This post is one for the wind-energy-clingers, who refuse to admit how bad it really is.
A new German paper assesses wind energy in Europe . The results are devastating. It concludes that wind energy requires almost 100% backup and that the more capacity that gets installed, the greater the volatility.
The paper appearing at the VGB, authored by Thomas Linnemann and Guido Vallana, finds that “the total wind fleet output of 18 European countries extending over several thousand kilometers in north-south and east-west direction is highly volatile and exhibits a strong intermittent character.”
In other words the power supply across the European grid fluctuates wildly and thus cannot work well. The paper’s abstract continues:
An intuitively expectable smoothing of this wind fleet output to an amount, which allows a reduction of backup wind power capacity, however, does not occur. In contract a highly intermittent wind fleet power output showing significant peaks and minima is observed not only for a single country, but also for the whole of the 18 European countries. Wind energy therefore requires practically 100% back-up. As the (also combined) capacities of all known storage technologies are (and increasingly will be) insignificant compared to the required demand, backup must be provided by conventional power plants, with their business cases fundamentally being impaired in the absence of capacity markets.”
The paper then provides a solid analysis, and charts showing why this is the case. Below their Figure 1 illustrates the extreme volatility of onshore and offshore German wind energy over the year 2016:
Germany’s wind energy output ranges from over 30,000 MW to almost zero. Source: ENTSO
Germany’s wind parks have produced only a fraction of their rated installed capacity, rarely ever reaching 20% annually with an average of 17% since 1990:
The capacity utilization of German Windparks from 1990 to 2016. Source: BMWi
The paper concludes:
The available (secured) permanent electrical output of the German wind parks thus remains always below 1% of the installed rated capacity, or expressed in other words: Every year there was at least a quarter hour in which 99% of the rated capacity of the German wind parks was not available and where practically 100% of plannable backup energy dominated.”
Moreover an anylsis of weak wind phases over the 2010 to 2016 period shows that “there were at least 160 phases 5 days long or more where the output from German wind parks fell below 5000 megawatts and a 10-14 day phase of weak wind days occurred every year.
Read (German) entire study here.
86 responses to “New Study Concludes Europe Will Always Require 10086 Back-Up By Conventional Energy”
Normally this post would be something that wind-turbine hugger sod would knee-jerk attack, and dismiss the paper’s authors as just being plain wrong.
Maybe he’ll chime in today, though I don’t expect he will. Last week he was banned from NTZ for one day for insulting readers here. He hasn’t reported since then, and so I’m assuming he’s still upset about it.
What a pity 😉
Seb did some wind calculations a few weeks, which basically showed everything this paper is saying.
Wind is basically an intermittent waste of time and money.
Intermittent, UNRELIABLE, costly because it required 100% back-up..
Seriously, why not just build the back-up, and dump wind and solar as a bad idea.
The feed-in mandates and subsidies push REAL electricity sources into non-economic operation, meaning that prices must go up, or that back-up, which is 100% required, disappears.
The sooner that the intermittent, irregular, thought-bubble of wind and solar is consigned to the dustbin of human history, as a monumental farce, the better.
In a common-sense world, they would only ever have been a tiny niche market.
Because running the backup all the time produces significantly more CO2 than letting it just “fill up” what renewables can’t provide. Simple as that. Depending on the price of renewables – which is rapidly falling – this can also be the cheaper solution.
Regarding the intermittency, I compiled graphs from the 2016 production data (x-axis = day of year, y-axis = hour of day):
– Wind onshore: http://i.imgur.com/N7FkORS.png
– Wind offshore: http://i.imgur.com/VNNQmXA.png
– Solar: http://i.imgur.com/XE4dTb3.png
Red is the maximum production, black is zero production.
Offshore is better than onshore, but still needs 100% backup. I see no problem in having a 100% backup. Why do you guys see this as a problem?
Because it costs a ton of money!
It’s an easy equation:
a) you build 100 GW of conventional power plants and supply 100% of the needed electricity for cost X
b) you build 100 GW of conventional power plants and they supply 50% of the needed electricity for cost Y and wind turbines supply the rest for cost Z
X > Y + Zthen it’s actually cheaper to run the wind + backup combination.
No its not, because those back-up stations have to be kept running when the feed-in mandates tell them not to provide.
You are doing your normal LYING and misinformation, seb
Why do you keep this deceitful meme of yours going?
Is DECEIT just part of your miserable persona??
“X > Y + Z”
No, it’s if x * 100% > x * (1-f) + y * f
where f is the capacity factor that wind provides (measured as the percentage of the power requirement, not the installed plant).
Since x is around 4 cents per KHw & y is around 4 cents per KWh, it will never be the case that using wind will be more economical than just coal.
Correction: y is around 40 cents per KWh.
That’s why it’s X > Y + Z and not X > X/2 + Z.
No, X is the total cost of providing 100% of the electricity by using gas, Y is the total cost of providing 50% and Z is the total cost of providing 50% from wind. No capacity factors involved.
New coal power plants don’t cost 4 cents per kWh and neither do new gas power plants.
Wind doesn’t cost 40 cents per kWh …
A) Why does CO2 matter?
B) Would you buy two cars if you are the only one in your family who can drive?
“Would you buy two cars if you are the only one in your family who can drive?”
I used to drive van. When I bought the V* no-one would trade the van 😉
So I kept the van. That van can be very useful at time.
A) Because it is a greenhouse gas and the only one we have any control over.
B) No, but I would buy two cars if both were not more expensive than one allrounder and if that would be helpful for the environment. This could very well be the case for future electric cars for the normal driving and a gas powered car (maybe as a rental) for the one time per year I chose to drive more than 400 km one way.
CO2 is a trace gas with trivial effect after the first 50 ppm level in the atmosphere,little after that.
The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide
“Because it is a greenhouse gas”
Yes its used in greenhouses to promote plant growth.
The so-called greenhouse effect doesn’t even function in a real greenhouse.
It is a misnomer, brought about by ignorance.
“and the only one we have any control over.”
You mean like 1600 new coal fired power station.
You are seriously DELUDED if you think we have any control over atmospheric CO2 except at a tiny INSIGNIFICANT level.
Nature provides <strong?many magnitudes more than any change some gullible socialist government and their brain-washed followers might think they can accomplish.
The question is quite a serious one. Given the evidence (as opposed to the theory) that CO2 has no actual impact on the Earth’s temperature, who would spent $ trillions to reduce it?
You would have to be either crazy in the head, or a complete psychopath that hated poor people and wanted them to die in the most terrible cold-induced ways possible.
Imaginary evidence? What are you talking about here?
“Imaginary evidence? ”
The stuff you have produced.
EMPTY.. DOES NOT EXIST
Exists only in your brain-washed AGW imagination.
Tell us all, seb, can you name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….?
Seems you have NOTHING, as always.
I see that Sebastian will ignore hard evidence of how little CO2 adds to the heat budget,it did most of it in the first 60 ppm,which means it was already included 100 millions of years ago.
This means that additional CO2 in modern times has negligible effect,since most of the postulated forcing effect was done millions of years ago.
Here is another chart Seb, didn’t see,it is in the WUWT link:
Sebastian writes these two sections,that reflect how little understand the effect of CO2 today:
“Because it is a greenhouse gas”
“and the only one we have any control over.”
The first one is irrelevant since hardly anyone dispute it,despite its misleading definition.
The second one is absurd,since the MODERN effect of additional CO2 is very small.
Surely most skeptics by now realize that most of the postulated CO2 warm forcing effect was already set in hundred of million years ago. Any additional amount in Modern times is trivial in comparison,which is why it has negligible effect on the heat budget in the atmosphere,of today.
Here is the science friendly chart that is based based on Modtran results that explains it so obviously:
AGW conjecture was dead on arrival,since most of it was already set in 800 million years ago.
“Because running the backup all the time produces significantly more CO2 than letting it just “fill up””
That has been shown to be a dubious statement (as all your statements are
The ramping up and down of REAL power stations causes them to use a lot more fuel than they would in normal operation.
And I notice you are STILL avoiding that simple question, seb.
Cowardice…. or incompetence, or just unable to fabricate an answer ??
Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….
True, but does it use more or around the same amount of fuel than letting them supply all the power without having to stand down when wind turbines produce electricity? I don’t think so.
NOTED.. Still the cowardly, yellow streak, cretin of an AGW troll refuses to answer the question.
Name any PROVABLE drawbacks to any level of atmospheric CO2 that we are ever likely to reach….
A study in Denmark showed on a wind farm link to a coal power station caused the coal power station to use MORE coal, because it was burning it so inefficiently.
Do TRY to keep up bozo-troll.
you never answer my requests. No numbers from you, nothing … why do you expect that you repeated “question of the day” will get any attention from me when you constantly ignore mine?
Link to that study please?!
Ah… so you ADMIT that there is absolutely no proven downside to increased atmospheric CO2.
You STILL can’t find one l=single paper to show that CO2 causes warming of a convective atmosphere or of water.
Poor EMPTY, ZERO-science, simple-minded, seb-troll.
Your yellow streak is getting wider and wider too. 🙂
So hilarious to watch you flapping around like a stunned mullet.
You FAIL even at trolling 101.
Where is the link? Why don’t you answer my question? Should I assume that you “admit” that you have nothing substantial to offer in this discussion?
You are the master troll here, but thanks for finally “admitting” that I am not trolling.
You poor little ineffective trollette, seb.
Can’t take it when someone gives it back to you
You, and everyone else KNOWS that the ONLY reason you are here is as a base-level AGW scam/RE shill troll. Stop DENYING the facts.
Pity you can’t even support the very basis of your scam AGW religion.
We are clearly doing things wrong. It’s time our young people don’t have to do this by the seat of their pants. It’s time to make ignorance more professional and respectable. Western universities must offer the appropriate classes, starting with Economic Illiteracy 101.
Sebastian should hit the circuit as a visiting lecturer.
The problem is that wind as this paper suggest produces energy for an average of only about 17% of the time. It therefore requires backup for some 83% of the time.
A schoolchild might think that if wind produces some 17% energy then this will reduce CO2 emissions by 17%, but that is wrong. Because of the need for back up, even if wind produces on average about 17% energy, it saves no or virtually no CO2 emissiosn if the backup is by fossil fuel generation.
the reason for this is simple, namely that the backup cannot be run in an efficient manner. It has to be run in ramp up/ramp down mode and this is very inefficient and means that more CO2 is being emitted.
the simple anolgy is to consider the fuel efficiency of your car and its CO2 emissions. If you travel 100 km at on a motorway at a steady speed of 100km per hour the consumtion is X litres of fuel. However, if you drive 83 km (ie., 100 km less 17%) in urban environments at a nominal 40 kmp, the amount of fuel consumed is not X – 17%, but rather X – 1% or even x +5%
There is simply no saving in Co23 emissions at all unless back up is by say nuclear. Germany jhas been lucky to date that it has had the use of back up from French nuclear. But even with that back up, Germany has been unable to reduce its CO2 emissions these past 4 or so years and last year its CO2 emissions increased.
Germany has now come up against the buffer, as is noted in this paper.
Ehm, no! You can double the installed wind power capacity and get a 34/66 mix, double it one more time and you get a 68/32 mix. You will have overproduction by wind on some days, but that doesn’t mean that because of the low capacity factor the backup would have to run 83% of the time.
Can you quantify the efficiency loss, please? When you produce 17% of all electricity with wind power and still have no reduction in CO2 emissions, this means that the coal or gas power plant is producing almost as much CO2 in this 17% time as in the 83% it runs normally. Do you have any source that can confirm this very unlikely behaviour?
You car analogy should be: one car is a normal gasoline car, the other one a hybrid. Both drive a distance of 100 km and the second car’s electric motor managed to drive the car 17 km of that distance (the gasoline motor did the resT). Which car emitted more CO2?
Nuclear backup is nonsense. That is way too expensive to run only at 60% capacity or less. Natural gas is the perfect backup. It can later be fueled by gas produced by power2gas plants as well as normal methane. And they are flexible.
It doesn’t matter how much you install, there will ALWAYS be times when the wind doesn’t blow and you need close to 100% backup.
That is the idiocy of the whole thing, you have a good solid supply system, which you intentionally reduce the reliability of, at great expensive of creating virtually a whole second, intermittent supply.
And the ONLY things you are doing are
1. destroying the environment with numerous
2. making your back-up more and more expensive as it is forced to work uneconomically, therefore increasing electricity prices (it is no accident that Denmark, Germany and South Australia have among the highest electricity prices in the world)
3. Denying the world’s plant life of totally beneficial CO2.
And all this because of some cockamamie, unprovable, anti-science, anti-CO2, socialist totalitarian scam.
Poor seb, your child-minded analogy yet again shows your abject, wilful ignorance and total lack of comprehension of how things actually function.
Well AndyG55, how do things “actually function”? Your reply – again – contains nothing substantial and lots of nonsense.
Yes, one wind turbine requires a 100% backup being there and 1 million wind turbines require a close to 100% backup being there. The difference is how often the backup actually has to run.
Natural gas seems to be the ideal backup power plant, so it comes down to the question how much more expensive electricity from such a plant will be when the full load hours further decrease.
In a 80% renewables grid (in Germany) natural gas power plants would produce about as much electricity as they do now, but with 3 times the installed capacity. So if electricity from such a plant costs 6 ct/kWh now, what will be the costs in such a scenario? 10 ct/kWh? 12? 18?
When 20% of the electricity costs 10-18 ct/kWh, what will be the average price depending on the costs for the 80% renewables?
At 4 ct/kWh for renewable electricity the average price of electricity including the costs for the backup would be 5.2-6.8 ct/kWh. At 3 ct/kWh it’s 4.4-6.0 ct/kWh.
Doesn’t sound too bad.
I can only speak for Germany, but backup costs are certainly no factor in determining the consumer price for electricity here.
“how do things “actually function”? ”
Poor seb admits HE DOESN’T KNOW
EMPTY about synchronisation to grid
EMPTY about frequency stabilisation
EMPTY about and drawbacks to enhanced atmospheric CO2
EMPTY of any proof of CO2 warming anything
Just basically EMPTY !
“The difference is how often the backup actually has to run.”
Your own calculations show that it is MOST OF THE TIME, and at high electricity loads.
Why should they have to wind back and operate uneconomically on the odd occasion that wind is actually able to provide something.
Once those subsidies and feed-in mandates get removed, wind will collapse in a broken heap, because it CANNOT PROVIDE ON CALL.
It can NEVER function as base load electricity, no matter how much hallucinogenic crap you snort up your nose, seb.
“natural gas power plants would produce about as much electricity as they do now, but with 3 times the installed capacity.”
And who pays for that “3 times the installed capacity” when it isn’t in use.
Seems you are an economic illiterate as well as a being anti-literate in science, and barely functional at anything else except yapping..
And still the MANIC EVASION of providing any proof of any downside to enhanced atmospheric CO2….
So hilarious to watch. 🙂
RE is massively unsustainable, and Paris is about $100 Trillion investment in worthless RE: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/05/monumental-unsustainable-environmental-impacts/
Because the diesel generator parks we in the UK use as backup get even more massive subsidies than the already massive subsidies for windfarms. The people are now in effect just an ATM for government. Need money? Stick your card in and **** the taxpayer. This is also a disaster for business as we already know, in the form of ridiculously inflated energy prices.
Question. Which destroys Europe first? Energy prices, or Islam.
It’s a race to the bottom.
Andy you forgot to add that you have to Invest most of that cash again in 20-25 years to replace all the failures, that is on top of the expensive maintenance costs.
And how does that change the investment?
As I said. you seem to be economically illiterate, as well as nil-educated in basically everything else.
This study is also in English at —
Oops, English version available in August
The abstract is in English, but the site says that the paper will be available in English in August 2017.
In the example of X, Y, and Z, where X is nat gas or coal, Y is wind, and Z is solar, we have the power generated by each, PX, PY, PZ, the cost per unit of power, CX, CY, CZ, and the overhead costs of building and keeping the different sources available to provide the power. Wind and solar may involve zero cost per unit of power, once installed, but the installation costs plus the transmission infrastructure are not cheap or zero cost or require zero maintenance once installed. Same with coal/natl gas. The simplistic equation used is far from complete and therefore hasn’t made the case.
Hi there and many thanks to Pierre L. Gosselin for sharing some results of our German paper in this community. We started our work in January 2016 an will provide an Englisch version of Part 1 reflecting operating experiences with wind power in Germany since 2010 in a few weeks (August 2017). Our Part 2 looking at the European situation in 2016 will follow in a few weeks in German (and again in English a few weeks later).
Hi from Oz. This result was totally predictable, as any (honest) power engineer would acknowledge. Why did billions get spent on 19th century technology? Please ask your political representative.
Contrary to the Greens’ claim that the wind is free, it is actually horribly expensive. Denmark and SA pride themselves on having the world’s greatest concentration of wind power, but they don’t brag about this:
“South Australia will overtake Denmark as having the world’s most expensive electricity when the country’s major energy retailers jack up their prices this Saturday.”
“Germany’s wind parks have produced only a fraction of their rated installed capacity, rarely ever reaching 20% annually with an average of 17% since 1990”
That is a killer line as most wind energy companies sell their products as having 24% to 38% Capacity Factor rating (depends on the region and location). I wonder what the Germany expected rating was when they bought them. (I note that Australia has unrealistic ratings see HERE and HERE )
Of course everyone soon sees a graph like the one above but wind park operators always come back with some baloney about short term vs. long term figures.
If you look just at offshore wind, then you get a capacity factor of 33% for the year 2016. I am sure some of the wind turbines at the coast and/or some windparks in the sea reached 38% if you look at more detailed reports.
Question for you in that case, Seb: how Many offshore wind turbines would be required to provide 100% of German needs 100% of the time?
Nobody is expecting to cover the load with wind 100% of the time. It’s a combination of power generation and storage and for the time being conventional backup that will enable high percentages of renewable energy in the grid.
But they ARE expecting to have to cover 100% for wind because it can NEVER provide base load power.
Wind really is a waste of time, environment and money.
Its a WHY BOTHER situation which only exists because of the scientific LIES of the AGW totalitarian scammers..
“Storage”. We are years away from having anything resembling the storage required to make it feasible. You seem to be living in a fantasy land
Are we? Battery factories will produce large amounts for the auto industry and grid storage industry as well. Tesla announced today that they will build a 129 MWh battery in South Australia until December. To stabilize Germany’s grid you would need 100-200 such facilities … why not? If the price is right, this can be both more flexible and cheaper than a gas powered peaker plant.
“Tesla announced today that they will build a 129 MWh battery in South Australia until December. ”
And do you know how long that will last WHEN wind fails to deliver, as in most often does.
ITS A JOKE, seb
And the CO2 and pollution in manufacturing those batteries will NEVER be accounted for, will it seb.
The whole renewable FARCE is a waste of time and money. Countries should have stuck with the RELIABLE, CHEAP, coal and gas fired for SOLID, STABLE electricity supply.
Instead they install a second, costly, intermittent and unreliable system using massive amounts of taxpayer funding, destroying their reliable grid supplies in the process.
And all to make basically zero reduction of a totally beneficial, ESSENTIAL FOR LIFE trace gas, which has absolutely ZERO downside at increased atmospheric level we can ever attain.
The whole thing really is at the very pinnacle of moronic idiocy.
Of course it’s perfectly logical to mine the world for lithium using lots of fossil fuels to process it, but it is not sensible to mine coal and make the energy directly from that.
Humm, maybe I missed something.
Its UNRELLIABLE, and not “on call”
It still needs 100% back-up.. so why bother with it at all. !!
Really does come into the category of “WAFWOTAM”
And the maintenance cost of off-shore generation is?
Well it’s much more than on-shore generation and far more hazardous.
The LCOE of offshore vs. onshore is not that much bigger. Considering that it is a relatively new type of power generation this could easily become cheaper than onshore (because of the higher capacity factor).
In Germany at the last wind power auction, there was a bid that required no subsidies.
Or is it closer to —
A nice day here in Ireland, but not for the wind energy.
Quite flat with a short peak of about 9% of the installed capacity.
Just to point out the science fact of the nonsense about renewables having a net negtaive effect on CO2 verus better unsubsidised choices w/o renewables. Do the joined up maths. Renewables can only make CO2 emissions from the overal grid expensively worse versus just preferring gas and nuclear to duplicating fossil with renewables. Simple maths of the joined up grid. Work the two scenarios. It’s not hard.
How? Preferring to “offset” fossil with intermittent renewables on the grid can only offset their generation and CO2 emissions by their duty cycle, so 33% maximum for Wind/Solar/Water in the UK, at 2 or 3 times the wholesale price (UK).
Compare this to replacing coal with gas, clean and 60% less CO2/KWh than the coal replaced, then both with nuclear, you get >40% plus CO2 reduction overall by replacing all coal with gas on an initially equal mix of gas and coal, if that matters to you, and 100% reduction with cheapest, safest and with lowest environmentally impact of all using nuclear. All w/o subsidies or renewables.
More. faster, cheaper low CO2 energy, as much as needed, when needed, affordably and sustainably, for as long as there is a human race, at least until the ice age wars as we start to cool into the next 80,000 years of ice, as has happened on this cycle at least 5 times before. So the solution is fraud on the generation science facts, promoted by fraudsters for personal gain, however received. Lobbyists, politicians, scientists who support an obvious science denial for grants, ego and travel, etc. They are a fruadulent climate change establishment that enforces deceitful consesnus because the science facts prove the obvious fraud.
What about the supposed problem that overpriced renewables must make worse in science fact?
Re CO2: http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/oils/changesrev7.shtml
The plants ate all the CO2, why would they stop because statistical computer modelling and its hard of physics mathematicians got involved?
CO2 Is Controlled Mainly by Plants, Proven as More Than Capable of Mopping Up Huge Amounts, and Keeping it at Trace Levels when emissions increase. No runaway temperatures, ever. It’s greening up as we watch, to mop up the 100ppm so extra humans may have added, not a problem for plants.
Plants reduced CO2 from 95% of the atmosphere and maintained it at low and declining levels well below 1% for most of the Earth’s life, converting it into our predominantly oxygen and Nitrogen rich atmosphere and supporting oxygen fuelled life and the carbon cycle humans and plants depend upon, maintaining CO2 at the lowest possible level to support that state therafter, varying growth to CO2 level..
Where is this in the models of climate so called “science”, which has to make do with “consensus” – because this is not real deterministic cause and effect science, these models are statistical guesses using numeric model approximations, that are adjusted by their owners to prove a correlation, not cause and effect. These are self evidently floored on the basic reality above, extrapolating data about a s complex system we don’t understand using assumptions we can’t prove – and plant denial.
“Climate Science” using such modelling methods can’t ever prove a scientific law, just pretend to apply them, with its own bias/guesses abou which ones make the biggest difference and how they interact. THis approach can’t prove any laws of hard science cause and effect, ever. Just correlation, maybe. One of Feynman’s pseudo sciences.
Even the BBC says plants ate all the CO2. So why should they stop now? Because some climate modellers have been told to assume so?
The models that set out to prove CO2 is guilty are just another statistical forecast, like expecting long term economic and weather forecasts to be precise to a high level of significance. where cause and consequence can never be proven, – no control planet for a start.
There is good evidence to say that CO2 is actually increased as a consequence of oceans warming, which releases CO2, so are a lagging indicator of global warming, not a cause in fact. It’s also the most obvious reason.
Plants have clearly exhibited adaptive control on the long term climate record, over Billions of years. Since they cleared it from the dominantly CO2 and water vapour atmosphere created by volcanoes, plants have reliably controlled CO2 through volcanic extremes, mass extinctions, asteroid strikes, plus continental drifting and its volcanic and changing circulation consequences for ocean currents, as continents moved around. “CO2 – No problem.”
The whole nonsense of climate change caused by the relatively small amount of CO2 from energy use, 100ppm added to the natural 300ppm over 200 years, simply fails the simple plant challenge, never mind the test of predictive accuracy or statistical significance within the temperature noise of our peak interglacial climate record, measured over less that a human lifetime, insignificant in any real global clmate periodity – weather, perhaps, evidence of CO2 related cimate change, no.
And, don’t forget, the bogus renewable energy “solution” imposed in the name off reducing falsely accused CO2 emissions makes these emissions expensivey worse in science and engineering fact. What’s to like on the science of climate change causes and renewable energy? Nothing stands up to inspection, at a very basic level. A structural fraud on the fact, wasting Billions pa in most major 1st World economies to make the supposed problem worse, as well as all the other measurements of affordability, adequacy, sustainbility, etc., by law.. J’accuse!
THis is a legalised climate change protection racket run by a deceitful load of elected and academic racketeers, who profit hugely from wasting our money on this double deceit, which makes insiders richer at the expense of everyone else who pays their bills, on every measure of the policies they pass into law. It’s called malfeasance.
Thanks for the comment, I absolutely concur.
As a point of note, it is not only plants but also the ocean. So many AGW advocates blindly apply Henry’s Law to the CO2 argument without testing to see if it is applicable. As any half descent chemist will know oceans and seas are a complex chemical and biological mix, from which such simplistic ideas do not match with the chemical reality well.
My starter paper is ‘Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Oceans and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 during the Past Decades’ by Roger Revelle and Hans E. Suess, dated Sept 4, 1956.
Determination of the rate constants for the carbon dioxide to bicarbonate inter-conversion in pH-buffered seawater systems by K.G. Schulz
a,*, U. Riebesella, B. Rostb, S. Thomsb, R.E. Zeebec
Henry’s law describes only the physical equilibrium between the phases and may only be applied to the fraction of the gas that is molecularly dissolved and not chemically bound [Pra69, Dan70, Wil77]. Henry’s law coefficient depends on the type of the gas and the solvent, the temperature, the total pressure and in the case of salt solutions it also depends on the ionic strength of the solution.
also see –
I have a few other reference books/papers.
Forgot these initial starter blogs
and the comments therein.
and the comments therein.
OT, Greenland has just recorded the COLDEST July temperature evah in the NH !!!
That’s because it is in record melt. So we are told.
Off Topic…. BIG WOW !
Michael Mann in CONTEMPT OF COURT ruling. !!
Yup, Stick Mann looks skewered.
I really HOPE its true ! 🙂
A stint in jail would wipe that super-silly smirk off his face…
… unless he liked it.
But it gets worse for Mann —
The self-styled ‘Nobel Prize winner’ Dr. Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann certainly lives in interesting times.
Sadly, the author of this is a proven fantasist re Ball and Mann. Very sadly. He announced the demise of Mann in this case a few years back. Nothing happened. Wishful thinking
Anyone can make mistakes. Is he never to be forgiven, or are you a Puritan where vengeance rules, or a Fabian where continual incremental bad-mouthing whoever you perceived as an opposition goes on forever?
Hi from Oz. Regarding the ‘cost’ of wind energy, take a look at a wind farm cooperative in Australia: https://www.hepburnwind.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/FY16_Hepburn-Wind-Annual-Report-.pdf
Their 2016 annual report clearly shows that 70% of its revenue comes from our government’s LRET (large scale wind and solar subsidy) scheme, and only 30% from selling their actual electricity. The LRET scheme allows the wind farm to create and sell essentially worthless ‘renewable energy certificates’ for about A$90 per MW generated, which power retailers have to buy, raising the retail cost of their electricity whilst subsidising the ‘renewables’ generators by double the cost of their generation. Clearly, without the LRET subsidy, wind and solar generation would not exist, and consumers would pay far less for reliable baseload power.
[…] Uusi Tutkimus Päättelee Euroopan Tarvitsevan Aina 100% Perinteisen Energian Varavoimaa […]
Hi Pierre, the above problems of intermittance, lousy economics and inability to dispatch are certainly all essential points, but there’s another one too, dynamic stability. Not many include at this aspect. Its quite a difficult concept but imperative for the grid to work. It is about the second by second requirement for grid energy balance and how synchronously locked rotating inertia works to provide stability.
And so lately I have written half a dozen posts, attempting to explain power system stability in a step by step way. Here’s a link to the introduction, http://www.kiwithinker.com/2017/04/electric-power-system-stability/. Links to the other five posts are contained in the introduction. There’s still a few more posts to come, analysis of a frequency excursion, what is synthetic inertia, and a summary.
A fine write-up, well done.
The inertia from large power plants is a nice added service, but can’t this service be provided by digital components? It works in small scale solutions (home inverter), why shouldn’t it work large scale?
No, it can’t. If you had any knowledge of how electricity supply networks function, you would know that.
Unfortunately you have shown an abject inability to learn… anything.
I intend to do an article on synthetic inertia. ‘Synthetic inertia’ can help with stability, but synthetic inertia is actually more like a governor droop response than inertia. It is very expensive, response power is limited by inverter capacity and duration by battery capacity.
Looking forward to reading your article.
The costs of such solutions should come down with widespread implementation. And limited power/duration can be solved by increasing numbers. Lots of “smart transformers” with battery backup distributed all over the grid should be able to stabilize any fluctuation of the load as good or even better than current reliance on inertia.
WHY BOTHER with this idiotic expense.
We have cheap solid, reliable sources of electricity, why use expensive , unreliable non-alternative
It really is idiocy based on non-science.
This anti-science CO2-hatred is destroying economies and has to stop.
A look at the yearly consuption of electrical energy within Germany will show it to be almost identical to the yearly production of energy from “back up power plants” alone. All the wind and solar energy is traded, often at negative prices, with neighbouring countries.
Energiwende is a lie too big to be exposed.
With regard to the findings of the paper by Thomas Linnemann and Guido Vallana reported here, you might be interested in the following paper:
Miskelly P C 2012 Wind Farms in Eastern Australia – Recent Lessons,
Energy & Environment Vol. 23, No. 8, December 2012.
(I successfully downloaded a copy just prior to preparing this posting,
so the paper is most certainly still available from the publisher.)
The data presented in the paper is the total wind farm output on the Eastern Australian grid, geographically the most widely dispersed single interconnected grid in the world. The data is that for all of the wind farms then-registered with the AEMO, the grid operator,
at 5-minute instants, for the period of the full calendar year 2010.
Although, due to my lack of proficiency in German,
I am unable to read the content of the Linnemann and Vallana paper
in detail, it seems to me from its published synopsis that our papers’
respective findings may be quite similar even though they examine the
performance of wind farms in very different parts of the world.
An examination of the more recent data for the eastern Australian grid,
over any period, shows no diminution in the volatility
in total wind farm output, even though there is now a far greater
installed wind generation capacity on the Eastern Australian grid
at the present time than in 2010. This lack of diminution in volatility
is entirely in line with my 2012 paper’s findings.