About Social Media Today
Comments by Michael Goggin Subscribe 
On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions
Good timing, given this article out today explaining how MISO and ERCOT, which have 12 GW and 10 GW of wind on their systems respectively, have been able to integrate that large amount of wind with virtually zero integration cost or incremental need for operating reserves:
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Grid-Integration-of-Wind-and-Solar-is-Cheap
Here's MISO explaining how that is possible:
http://www.uwig.org/San_Diego2012/Navid-Reserve_Calculation.pdf
Please note that a comment that simply re-posts your previous spam and does not respond to any of this data will be ignored.
On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions
Willem, do you have any response to the NREL continuous emission monitor data showing that any negative impact of wind variability on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants is at most 0.2%, i.e. wind produces 99.8% of the emissions reductions expected under 1:1 displacement of fossil generation?
On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions
David, the impact of very high wind levels on the efficiency of fossil plants was fully examined in NREL's analysis, and found to be "negligible."
http://wind.nrel.gov/public/WWIS/Emissions.pdf
http://www.uwig.org/san_diego2012/Lew-WWSIS-Cycling.pdf
On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions
Willem, speaking of "cookbook" presentations, do you have any data or analysis to respond to any of the points I made, let alone the points Robert made in his initial post, or are you just going to spam us with your usual junk that has already been debunked a hundred times? If the answer is the latter, please don't waste our time.
On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions
Robert, thanks for your feedback.
First, the correlational data was but one of many data points I used to support my argument, which together form a conclusive case that wind energy is causing significant emission declines. The correlation was between wind generation, not capacity, and emissions intensity. I never made the argument that wind was more effective at reducing emissions than hydro or nuclear; rather, my point was to counteract claims that some other factor had caused the observed declines. I also never presented the correlational data by itself as a causal argument that wind was causing all of the observed emissions. Rather, it was just one data point to counter the argument that wind is not reducing emissions, as I explained here: "If wind energy were causing large declines in the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants, zero or negative correlations would have been found, instead of correlations approaching 1."
I agree that there are stronger data to prove that wind is causing the expected emission reductions, such as the observed emissions of individual fossil fuel power plants demonstrating that states and countries that have seen significant wind development have not seen declines in the per-MWh efficiencies of their power plants, and most compellingly the NREL analysis that used real-time observations to conclusively assess all of wind's impacts on fossil-fired power plants and found that wind produces 99.8% of the expected emissions.
Michael
On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions
If you actually read the NREL study referenced in that article, you'll find that it shows that wind reduces pollution and fuel use by as much or more than expected. In many cases, adding wind and solar actually increases the average efficiency of power plants by displacing the most expensive, and therefore least efficient, power plants first. The study uses real-world emissions monitors at power plants to confirm that, even after all cycling and other impacts are taken into account, wind produces 99.8% of the emissions savings that would be expected for a 1:1 displacement of fossil fuels. The claim that so-called "backup emissions" are significant has been conclusively put to rest. As I explained:
As wind energy’s growth has continued, spurred by improving technology and declining costs, wind energy’s role in reducing harmful pollution has become even clearer. Empirical data for the United States and Europe clearly indicates not only that wind energy results in the expected pollution reductions by directly offsetting the use of fossil fuels at power plants, but that by displacing the most expensive and therefore least efficient power plants first, wind energy results in even larger pollution savings than expected.
There is no dispute that every MWh of wind energy added to the power grid displaces a MWh that would have been produced by the most expensive power plant currently operating, which is typically the least efficient fossil-fired power plant. However, some have attempted to claim, without support, that adding wind energy to the power system can negatively affect the efficiency of other power plants, reducing the emissions savings produced by wind energy.
Fortunately, a large body of real-world data is now available to assess how wind energy affects the efficiency of other power plants, allowing one to approach the question from multiple angles. To start with, the U.S. Department of Energy collects detailed data on the amount of fossil fuels consumed at power plants, as well as the amount of electricity produced by those power plants. By comparing how the efficiency of power plants has changed in states that have added significant amounts of wind energy against how it has changed in states that have not, one can test the unsupported hypothesis that wind energy has a negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants.
The data clearly shows that there is no such relationship, and in fact, states that use more wind energy have seen the efficiency of their fossil-fired power plants fare slightly better than states that use less wind energy. Specifically, coal plants in the 20 states that obtain the most electricity from wind saw their average efficiency decline by only 1.00% between 2005 and 2010, versus 2.65% in the other 30 states. Increases in the efficiency at natural gas power plants were virtually identical in the top 20 wind states and the other states, at 1.89% and 2.03% improvement respectively. The efficiency of fossil-fired power plants fared comparably well in the top 10 wind states (which obtain between 5% and 16% of their electricity from wind), with coal plant efficiency increasing by 0.51% in the top 10 wind-using states and declining by 2.65% in the other 40 states, while gas plant efficiency improved by 0.78% in the top 10 wind states and 2.17% in the other 40 states.
Similar results can be found in International Energy Agency data for Europe, which shows that the top 5 wind countries (which obtain between 7% and 23% of their electricity from wind) saw the average efficiency of their natural gas power plants increase by 11% as they ramped up their use of wind energy from 1999-2010, larger than the 7% increase in efficiency seen across all of OECD Europe. Over that time period, coal plant efficiency fell by 1% in the top 5 wind countries and remained unchanged across all OECD Europe countries.
Another method to assess whether wind energy is producing the expected emissions savings is to calculate whether increases in the use of wind energy are correlated with decreases in the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per MWh produced. A correlation coefficient of 0 would indicate that there is no statistical relationship between wind energy output and emissions intensity, a coefficient of -1 would indicate that wind output increases always coincided with increases in emissions, and the observed coefficients of nearly +1 indicate that increases in wind output nearly always coincided with major decreases in emissions. The correlation between increasing wind energy output and declining emissions intensity in the leading wind energy countries over the period 1999 to 2010 was extremely strong, with a correlation coefficient of.77 for Denmark,.82 for Germany,.86 for Portugal,.90 for Spain, and a whopping.96 for Ireland.
These correlation coefficients were far higher than for any other possible explanatory factors for the observed decreases in emissions intensity, such as increased use of hydroelectric or nuclear energy, increased use of natural gas instead of coal, changes in the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants, or changes in electricity imports or exports. If wind energy were causing large declines in the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants, zero or negative correlations would have been found, instead of correlations approaching 1.
These findings are further confirmed by the preliminary results of a new report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that uses empirical data from another source, EPA’s network of power plant continuous emissions monitors, to evaluate the impact of wind energy on the efficiency of all fossil-fired power plants in the Western U.S. The in-depth, multi-year, and peer-reviewed analysis found that even in a scenario with wind providing 25% of all electricity in the Western U.S., wind’s total impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants would be “negligible,” accounting for less than 0.2% of the emissions savings produced by wind energy. As a result, carbon dioxide emissions declined by 29–34% in the 25% renewable energy case. Moreover, the analysis found that adding wind energy to the grid actually slightly increases the average efficiency of coal and natural gas combined cycle power plants by offsetting the least efficient plants.
No matter how one approaches the question, the data is clear that wind energy greatly reduces fossil fuel use and pollution. Moreover, the results discussed above are in addition to a large body of independent grid operator, utility, and government analyses and data that have already examined how wind energy interacts with the power system and unanimously found that wind energy produces pollution savings that are as large or larger than expected.
Michael Goggin,
American Wind Energy Association
On Energy From Wind Turbines Actually Less Than Estimated?
Thanks Willem, now I understand why your math is wrong. The majority of wind plants finish construction and become operational near the end of the year, so simply averaging the MW capacity at the start and end of the year significantly overstates the MW that were actually online on average over that year. That explains why your capacity factors are lower than the real DOE/LBNL data.
DOE's data are based on actual fuel use at power plants, so your claim that they use estimates for fuel use data is simply false. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/
On Energy From Wind Turbines Actually Less Than Estimated?
John, Willem, I don't expect DOE will be updating its wind capacity factor numbers from 33% because, despite your best efforts to cherry pick data, wind's capacity factor in the U.S. is actually 33% (page 41): http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-5559e.pdf
Regarding the myth that wind doesn't produce the expected emissions savings, I'd kindly ask that you stop repeating this lie until you can explain the following DOE data that directly contradicts your claim. I posted this comment more than 6 months ago on another one of Willem's spam posts on this website, and to date he hasn't been able to offer any explanation for why the data directly contradicts his claim:
"Unfortunately for Mr. Post, repeating a myth does not make it true. Regular readers of EnergyCollective have probably seen a nearly identical posting from Mr. Post almost a dozen times already. In fact, since everything in this posting has already been debunked, I'll just copy and paste the previous debunkings below. However, I would be curious how Mr. Post would attempt to explain away this inconvenient truth, which conclusively tests and refutes his entire hypothesis:
The Department of Energy collects detailed data on the amount of fossil fuels consumed at power plants, as well as the amount of electricity produced by those power plants. By comparing how the efficiency of power plants has changed in states that have added significant amounts of wind energy against how it has changed in states that have not, one can test the hypothesis that wind energy is having a negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants. The data clearly shows that there is no such relationship, and in fact states that use more wind energy have seen greater improvements in the efficiency of their fossil-fired power plants than states that use less wind energy. Specifically, coal plants in the 20 states that obtain the most electricity from wind saw their efficiency decline by only 1.00% between 2005 and 2010, versus 2.65% in the 30 other states. Increases in the efficiency at natural gas power plants were virtually identical in the top 20 wind states and the other states, at 1.89% and 2.03% improvements respectively. The conclusion that adding wind energy actually increases fossil plant efficiency makes intuitive sense, because adding wind energy to the grid displaces the output of the most expensive, and therefore least efficient, fossil-fired power plants first."
On Wind Energy CO2 Emissions Reductions are Overstated
Willem,
I see you were unable to offer any response at all to the DOE data that completely disproves your entire argument. If adding wind energy really does decrease the efficiency of fossil power plants, why has the efficiency of fossil power plants improved more in states that have added wind energy versus those that haven't? If you are unable to answer that simple question, I'd suggest that you stop repeatedly spamming this website with the same claims that have been thoroughly debunked and which you yourself cannot defend, if for nothing else than for the sake of your own credibility.
Also, you should be rather embarrassed about claiming that your work or Udo's work has been peer-reviewed. Udo's article did not appear in European Physics Review as you claim, which is a legitimate peer-reviewed journal, but rather in the Europhysics News, which, as the title suggests, is a non-peer-reviewed news magazine that posts news articles on physics topics submitted by volunteers. As the Europhysics News website explains, it publishes "review articles, features on advances topics, news reports and items of general interest." Regarding your claim that your own work is peer-reviewed, I hope that you realize that having an associate simply read something you are going to post on a blog does not constitute peer review.
Finally, in my initial post I made it clear that I was linking to AWEA's summaries of government and independent grid operator data and analysis. I'll assume that you chose to make an ad hominem attack on the messenger (me) because you have no substance on which to refute the dozens of pieces of evidence from independent third parties that I linked to in those summaries. Please follow the dozens of links to those government and independent grid operator data and analyses, read the analyses and look at the data on your own, and please explain to me what is wrong with all of them, as I have done for every piece of fossil industry-funded junk analysis you've attempted to pawn off on the readers of this website. I hope you have enough faith in the readers of this website to understand that your incessant re-posting of debunked junk will not win them over. I will be posting a similar comment on each article you post, until you can provide a substantive rebuttal to the facts I have cited.
Michael
On Wind Energy CO2 Emissions Reductions are Overstated
Unfortunately for Mr. Post, repeating a myth does not make it true. Regular readers of EnergyCollective have probably seen a nearly identical posting from Mr. Post almost a dozen times already. In fact, since everything in this posting has already been debunked, I'll just copy and paste the previous debunkings below. However, I would be curious how Mr. Post would attempt to explain away this inconvenient truth, which conclusively tests and refutes his entire hypothesis:
The Department of Energy collects detailed data on the amount of fossil fuels consumed at power plants, as well as the amount of electricity produced by those power plants. By comparing how the efficiency of power plants has changed in states that have added significant amounts of wind energy against how it has changed in states that have not, one can test the hypothesis that wind energy is having a negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants. The data clearly shows that there is no such relationship, and in fact states that use more wind energy have seen greater improvements in the efficiency of their fossil-fired power plants than states that use less wind energy. Specifically, coal plants in the 20 states that obtain the most electricity from wind saw their efficiency decline by only 1.00% between 2005 and 2010, versus 2.65% in the 30 other states. Increases in the efficiency at natural gas power plants were virtually identical in the top 20 wind states and the other states, at 1.89% and 2.03% improvements respectively. The conclusion that adding wind energy actually increases fossil plant efficiency makes intuitive sense, because adding wind energy to the grid displaces the output of the most expensive, and therefore least efficient, fossil-fired power plants first.
Previous debunking of playing statistical tricks with Irish grid operator data:
Regarding Fred Udo's report on wind and emissions in Ireland, it only took a few minutes to unravel the statistical trick Mr. Udo was using to get his results, which might explain why his analysis wasn't published in a peer-reviewed journal and rather appears on an obscure Dutch anti-wind website.
This appears to be a classic case of a lurking (or confounding) variable being used to misleadingly present correlation as causality; a comparable example is arguing that cigarette lighters cause lung disease since people who buy them tend to develop lung disease. In this case, the lurking variable that is the actual causal factor appears to be cold weather and its impact on heating demand, data that Mr. Udo should have had access to but that (for reasons we can only speculate) he chose not to use in his correlational analysis.
What tipped me off was part 3, Figure 3 of his text, where Mr. Udo called out an event in Ireland around June 9-12, 2011, when the carbon intensity of Ireland’s electricity production surged. I was curious as to what might have caused that event so, on a hunch, I pulled weather records for Ireland. Sure enough, there was an abnormally cold spell when temperatures fell into the 30’s and 40’s F, 10 to 20 degrees below normal for that time of year. Aha! Cold temperatures cause a spike electric heating demand, causing the grid operator to turn on more expensive, less-efficient fossil plants to operate to meet the abnormally high electric demand.
Another factor is that cold weather could force some of Ireland’s fossil-fired combined heat and power (CHP) plants to fire up and run at a high level of heat production (and subsequently more emissions per megawatt-hour, MWh, of electricity, since CHP plants relative to the rest of the fleet are not optimized for electricity production, and CHP plants being run to produce maximum heat are not being operated in a way that is optimized for electricity production; moreover, it appears that the emissions associated with heat production are rolled into the data that Mr. Udo is using, so a CHP plant producing only or mostly heat and little or no electricity under cold conditions like these would score at infinite emissions/MWh).
As one would expect, cold spells and home heating demand often correlate with high wind speeds, which is how Mr. Udo was able to draw his false conclusion that wind was the causal factor. Sure enough, a closer examination of the spikes in emissions/MWh in his data show that all are associated with cold spells, and only some are associated with an increase in wind output. It doesn’t take a statistician to tell you which is the causal factor in that relationship. Had Mr. Udo himself been more interested in finding the actual causal relationship at play here, he might have noted that the correlations between wind output and emissions intensity varied widely from month to month (as one would expect for weather-driven seasonal changes in electric demand), usually a strong indication that another variable may be the actual causal factor.
I should also point out that, contrary to Mr. Udo’s claims, the method Irish utility system operator EirGrid uses to calculate emissions savings from wind is accurate. The plant-specific heat rate curve that they are using would account for all of the impacts wind energy would have on the efficiency of the fossil fleets under all operating conditions.
Summaries of government and grid operator data showing emissions have decreased as or more than expected in Colorado, Texas, and other regions as wind energy has been added to the grid, directly refuting Mr. Post's claims to the contrary:
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/09/the-facts-about-wind-energy-and-emissions
http://archive.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/04_05_2010_Colorado_emissions_response.pdf
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/realstories/The-Facts-about-Wind-Energy-and-Emissions.cfm
http://www.awea.org/newsroom/realstories/upload/110720-The-Facts-about-Wind-Energy-and-Emissions.pdf
Michael Goggin
American Wind Energy Association
On Wind Power’s CO2-Cutting Impact Disputed
Here is AWEA's full analysis of how the results of this study are being misreported:
http://www.awea.org/blog/index.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1699=16631
Michael Goggin
American Wind Energy Association
On Debunking Claim that Wind Energy Increases Emissions
Willem, the NREL study does use field data, actual power plant emissions measured by EPA continuous emission monitors.