Comments by Robert Wilson Subscribe

On Mythbusting Some Mythbusting about Chinese Coal

Willem

Telling me to go look up the site "Wind power in China" is not exactly helpful. What website is this? I did ask for links previously. Try providing some. And I can't possibly re-read your article, I haven't even read it in the first place. Again I asked for a link. I am not telepathic and capable of figuring out which article you referred.

Finally, my name is not David.

On Mythbusting Some Mythbusting about Chinese Coal

Willem,

Telling me to Google something is of little use. I've already told you I think the statistic is dubious, it's up to you to provide evidence that it isn't.

On Mythbusting Some Mythbusting about Chinese Coal

Willem,

I would prefer if you stopped quoting dubious capacity factor figures for countries. Or at least if you do to actually to provide a citation for where they are coming from.

On Mythbusting Some Mythbusting about Chinese Coal

John

Before accusing me of using facts selectively please try reading what I actually write.

1. Basic arithmetic Net growth in capacity = New plants - closures. This is over 50 GW per year after 2005. I explain this in the piece.

2. The results are stack, but how difficult is it to subtract the US figure (which is very small) from the total? I'm not using selective facts here, merely assuming the average reader is capable of subtraction.

3. The 2012 figures are projections. I do not refer to them once in the piece, only referring to the 2012 figure that Guay himself cites. Again, read what I actually write.

On Natural Gas Revolution and Its Implications: LNG Exports 101

Adam

Good post. I agree that the emissions perspective is pretty complex. The top two importers Japan and South Korea would probably just use less nuclear if LNG went down in price. And that's almost half of current LNG imports accounted for.

Alternatively natural gas plants are tanking throughout Europe right now, while coal is doing pretty well. The European Emissions Trading Scheme appears to be a dead dog, so the only short to medium term prospect to improve the situation for gas, and weaken it for coal, in Europe may be to decrease the gas price. So, US LNG exports may lower EU emissions. Having said that some EU governments aren't that happy to pay extra for renewables or nuclear, so lowering gas plants may hurt renewables/nuclear as much as they hurt coal.

But if I was to lay my hat somewhere it would be that LNG exports will increase emissions. All you need to do is look at the top importers (page 11 here): Japan, Korea, UK, Spain, China, India, Taiwan, France.

Clearly Japan & Korea will see increased emissions if gas prices go down. The UK is similar, with the current Chancellor wanting the UK to push heavily on gas, and new coal is not on the table anyway. Spain's electricity grid is a complete mess right now, and cheap gas will just kill new renewables. It may have marginal benefits for India/China, but not many. Taiwan is considering whether to build new nuclear, so cheap gas is a negative there. France is a dead end for coal, so cheap gas can only be bad.

May be other factors that I am ignoring, but the climate benefits of LNG exports seem questionable.

On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions

Jean

I have asked you before to stay on topic. Can you please try to do this?

On Energy Facts: U.S. Coal Consumption Is Down But Are Exports Eroding Climate Benefits?

Jesse

A key issue here are the prospects of continued coal use in Europe. With the exception of Germany (almost 8 GW of new coal in 2012-13) European countries are not building new coal plants. And because of the Large Combustion Plant Directive a large number of coal plants are shutting (5 GW in the UK alone this month).

So this export market is going to contract pretty quickly. Another reg kicking in around 2016 is the Industrial Emissions Directive. This will see further sharp cuts in coal capacity. Unless other EU countries follow the lead Germany appears to be taking, building flexible coal plants to back up renewables, the EU coal market is all downhill from here.

On Wind vs. Nuclear Energy in the UK: A Question of Scale

Willem

Can you please think before you comment? This is the site I linked to when I quoted the capacity factors for Horns Rev 2, you are simply giving me information my comment makes clear I am already aware of.

On Growth in China Wind Energy Production Exceeds Coal For First Time Ever

Willem

I do not know what IWT stands for. Tell me and I will see if I know where the stats are. 

On Growth in China Wind Energy Production Exceeds Coal For First Time Ever

Willem

Twice I have linked to the UK government's official statistics for wind farm load factor and both times you have replied you have simply ignored them. The official data makes it totally clear that load factors have never been 20%.

You also are drawing completely inaccurate conclusions from that data. About 2 GW of UK wind farms is not visible to the national grid, so is excluded from this data. So you need to factor that in. However all you need to do is read the official UK stats to realise you are incorrect. 

You also ha

On Wind vs. Nuclear Energy in the UK: A Question of Scale

Soren

Again, this feels overly anecdotal. And I must remind you that the plural of anecdote is not data.

Also, the life capacity factor of Horns Rev 2 appears to be 48.4%, not 50.9% as you state. A single wind farm having a capacity factor 7% higher than expected is not something than be generalized from. Such differences are very possibly accountable simply from above average wind conditions.

Even at 50% we are still looking at a capacity factor of 20% higher than what DONG is claiming in their own marketing literature about the London Array. And one wind farm out performing DONG's claim capacity factor by 7% over a three year period is not overly convincing evidence that the London Array will outperform it by over 20%.

On Wind vs. Nuclear Energy in the UK: A Question of Scale

Soren

I can provide further justification for my assumption of a capacity factor of 35% for the London Array by linking to a non-technical summary of the wind farm from 2005. This says the eventual 1 GW wind farm will produce 3.1 GWh per year, which works out at a capacity factor of about 36%. 

Also this more recent brochure promoting the London Array says that the Load Factor is expected to be 39%. Slightly higher than what I assumed, but I also assumed the EDF reactors would have lower capacity factors than expected.

Now, it may be true that the London Array will have a capacity factor of 60%. However if this is true then they will have done an amazing job of ripping off the UK tax payer. The subsidies have been set up on the assumption that offshore wind capacity factors will be something like 35-40%, and not 60%.

So, overall I suspect that its output will not be 50% higher than expected.