 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Sun, Wind and Water
Wrong Claims About Danish Wind Power by Sigurd Lauge Pedersen
It is perfectly legitimate to hate wind power. But it is more convincing if you do your homework first. In his Financial Post Comment 8 April 2009, Michael J. Trebilcock appears to be willing to jeopardise his academic reputation by putting forward a series of wrong claims and false, suspect or irrelevant citations, mainly about wind power in Denmark.
Mr. Trebilcock claims that “Denmark …. has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant”. There is no citation for this claim. Wise in a sense, for the claim is wrong. Denmark has closed several coal and oil fired plants in the last ten years. Mr. Trebilcock claims that wind power “… requires 50% more coal generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability…”. Wrong again. One megawatt of wind power does not increase conventional power requirements - it saves 0,2-0,4 megawatts of conventional capacity. The high figure is for offshore wind power, the low figure for onshore wind power. This was shown by Diesendorf and Martin as early as 1980 (The Capacity Credit of Wind Power. 3’rd Int. Symp. on Wind Power) but is not very difficult to verify by standard probability theory. Yes, wind power is partly unpredictable. But so is a fossil or nuclear plant. True, they work most of the time. But 5-10% of the time they fail. Hence it is not unpredictability as such that distinguishes wind power from fossil or nuclear plants. It is the level of unpredictability. If Mr. Trebilcock’s argument were valid, any power system would need infinite back up: One coal fired plant can fail, hence needs a backup. This can also fail, hence needs a further backup and so on. Mr. Trebilcock’s argument rests on the unspoken assumption that electricity must be available to consumers always. It cannot be and it never will be.
Mr. Trebilcock claims that CO2 emissions went up by 36% in 2006 as a result of wind power. Again without citation. And of course this does not make sense. If a unit of wind electricity is added to any electricity system with fossil plants, production on a fossil plant will have to be reduced by one unit. The amount of hydro production will not be affected - this is determined by the amount of rainfall. Neither will nuclear production be affected - nuclear plants run full load (whenever they are available) for economic and technical reasons. Hence the claim that wind power increases CO2 is absurd. You can discuss which fossil plant that reduces it’s production, but that one does is simple physics. Mr. Trebilcock quotes “recent academic research” for a claim that wind power increases CO2 emissions. He does not specify which “recent academic research” he is referring to. Wisely in my view, since it does not make any sense at all (cf. above).
Mr. Trebilcock quotes Flemming Nissen from ELSAM power company. Not only is the quote misleading (at best). But Mr. Nissen has not been in ELSAM for years, and the company no longer exists. Mr. Trebilcock quotes Niels Gram of the Federation of Danish Industries. But it is years since he left. Mr. Trebilcock quotes Aase Madsen as Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament. A position she has not had for a long time.
Mr. Trebilcock quotes “a recent detailed analysis” that for each job created by state-funded wind power, 2.2 jobs are lost. Again, he does not specify the source. And again, I seriously disagree. The number of “wind jobs” in Denmark, around 20,000, recently passed the number of jobs in the bacon industry for which Denmark was long known (source: www.windpower.org <http://www.windpower.org>).
Mr. Trebilcock claims that Denmark’s electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe. Again without quotation. And again wrong. The 2008 electricity price in Denmark to medium-sized industries is 7.85 eurocents/kWh, which is below the European average of 9 eurocents/kWh. Source: <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/>. Mr. Trebilcock may confuse electricity prices with electricity taxes. Danish taxes are high, yes, but this has nothing to do with wind power.
Denmark gets around 20% of it’s electricity from wind power. Is this a challenge? Absolutely. But it can be done. On the system operator website: <http://www.energinet.dk/Integrationer/ElOest/ElsystemetLigeNu/energinet1.swf> you can follow the Danish power production real-time. On the Danish Energy Agency website: www.ens.dk <http://www.ens.dk/>. you can find more information on energy policy in general and wind power in particular.
Sigurd Lauge Pedersen has a M.Sc. in Physics and a Ph.D. in energy planning. He has more than 25 years of experience in the University of Copenhagen, Danish Technical University and Danish Energy Agency.
It is perfectly legitimate to hate wind power. But it is more convincing if you do your homework first. In his Financial Post Comment 8 April 2009, Michael J. Trebilcock appears to be willing to jeopardise his academic reputation by putting forward a series of wrong claims and false, suspect or irrelevant citations, mainly about wind power in Denmark.
Mr. Trebilcock claims that “Denmark …. has yet to close a single fossil-fuel plant”. There is no citation for this claim. Wise in a sense, for the claim is wrong. Denmark has closed several coal and oil fired plants in the last ten years. Mr. Trebilcock claims that wind power “… requires 50% more coal generated electricity to cover wind power’s unpredictability…”. Wrong again. One megawatt of wind power does not increase conventional power requirements - it saves 0,2-0,4 megawatts of conventional capacity. The high figure is for offshore wind power, the low figure for onshore wind power. This was shown by Diesendorf and Martin as early as 1980 (The Capacity Credit of Wind Power. 3’rd Int. Symp. on Wind Power) but is not very difficult to verify by standard probability theory. Yes, wind power is partly unpredictable. But so is a fossil or nuclear plant. True, they work most of the time. But 5-10% of the time they fail. Hence it is not unpredictability as such that distinguishes wind power from fossil or nuclear plants. It is the level of unpredictability. If Mr. Trebilcock’s argument were valid, any power system would need infinite back up: One coal fired plant can fail, hence needs a backup. This can also fail, hence needs a further backup and so on. Mr. Trebilcock’s argument rests on the unspoken assumption that electricity must be available to consumers always. It cannot be and it never will be.
Mr. Trebilcock claims that CO2 emissions went up by 36% in 2006 as a result of wind power. Again without citation. And of course this does not make sense. If a unit of wind electricity is added to any electricity system with fossil plants, production on a fossil plant will have to be reduced by one unit. The amount of hydro production will not be affected - this is determined by the amount of rainfall. Neither will nuclear production be affected - nuclear plants run full load (whenever they are available) for economic and technical reasons. Hence the claim that wind power increases CO2 is absurd. You can discuss which fossil plant that reduces it’s production, but that one does is simple physics. Mr. Trebilcock quotes “recent academic research” for a claim that wind power increases CO2 emissions. He does not specify which “recent academic research” he is referring to. Wisely in my view, since it does not make any sense at all (cf. above).
Mr. Trebilcock quotes Flemming Nissen from ELSAM power company. Not only is the quote misleading (at best). But Mr. Nissen has not been in ELSAM for years, and the company no longer exists. Mr. Trebilcock quotes Niels Gram of the Federation of Danish Industries. But it is years since he left. Mr. Trebilcock quotes Aase Madsen as Chair of Energy Policy in the Danish Parliament. A position she has not had for a long time.
Mr. Trebilcock quotes “a recent detailed analysis” that for each job created by state-funded wind power, 2.2 jobs are lost. Again, he does not specify the source. And again, I seriously disagree. The number of “wind jobs” in Denmark, around 20,000, recently passed the number of jobs in the bacon industry for which Denmark was long known (source: www.windpower.org <http://www.windpower.org>).
Mr. Trebilcock claims that Denmark’s electricity generation costs are the highest in Europe. Again without quotation. And again wrong. The 2008 electricity price in Denmark to medium-sized industries is 7.85 eurocents/kWh, which is below the European average of 9 eurocents/kWh. Source: <http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/>. Mr. Trebilcock may confuse electricity prices with electricity taxes. Danish taxes are high, yes, but this has nothing to do with wind power.
Denmark gets around 20% of it’s electricity from wind power. Is this a challenge? Absolutely. But it can be done. On the system operator website: <http://www.energinet.dk/Integrationer/ElOest/ElsystemetLigeNu/energinet1.swf> you can follow the Danish power production real-time. On the Danish Energy Agency website: www.ens.dk <http://www.ens.dk/>. you can find more information on energy policy in general and wind power in particular.
Sigurd Lauge Pedersen has a M.Sc. in Physics and a Ph.D. in energy planning. He has more than 25 years of experience in the University of Copenhagen, Danish Technical University and Danish Energy Agency.