wind turbines to shut down within hours of running at near maximum output (Andersen, 2005a). Levels of output are very sensitive to conditions. At the Horns Rev off-shore wind station, for example, an increase in wind speed from about 9 to 11.5 metres per second can double production from about 80 to 160 MW within a few minutes (Eltra, 2005).

c) Although renewable energy generation has now reached the numerically equivalent of about 26.5% of annual demand (Bülow, 2005a) and wind turbines account for about 20% of total power production (Eltra, 2005), most of the region’s wind power has to be exported in order to secure stability in the domestic grid. During 2003, for example, as much as 84% of the annual supply of wind electricity was surplus to demand at its moment of generation (Sharman, 2004), and only about 4% of domestic power consumption was satisfied by wind turbines (Sharman, 2005a). In fact, close relationships exist between wind power generation and the region’s net exports of electricity (see Nissen, 2004; and Sharman, 2004). Prior to 1st January 2005, surpluses were also promoted by subsidies offered for electricity produced by the independently operating Denmark’s countryside and coastal areas will continue to be eroded as the size and, perhaps, number of wind turbines and associated plant increases.

Carbon emissions
The quantitative significance of man-made carbon emissions in the process of climate change is a matter of scientific dispute and public conjecture. In 2000, Danish man-made emissions of carbon dioxide were estimated to correspond to only 0.0003% of all the carbon dioxide released annually into the atmosphere from the Earth (Jyllands Posten, 2001). Nevertheless, it makes sense for Denmark (a small, relatively lightly populated country with limited reserves of fossil fuels) to seek to improve its efficiency of power production.

Compared to the situation in many other countries, West Denmark’s deployment of efficient central and local coal, gas, and bio-fuelled CHP plants represents a major advance, with considerable carbon-saving potential. In contrast, its attempts to assimilate large amounts of wind power into the domestic system have proved to be very disappointing, and have so far produced little or no reduction in carbon emissions because of the need for imported power or the less efficient production of domestic backup to protect the integrity of its grid (Sandøe, 2003a). Most of its large exports of wind power simply displace ‘green’ hydro or nuclear electricity produced in Norway and Sweden, helping to replenish reservoirs only in dry periods or when power is cheap. This has led a former Chairman of Eltra to ask: [“Is it environmentally friendly to produce electricity with wind turbines if there is no-one who can use it? And is it environmentally friendly to burn natural gas in decentralised heat and power plants while dumping the over-production of Danish wind electricity in Norway, where it possibly leads to water being diverted away from the water turbines?”] (Kongstad, 2001). Processes involved in the manufacture, excavation and/or installation of access roads, massive concrete foundations, turbine components, pylons and associated equipment also militate against the emission-saving benefits claimed for mega wind power.

As a matter of fact, despite West Denmark’s massive carpet of wind turbines, its carbon emissions have recently been rising (Bruun, 2005), and a leading Elsam expert has intimated that “[Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions]” (Nissen, 2004). The region can hope, however, that the future linking of CHP and wind power in a more flexible and co-ordinated system will improve the predictability and sustainability of power production, moderate surges and exports, and even reduce carbon emissions.

Lessons for the UK
The UK aspires to 20% renewable energy by 2020 (i.e. the level already achieved in West Denmark). This equates to about 60 - 70 TWh of renewable energy (see Sharman, 2005b). To obtain 70 TWh of production on the basis of wind turbines alone would require an installed capacity of between 23 and 40 GW, depending on the LF achieved (i.e. 35-20%). Danish experience suggests that the 40 GW estimate (equivalent to about 20,000 2MW wind turbines) would lie closest to reality, and that the UK would also need to invest heavily in local CHP plants and/or large inter-connectors for backup. Most of the associated requirement for natural gas would need to be met from vulnerable foreign sources.

The deployment of such numbers of mega turbines would have a big impact on UK land use. A widely used rule of thumb stipulates that to prevent the turbulence from adjacent turbines taking power from each other (thereby reducing the overall LF), they should be separated by 7 to 10 times their rotor diameter. Even this spacing is too close, ‘shadow’ effects being monitored 5 km away from wind stations (Andersen, 2005c). It thus appears that the installation of 40 GW of wind power in the UK could leave a dedicated turbine ‘footprint’ (i.e. a close-habitat impact zone), on land and/or at sea, equivalent in size to almost half the total land area of Wales (depending on the size, number and layout of turbines). The situation would become much worse if/when wind power is exploited to produce hydrogen as fuel. Assuming a very optimistic LF of 50% for 3MW wind turbines, a recent study (Oswald and Oswald, 2004) estimated that about 96,000 units would be required to run all British transport vehicles on hydrogen. These would occupy a dedicated area greater than that of Wales or, alternatively, a 10 km strip encircling the entire coastline of the British Isles.

The instalment of turbines and pylons in the more scenic parts of the UK would inevitably involve the clear-felling of woodland (to maximise LF) and the incidental drainage of wetland during the excavation and building of access roads and foundations. This would stimulate the oxidation of peat (releasing carbon dioxide), and impact badly on many habitats essential for the survival of particular species of wildlife. The potential danger to protected birds and bats presented by general habitat destruction and the flailing blades of wind turbines has already been illustrated in many American and European situations (e.g. see the Cefn Croes Wind Farm website, 2004, and Mason, 2004).

Conclusions
The West Danish model clearly shows that the installation of large numbers of wind turbines can lead to severe and expensive problems with power transmission, and seriously degrade wildlife habitats and the aesthetic value of land- and seascapes for little or no reduction in carbon emissions. It is therefore imperative that energy conservation schemes and alternative sources of renewable energy are more thoroughly explored before large swathes of unique UK countryside and coastal scenery are lost to industrial wind stations. Conservation measures alone could reduce UK carbon emissions by 30% (Coppinger, 2003).

References
Andersen, P., 2001: “Om 15 år har vi møller på mere end 20 MW”. [In 15 years we will have turbines of more than 20 MW]. Eltra magasinet, 10, November.

Andersen, P., 2003a: “Der-ud-af uden speeder, rat, kobling og bremser”. [Out there without accelerator, steering wheel, clutch or brakes]. Eltra magasinet, 1, January.

Andersen, P., 2003b: “Regulering af lokal production gør os til bedre nabo”. [Regulation of local production will make us better neighbours]. Eltra magasinet , 1, January.

Andersen, P., 2004a: “Forskere endevender søsyge transformere”. [Researchers scrutinise seasick transformers]. Eltra magasinet, 2, February.

Andersen, P., 2004b: “Staten overtager Eltra og Elkraft fra årsskiftet”. [The State takes over Eltra and Elkraft from New Year]. Eltra magasinet, 4, April.

Andersen, P., 2004c: “Eltra støtter og får viden fra norsk vind/brint-projekt”. [Eltra supports and gets information from Norwegian wind/hydrogen project]. Eltra magasinet, 8, October.

Andersen, P., 2005a: “Da stormen tog til stod møllerne af”. [When the storm increased the turbines switched off]. Eltra magasinet, 1, February.

Andersen, P., 2005b: “Tysk netstudie: Muligt at nå 20 procent vind om 10 – 15 år”. [German grid study: Possible to achieve 20 percent wind in 10 – 15 years]. Eltra magasinet, 2, March.

Andersen, P., 2005c: “Mølleparker: Skyggevirkning mærkes fem kilometer borte”. [Turbine parks: Shadow effect is felt five kilometres away]. Eltra magasinet, 4. June-July.

Bendtsen, B., 2003: Parliamentary answer to Question S 4640, 2nd September 2003. http://www.ft.dk/Samling/20021/spor_sv/S4640.htm.

Bendtsen, B. & Hedegaard, C., 2004: “Vindmøller i vælten”. [Wind turbines in fashion]. Jyllands

Further responses to Nick on the reliability of wind

Nick, we are discussing changing out power generating systems. The peak capacity you discuss is part of the system we should be replacing. There are two questions about wind:
1. How useful is it in decreasing CO2 emissions right now?
2. What role can it play in a post carbon electrical generating system.

The answer to question one appears to be less than expected, and the total impact is not clear. Is the current subsidy on wind cost effective in reducing CO2 use? This is a clear unknown. Would, for example diverting the wind generating subsidy to more efficient electrical use yield a greater CO2 emission savings? Suppose the government took the money it now pays for wind subsidies, bought florescent light bulbs with it, and gave the light bulbs to anyone who wanted them. Would giving away florescent light bulbs create more CO2 savings.

How about the government giving homeowners solar water heating systems? What sort of CO2 savings would come from such a program?

Finally some studies of the actual CO2 savings from wind conclude that they are modest at best. Dieter Helm, Energy Economist and Fellow in Economics, New College, Oxford, observes:
“What we know, is the wind blows sufficient for these windmills to be producing about 35%, perhaps 40% of the time. So the paradox of building windmills is that you have to build a lot of ordinary power stations to back them up and those are going to be almost certainly gas in the short to medium term and that’s what’s required."

Wind in the present is tied to the use of CO2 generating fossil fuels.

Despite advocates claims about CO2 savings, we need much better data. The whole matter needs careful and impartial research.

This then is the case in the present. What about the future?

There are several problems with wind in a post carbon future. We have focused some attention to on what role wind can play in a future electrical generating system. I am looking right now at graphs of wind generation data from Amarillo, Texas (http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/power_monthly/ama_powerm.html). I picked out Amarillo because it is regarded as having very good wind resources. Wind generators in Amarillo have excellent capacity factors [at least by wind generation standards]. The graph for August clearly shows wind capacity factors dropping to almost zero in mid morning and not rebounding until late afternoon. [This is true everywhere in Texas.] Thus Texas wind resources cannot be counted on during the hottest hours of summer days. A few years ago the staff of the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) argued that exactly 2% of rated wind resources of Texas should be included in the accounting of as summer peak. There is a good case that are right. Summer peak power producers should be producing electricity at 1:00 PM on summer days. But almost everywhere wind capacity factors drop to unacceptable levels in the middle of hot summer days.

Are there enough good wind spots in the country to provide reliable electricity? A glance at the Stanford data suggests that we cannot expect consistent, steady generation from wind anywhere, and that national wind output varies significantly by time of day and season of the year. But summer winds seem light almost everywhere. Given what we know about wind, there appears little doubt that it cannot deliver power at the very moment when power is in demand. This is simply unacceptable, and raises serious doubts about the role of wind in a post carbon electrical generating system.

Renewable Energy: Wasted Days and Empty Nights

One of the I had to learn when I began to read discussions of renewable sources of electricity is the vocabulary of power. Generators of electricity can be divided into three different types. There are base power generators, these are the units that can be counted on to generate electricity, all the time, except during periods of maintance. A base power unit can be counted on to generate electricity 60% to 95% of the time. Examples of base electrical generators include coal and natural gase fired electrical generating plants, nuclear power plants, geothermal power plants, hydroelectric power generators.

Peak power generators represent a second class of generators. Peak power generators can provide electricity when demand is high. Usually peak demand is during the day time, when stores, offices and factories are using electrical energy for their operation. In the North peak demand may occure on winter nights, when cold waves drive demand for electrical heating. The popularity of lighted Christmas displays is another source of winter night time peak demand. In the South peak demand is associated with summer use of air conditing. Although the absolute peaks of air conditioning driven summer demand are in day time, the air may remain hot at night, bringing about elevated demand for electricity after dark. Sources of peak demand electricity may include pump storage facilities, as well as reserve conventional electrical generators.

Supplemental power is a third category of electrical generator. Supplemental power cannot be counted on to be avaliable on demand. Some renewable sources of energy like wind powered generators cannot be counted on on to provide electricity on demand. Wind power is avaliable when the wind is blowing. Other supplemental generators, for example solar voltaic panels, are only avaliable at spacific times of the day. Since the "fuel" for wind generation is free, and they do not generate greenhouse gases, the use of supplemental renewable power sources, may be desirable to replace base power when the supplementals electricity is avaliable.

Electricity from variable renewable energy sources has to be ballanced, Electrical demand stays constant whether the sun is shining or behind a cloud. For a simple solar or wind generating system a battery might do. Feed the electricity into the battery and then draw it out when you need powet. pump storage facilities are sort of super batteries. You can pump water up a mouintain when the sun is shining, or the wind is blowing, and then let it flow down the mountain through a generating turbine, when consumers want electricity. A more common way to ballance variable renewable power is by using power from a generating source that can quickly be drawn on as the wind drops, or clouds cover the sun. Denmark draws on electricity generated at Norwegian dams to ballance its wind generated electricity.

Electrical generation has to be able to come on line quickly in order to ballance the variations of wind generated electricity. If you have access to hydroelectric power and plenty of water, that will do fine. but California does not have enough hydroelectrical power to ballance its wind generators. Balancing power usually come then from convintional fossil fuel powered electrical generators. These are called back up generators. In order to be able to supply power quickly, the back up fossil fuel generators must be kept running all the time. Power companies call running back up generators "spinning" them. Of course when you run a back up generator, when you spin it, you are burning fossel fuel, and you are producing geenhouse gas.

Opperating an electrical system that draws on wind generated electricity or solar pannel generation, requires generating back ups. This is called redundancy. How much redundancy do you need? That depends on how much electricity you are trying to get from your vaiable renewables. If you are just operating a few wind generators, you may need quite a lot. If you have a lot of wind, wind generators will produce a lot of electricity. Wind generators are rated by the mazimim amount of power they can generate on a very windy day. Unfortunately in most places the wind rarely blows that hard. In a light brieze, your wind generator may only produce 20% of its rated power. If you are commited to produce a certain percentage of your electricity by wind generation that may mean that you want to buy more wind generators to back up your generating capasity. Five wind generators operating in a light breeze will supply the same amout of power as one generator operating in a heavy wind. If you have light breezes 25% of the time, then you may need to buy five wind generators in order to provide the amount of wind generated electricity you want.

Now suppose no wind at all blows 25% of the time. How many wind generators do you need? Well no number of wind generators will get you what you need. So you will need 100% of your electricity from back up generators. How often do you need back up generators? How often have you been out in the wind, and saw a hard wind turn into a breeze, or even simply die away to nothing? You basically have to keep 100% of your back up capacity spinning all the time with wind. In desert environments the sun shines almost all the time, clouds are fairly predictable.

There is usually some warning if the sky is going to cloud over. So spinning back up is not nearly as critical with Solar power as it is with wind. You still need back up capacity with solar, and you need variable online power for ballancing, even if there are only a few clouds in the sky.

There sunlight is much more tricky than you might imagine. The problem of SV intermittency is discussed in "The Character of Power Output from Utility-Scale Photovoltaic Systems," by Aimee E. Curtright and Jay Apt, (Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center Working Paper CEIC-07-05: http://wpweb2.tepper.cmu.edu/ceic/papers/ceic-07-05.asp). The paper is unfortunately password protected.

A quote from Curtright and Apt,
"The intermittency of large-scale PV power for four sites in the American southwest desert is significant, even during daylight hours. These data also imply that site diversity over a ~280 km range does not dampen PV intermittency sufficiently to eliminate the need for substantial firm power or dispatchable demand response. The high correlation between geographically dispersed arrays may indicate that high, widespread clouds are responsible for a portion of the intermittency. Observed rapid and deep fluctuations at time scales of 10 seconds to several minutes may indicate that a component of the intermittency is due to low, scattered clouds with significant opacity. We observe a number of examples of output power rising above nameplate capacity before and after deep drops in power. This may be due to focusing of sunlight around the edges of low clouds."

If the problem exists in the relatively cloudless southwest, how much worse is it going to be in the South East, when there can be a lot of clouds in the sky on "sunny" summer days?

The use of solar power for peak power is further complicated by demands for peak power at night and under adverse weather conditions. You also have to factor in the demand for peak electricity on cold, snowy winter days, and after dark in much of the country. Solar cells don't generate electricity when covered with snow. On hot summer days in Texas, AC demand continues all night. It is often in the upper 90's at midnight after hot Texas Summer days. We need peak power at night.

One other factor that can effect the reliability of solar power is air born dust. Dust can effect solar power both by blocking sunlight on dusty days, and by dust deposits both on solar panels, and on mirrors in Solar thermal mirror arrays. NASA has predicted a return to dust bowl conditions in the Southwest.

You need back up generators for the 12 hours a day the sun does not shine. Although advocates of solar power talk about night time backup systems, they require redundant generating capacity. Thus with stored solar back up, capital costs will be more than doubled. If you use none solar backup those generators will either burn fossil fuels, and thus they will emit CO2, or they will be nuclear powered. But why, if you built nuclear power plants, would you only want to run them at night? It would be cheaper to run them all the time and not worry about solar power.

Either a ST or an SV system ends up being expensive, vulnerable to clouds and dust storms, and is going to occupy a lot of territory, and damage a whole lot of vulnerable desert habitat. But hay, damaging the environment is no big deal to greens.

Building so much redundancy into the electrical generating system costs money. Taking land from other uses and committing it to renewable generated electrical power also has economic costs. Electrical grid systems that gather and transmits electrical energy from far flung renewable energy "farms" and transmits it to cities also costs money. And there is of course the cost of fuel to keep back up generators spinning. Is there a cheaper way to do thing?

Windy city

This table comes from Jerome Guilet's blog on Daily Kos, and represents his own calculations. It does nor reflect hidden costs.  Thus health related costs due to air pollution from coal fired power plants are not factored into the cost of coal generated electricity.   The cost of wind generated electricity does not include the cost of maintaining and operating back up and load balancing  generating facilities.  This is done with coal or gas, hence there are also hidden costs associated with pollution and CO2 emissions.  Advocates of wind power insist that it does not require backup.  This is only true if wind generation is always being balanced by fossil fuel generators.    Wind generated electricity is of value if we want to cut CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants.  When the wind is blowing utilities can cut back on burning natural gas or coal, and feed the wind generated electricity  to the consumers.  

The problem with wind is, of course, that back ups and balances can never be eliminated.  Thus wind generated electricity will never truly replace coal or gas.  At best wind power will cut the generation of CO2, it will not stop it.  If our goal is not to supplement fossil fuel power  but to replace it, we will have to look elsewhere.  

My goal is radical.  If we are to reduce the emissions of CO2 by 80% by 2050, we simply need to stop burning fossil fuels to generate electricity.  Our society uses enormous amounts of electrical energy, and if the use of fossil fuels in transportation is to be replaced, the demand for electricity will only increase.  Providing the electricity our society requires is virtually impossible with wind, given its limitations. 

Wind does not fit well in a renewables energy mix.  The one exception to this rule is hydroelectric power.  Winds do sometimes blow at night, but not reliably so.  Thus wind generated electricity is not a good match for solar power.   Geothermal energy provides reliable base power, and its price is closely matched to wind's.  There is no reason to substitute wind for geothermal.  Nuclear power works best by continuous generation.  Thus the load balancing pairing of nuclear and wind would not work well.  Wind works best with Gas, Coal and hydroelectric.   The hydro-electric resources of the United States are limited.  TVA, which operates a large dam system, gets 10% of its electricity from hydro power.  It might make sense for TVA to match its hydro generating capacity with wind, if it had wind resources. Unfortunately the American South East has very poor wind resources.  

Thus if coal and gas are to be eliminated from the energy product mix, wind generation will be eliminated as well.  This is the paradox.  The future of wind generation is tied to the future of fossil fuel use in the generation of electricity.   

Sovacool, Not So Cool

Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool is currently a Research Fellow in the Energy Governance Program at the Centre on Asia and Globalization, part of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. He is an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University in Blacksburg, VA, where he has taught for the Government and International Affairs Program and the Department of History. Dr. Sovacool recently completed work on a grant from the National Science Foundation's Electric Power Networks Efficiency and Security Program investigating the social impediments to distributed and renewable energy systems. He has also consulted for the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research, New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and U.S. Department of Energy’s Climate Change Technology Program. His most recent book is an edited volume entitled Energy and American Society-Thirteen Myths, published by Springer in 2007. - Sovocool biography

Considering that Canada is 32.7% above its Kyoto target, and doesn't have a clue how to get its emissions under control, and the ammount of money being spent on wind generation, a technology that is bound to keep the coal mines in business for a long time, and that politicians want to shut nuclear power plants down, and replace them with, you guessed it, windmills with fossil fuel "back ups," we are not going to make 1990, or even come close. What will work will be peak oil, and a lot of people will be buying EVs by 2020. By 2020, we should pretty much have out heads straight about nuclear power, and be beginning the ramp up to replacing all the fossil fuel power plants. Maybe that will be completed by 2040.

I look for some greater measure of sanity, maybe in 4 years. Right now a lot of people with bad ideas and a desire for attention have taken the stage. We will know that things are getting serious when the egoistic idiots get driven from the stage.

The idea at the moment is to throw a lot of money at renewables, in the hope that some of it will stick. The advocates of wind generation are blowing more hot air than anyone else around. These guys all seem to have an amazing ability to ask the most simple question about wind energy. An example of this thinking is found in a recent post on Scitizen, a blog that links science and society. It is written by and for people who don't know much about either. Scitizen is of course anti-Nuk and pro-wind. It is hard for me to not be cynical and sarcastic. Being pro-wind means that Scitizen has made itself a par of the coal lobby, since all those coal fired power plants are not going away as long as there are needed to back-up, ie. serve as the base power sources, in a society that pretends it is solving its CO2 emissions problems by building a lot of wind generators.

The obligatory anti-Nuclear post was written by Benjamin K. Sovacool, an editor of Scitizen, and a recent Blacksburg, PhD, whose dissertation was titled, "The Power Production Paradox: Reflecting on the Socio-technical Impediments to Distributed Generation Technologies." Sovacool's wrote a September 2005 article, in the often anti-nuclear Foreign Policy, "Think Again: Nuclear Energy."   I should have, by now unleashed enough key words to alert at least some of you where Sobacool is coming from and where he is heading.

In his Foreign Policy article, Sovacool argues, for example:
"The reprocessing and enrichment of uranium often relies on fossil fuel-generated electricity. Data from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and USEC, a uranium enrichment company, indicate that enriching the amount of uranium needed to fuel 1,000-megawatt reactor for a year using the most efficient method can require 5,500 megawatt hours of gas- and coal-fired electricity (a 100-megawatt power plant running for 550 hours). Two of America’s most polluting coal plants in Ohio and Indiana produce electricity primarily for uranium enrichment. In this way, many nuclear power plants contribute indirectly but substantially to global warming, and fail to reduce U.S. dependence on petroleum and coal."

Shades of "Stormsmith" and Helen Caldicott. How long has it been since the gaseous diffusion plant been at Portmouth, Ohio been closed? At least since May of 2001, and yet Sovacool, in 2005 described Portmouth as still being operational. Jeese Louise! We are left to ask, Is the fellow an incompetent scholar? Or is he a Second Helen Caldicott? He does not seem to understand the difference between the separation of uranium isotopes and the reprocessing of used reactor fuel.

In personal communication with me, Sovacool claimed that the $1,200 per KW that the Chinese are paying for AP-1000 is expensive. He was unaware of the price of two off shore wind farms recently cited by the New York Times. Nor was he aware of recent price tags for new coal fired plants.

He did know that the California Energy Commission had decided that wind power is really cheap. And guess who is not looking deeply at the issue. Sovocool apparently believes that if you hook up enough wind farms, you can cancel out the the intermittency of wind.

I posted a comment onto Scitizen:
This theory can be tested in the real world, Germany's E.ON Netz operates one of the biggest 'feed-in' wind power nets in Europe. According to the E.ON Netz 2005 Report, E.ON Netz's net has 7600MW of rated wind generating capacity. On average across the year of 2005, E.ON Netz had 7600 MW of installed wind capacity. It produced an average of 1327MW of power. That's an operational level of 18 per cent of capacity. . E.ON Netz increased its wind capacity by 12% in 2005. Actual generation, however, went up just 1.5%. On May 15, 2005 at 12.15pm E.ON wind generators were producing just 8MW of electricity.

Texas has both West Texas and off shore wind resources. In 2005 the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) looked at the Reliability of Wind power in Texas. . Texas is considered second only to South Dekota in wind energy potential, and a great deal of money is being invested in Texas wind farms. Here is what the ERCOT found: 1. Wind generated electricity was not significantly less expensive than other sources, based on the Texas experience. 2. In order to take advantage of preposed wind generation projects, three billion dollars would have to be invested in the statewide electrical grid. 3. Wind Generated electricity was not reliable.

ERCOT currently assigns 10% of the installed capacity of wind turbines to its calculation of the ERCOT peak capacity reserve margin. Based on a review of historical data of actual wind turbine generation during ERCOT system peaks (from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in July and August), the average output for wind turbines was 16.8% of capacity. However, the data also showed that for any hour during these months, the output of the wind turbines could range from 0% of installed capacity to 49% of installed capacity. Because of wind's intermittency, the ERCOT Technical Advisory Committee, considered recommending a wind capacity value of 2%.

Stephen R. Connors of MIT analized data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other data sources tracking off shore wind speeds, electricity demand, and power systems operations over time for the North East. Conner found that offshore wind farms in the Northeast would generate far more electricity in winter than in summer, when electricity demand is highest. Connor noted about New England off shore wind power that "it’s not there when you need it most—midday during the summer when demand and prices are high,”

Mike Cowan of Western Area Power Administration’s Upper Great Plains Region reports that Western’s Upper Great Plains Region has about 150 megawatts of wind power that has been installed, but that generation from wind was insignificant during the hottest days of summer. The Upper Great Plains are considered to have the greatest potential for wind generation in the country.

The Tennessee Valley Authority installed a wind generating Farm on Buffalo Mountain in East Tennessee. Buffalo Mountain is considered one of the windiest spots in Tennessee. During Augusts, Buffalo Mountain receieves enough wind to generate electricity 7% of the time. The wind resources of the entire American South East are considered poor.

David Dixon studied the performance of California's wind generators during California's "heat storms" during the summer of 2006. Dixon stated, "By most people’s analysis, wind’s performance was disappointing. Specifically during this period of peak demand, statewide wind often operated at only 5% of capacity, or less."

California has 2,500 MW of rated wind generating capacity. On July 24, 2006 California Electrical demands peaked at over 50.000 MWs. Wind generation plumited to around 5% of rated capacity that day. There were record heat waves in California, the East Coast and the Southern States, during July 2006.

Clearly then the notion that linking wind generators is going to smoth power production does not survive empirical tests.

Joseph Somsel has observed, "the advocacy of wind power comes from three sources - rent-seeking entrepreneurs angling for corporate welfare, daydreamers, and politicians seeking to avoid difficult decisions. "

Updare 12/11/07: Sovocool has not responded to my latest round of comment on out discussion.  I am afraid that I have not been too kind to him.  I am not too patient with Blacksburg PhD's who still haven't learn to do their homework.