"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Tim W wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Wind power hasn't delivered carbon emission reduction. Certainly nothing
like 7% of Germany's CO2 attributable to electrical generation. I can't
say clearer than that.

You could be lot clearer. Wind power has reduced emissions, but consumption
has increased so much that there is no overall reduction.

Also that the German Govt's own figures for electricity consumption and
generation are wrong.

No, you simply 'misquoted' them. 7% of electricity generation NOT 7% of
'Germanys energy'.

Yes the figure is for electricity, if that wasn't clear from the context
then that was careless of me.
No, now you misquote, it is 7% of consumption, not generation.

Dont worry, most of the wind lobby has trouble dsistuingusighing between
electrical power and total energy requirements and none have a clue about
exported carbon footprints to e.g. China in terms of energy used to make
stuff there we use here..or a clue about what load average means or when
'could power X homes' meas 'will on average power 30% of X homes the home
being about one sixth of the power we use altogether, with transport,
industry and so on making up the other 5/6ths), and sometimes won't power
anything at all)

Not just the wind lobby. the nuclear lobby are at least as blind, happily
quoting figures for low radiation while ignoring waste, or for low land use
while ignoring mining abroad.


Wind farms do not release CO2 into the atmosphere for every kWh produced
so if the alternative is combustion of fossil fuels they represent a big
saving in carbon emmissions. Its incontrovertible. Try to fudge it how
you will.

Sorry, the facts don't bear that out.

If the *extra* fuel you have to burn to compensate for the wind output
going up and down loses all the advantages the wind seemingly has, you end
up with an net zero change in carbon emissions.


The point being that the more wind you have - as against nuclear or
hydro - the more fossil fuel stations you need to balance it.

Having to bring - say - 20GW of fossil online in a hurry when the wind
drops overnight, and not necessarily very good fossil either, since its
not used fully, so there is little incentive to make it efficient, costs
you a huge amount of fuel JUST TO GET IT UP AND RUNNING.

As near as I can judge over 75% of winds 'zero carbon' gains are lost to
that process.

That's the trouble with simple pictures. The world is not simple.

You imply that wind power will cause problems with variable supply and
demand. This is disingenuous because the industry already has to deal with
the variations in supply and demand, day, night, weekend, half time on Match
of the Day etc.. Yes wind power needs to be part of a mixed industry. We
know that.


Germany remains one of the highest CO2 emitters in Europe with respect to
electrical power generation. DESPITE all this so call low carbon wind.

This is disingenuous. Germany is one of the highest emitters because it is
the largest economy and one of the biggest populations.

Denmark is similar. The real stars of Europe are France and Switzerland,
both hugely nuclear and in Switzerland's case, with abundant hydro as well
to cover short term demand fluctuations.

If you want to permanently get rid of fossil fuel usage, nuclear for the
base load and hydro for the demand fluctuations is the way. Wind is
completely useless. A grid that had - say - 30% wind and no nuclear or
hydro at all would at times have no fossil in use at all, but on average
would need *70% fossil to balance it*.

Wind power needs to be part of a mix. We know that. Why all the straw men?

Now if we say that without wind, a good CCGT can do say 60% thermal
efficency IF FULLY WARMED UP AND LEFT RUNNING, then your carbon fuel rate
is 1/60% = 1.667 times grid power

If the use of that fossil fuel plant drops to 70% due to adding 30% wind,
you still cant get rid of it. You are just using it on average 70% of the
time.

Let's say its efficiency running like that is is X, so that the fuel burn
is then 0.7/X the grid power. And calculate when it's no better than the
kit running without any wind. its when 1/0.6=0.7/X

which makes the critical value of X = 42%.


SO *if the net result of adding 30% average wind to the grid is to reduce
the CCGT efficiency from 60% to 42%*, there is *no net emissions gain from
wind whatsoever*.

A CCGT set running before the secondary cycle gets going, is simply a 37%
OCGT gas turbine..every time you start that CCGT set up, it takes fuel to
warm it up. Energy that you lose when you switch it off and it cools down.

If you add more than 30% wind to the grid, there will be times when you
have to throw it away as well, because peak output will mean you have more
than you need when the wind DOES blow.

You MIGHT put it in pumped storage, at 75% efficiency losing 25% of the
value..if you HAD any pumped storage capacity..

We don't really have much, neither does Germany...

So at best, 30% windpower on the grid (more is unlikely to actually
achieve much more because you start to throw it away)might reduce carbon
emissions from electricity generation by perhaps 20%. At best. Maybe 5-10%
is likely.

20% nuclear on the grid that totally replaces fossil, could net you a real
20% decrease in fossil fuel usage for electricity.At one fifth the cost.

80% Nuclear - as France has - reduces fossil usage by 80%.

The optimal UK mix would be something like 80% nuclear and 20% fast start
CCGT. If you really want low carbon electricity. If we had a bit more
hydro, we could do a bit better. Sadly geography doesn't favour us there.
Dumping our total coal stations could net us something like 70-80% CO2
reduction.

No amount of wind can ever produce anything like that sort of emissions
reduction.

Nobody afaik has ever claimed that wind power alone will reduce power
station emissions by 80%
It needs to be part of a mix. We know that.Why the straw men?

Wind Farms generate electricity without emissions. In conjunction with other
methods of generation they are a valuable efficient technology. They work.

It is simply a complete waste of time and money. It's only there because
the Greens run Germany, and the Greens hate nuclear power, and Germany
runs the EU.

And the windpower companies are..German. Or Danish - Denmark being a sort
of lump on the end of Germany for all intents and purposes.

I see. Another agenda then? Read the Daily Mail much?

Tim W