That was the topic of a talk by Stanford Professor Frank Wolak at the UCSD Economics Roundtable on Tuesday.
Among the initiatives on the November 4 ballot for California voters is Proposition 7, which would require all utilities to obtain 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, with this fraction increasing to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Investor-owned (as opposed to government-owned) California utilities are already subject under existing law to the 20% goal for 2010 and 33% by 2020. Frank noted that the investor-owned utilities have so far made little progress toward that goal.
|
One of the challenges with meeting these goals with wind power is that available wind resources are located far from California’s population centers,
|
and indeed the most promising resources are out of state:
|
Frank’s point was that meeting these goals requires not just generation facilities but also a significant investment in transmission facilities and easing of siting requirements for the latter. Another challenge is that the generation of wind power from a given location is extremely variable from day to day. This means that more reliance on wind power also requires extensive fossil fuel capabilities to smooth out the variation over time in generation and an infrastructure that encourages storage of the power and/or shifting of demand.
|
Frank argued that a key tool for achieving the latter objectives is peak-load pricing. He described a way to make this politically more palatable based on the Anaheim critical-peak pricing experiment, which rewarded customers for conserving during system-stress hours rather than charge them extra for use at those times.
His bottom line was that, in addition to such alternatives, nuclear and coal with carbon sequestration deserved to be given more emphasis in trying to meet California’s long-run energy needs.
Technorati Tags: California electricity,
wind power,
renewable energy,
Proposition 7,
economics
Thanks JDH, I appreciate any post you might make to advertise development of renewable energy resources… From my perspective, renewable energy is our only avenue in responding to the physical limits to growth and global warming.
Behavioural economics offers solutions to taming energy demand. Interesting.
But I can’t help but thinking of a parallel to the role western medicine plays in catering to people’s collective delusions. Eat lousy food (generous amounts of it), live a sedentary life style, and devour huge quantities of pills. In the worse case, undergo corrective surgery and consume massive amounts of pain killers.
Short-term convenience for long-term pain.
I suppose this approach is consistent with a jurisdiction that dogmatically believes it can regulate its way out of all hydrocarbon fuel problems.
“generation of wind power from a given location is extremely variable from day to day”
Sure, but we’d have many locations, which would smooth out variance.
” more reliance on wind power also requires extensive fossil fuel capabilities to smooth out the variation over time in generation”
Such FF backup wouldn’t have to be used very often , and it already exists – we might as well make use of it. As long as it’s % utilization was very low, it’s CO2 emissions wouldn’t matter.
“and an infrastructure that encourages storage of the power and/or shifting of demand.”
Yes, but this doesn’t have to be expensive. Plugin hybrids and EVs could provide most of the buffering needed, at essentially zero cost to the utilities.
Good points, Nick G; I’d also add that carbon sequesteration at this point is nothing more than a pipe dream – and unlikely to work well on a large scale even if it’s ever implemented.
Most of the wind generating areas are not far from mountains or hilly terrain. A means of leveling is to pump water up to a reservoir when excess energy is being generated and then hydro-electically regenerate when it is calm. This storage strategy was practiced in CO in the 1960s.
Professor,
Thank you for the thoughtful post. Radical statist laws are usually pipe dreams. For some reason there are central planners who believe that new technology can be created just because they pass a law.
Hawaii is a good example of this kind of law. They have found that Universal Child Health Care is impossible to fund after only 7 months. Now consider that there are central planners who have the pipe dream that we can have national Universal Health Care for everyone, yet on state cannot pull it off for children only.
If you really want alternative energy don’t tax working systems to subsidize inefficient systems. Open the working systems to full production and then scarcity will stimulate alternative energy in ways tax policy never can.
JimY, good point. In fact, such pumped storage is in very wide use – google “Ludington pumped storage” for more info. It’s a touch more expensive than geographic diversity and Demand Management (which are almost free), but it’s extremely cost-effective and practical.
DickF,
As a free market advocate you should agree that free markets depend on accurate accounting. If external costs like pollution and security of supply aren’t included, then the market will badly mis-allocate resources.
At the moment we’re faced with enormous expenses for climate change, ME intervention & homeland security (due to our “endless war” for oil export “stability”), and financial instability due to chronic US overborrowing in large part due to oil imports (how many trillions in value have been lost in the last month?).
These costs have to be priced in for free markets to function properly.
Hmmm. No discussion of grid stability issues with a high percentage of wind generation?
DickF:
Do you find it odd that those countries with more central planning e.g. the Europeans have achieved universal health care, while we with our market-based approach have not? Don’t say “It can’t be done” just because the free market hasn’t done it yet.
Mace wrote: Hmmm. No discussion of grid stability issues with a high percentage of wind generation?
That is where shale-bound and other unconventional sources of natural gas come in. In addition to that promising source of thermal-electric power, there is liquid natural gas (LNG) from the Mid-East and Russia.
(I’m assuming of course that Americans will overcome the popular hysterical discourse of those people disliking them and wanting to destroy their lifestyle.)
Natural gas also emits fewer deadly small particulates.
After Enron, California is going to be the last state to enact real time pricing of electricity.
If only we could harness the power of Californians own sense of self-satisfaction…
Mace, that’s what “”generation of wind power from a given location is extremely variable from day to day” was addressing – see my response above.
GNP, see my comments to DickF above about oil imports – they apply equally to natural gas imports.
Buzzcut, this is a discussion of retail pricing, which isn’t nearly as controversial and difficult to regulate as the wholesale markets – CA already has much more complex retail pricing than anyone else, and their utilities are installing smart meters and experimenting with things like V2G in ways no one else is.
In the case of California, I would add geothermal to the renewables list. It’s an excellent source for base power.
The second point to bear in mind is one that people seemed to be confused about, even though it is elementary in an economic sense: there is a difference between costs and transfers. Altering the price structure of energy sources (eg through a carbon cap or tax) moves money from some pockets to others, but the effect on aggregate output or income (in economic terms) is not the same. It is entirely possible, as CARB argued, that there could be a net economic benefit even though (or because) electricity prices rose substantially. Of course, good policy will take the distributional impacts into account.
Nick G: I did read your second post and if you are hinting that low-transaction cost pigouvian taxes tacked on to oil-derived consumer products should be higher, much higher, I strongly agree. American armed forces should be confined to preventing piracy of international shipping; tweaking or changing regimes with a view to enhancing petroleum security has proved an unmitigated disaster, a bloody and horrendously expensive failure.
European-level excise taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel charged to American consumers would likely either bring down the price of imported oil or keep it relatively low. As energy sources are substitutes for many industrial and heating applications, low oil prices would help keep natural gas prices relatively low.
LNG imports will still have their place in assuring supply and providing price discipline.
It’s amazing the angst over the environment and how to improve it, compared to the impact of those proposed improvements. Two recent studies reported in the WaPo indicated these numbers: 100,000 and 47,000 new windmills are required to replace the upper-midwest electricity use and the current mid-atlantic states electricity growth respectively. Where do you environmentalists want to put them? Whose environments are the new targets?
Currently, alternative electricity sources total ~3%, and some sources in CA have already exceeded 5%. Those are actually very good numbers compared to the available resources.
Look closely at the chart of the wind farm production. Nearly 1/2 of the time the wind farm is producing at lest than optimum/half its capability. That means to replace carbon-based sources we actually would need to double wind farm sizes.
NickG,
Free markets function better with accurate accounting but free markets do not depend on accurate accounting. If your accounting is not accurate in a free market the market will discipline you and you will either change or fail.
Free Markets always consider such things as pollution and security of supply. Just look at the worst polluted states in the world and you will find that they have command economies. Likewise command economies have the most insecure supplies of goods because they find it impossible to price goods so they rely on other free market economies to price their goods. But such pricing does not take into account the unique desires and needs within the country.
Where we find misallocations of resources is when governments mandate pollution policies without sound foundation, because if they had a sound foundation there would be no need for government intervention (do you need the government to tell you to have a toilet in your house). The same with security of supply. If the government mandates supply it will be based on government speculation rather than actual production need as can be seen in the free market.
Nick, do not confuse free markets with centrally controlled economies when you do analysis.
lilnev wrote:
DickF:
Do you find it odd that those countries with more central planning e.g. the Europeans have achieved universal health care, while we with our market-based approach have not? Don’t say “It can’t be done” just because the free market hasn’t done it yet.
Oh no, I absolutely do not find this odd. On the contrary central planning is absolutely necessary for universal health care. And I would never say it can’t be done. Of course it can be done. It was done in the Soviet Union. It is being done in Cuba. It was being done on a small scale in the socialist state of Hiwaii until they found out they couldn’t affored it.
The command economies with universal health care have high levels of unemployment and slowly growing or declining economies. A farmer who has a large stock of seed corn can actually go for a long time eating it before he and his family actually begin to starve.
NickG wrote:
At the moment we’re faced with enormous expenses for climate change, ME intervention & homeland security (due to our “endless war” for oil export “stability”), and financial instability due to chronic US overborrowing in large part due to oil imports (how many trillions in value have been lost in the last month?).
Nick,
You confuse government intervention with the market. Any market expenses for climate change are already built into the market price of goods. Consider the price and availability of winter clothing in Chicago and Orlando. That may sound flippant but it is not. Real climate change is measured, and experienced, and built into market activity. It is the supposed climate change that requires government coercion.
ME intervention and homeland security are both government actions. It is debatable whether they have been justified and that is what the democratic process is all about, defining the limits on government intervention in our lives. That is a different question from the economic realities.
There is no overborrowing for oil. Anyone can cut their oil consumption any time they want. Just look at the recent decline in oil consumption in the US if you need an example. Our use of oil has been exactly what we wanted to use at the price it was offered. When the price got to high we shifted our behavior. Overborrowing is a misused term usually meaning “I don’t like the price I have to pay for this.”
Corev, there are more than enough farmers who are dying to get windmills to replace the whole country’s fossil fuel electrical generation, let alone just NE and the mid-atlantic state’s consumption growth. “1/2 of the time the wind farm is producing at lest than..half” – yes, everyone who has spent time with these issues knows that wind has a roughly 30% capacity factor, just as most natural gas generation has a capacity factor factor even lower than that, and the overal grid is at only 45%. That’s just the way it works, and one always adjusts one’s numbers to account for it – its not a problem.
A note: when you say “you environmentalists” you reveal that you’ve succumbed to the temptation to think of these issues in “us vs them” terms – that tends to cramp one’s creative thinking.
DickF, you said free markets do not depend on accurate accounting. If your accounting is not accurate in a free market the market will discipline you and you will either change or fail. Im baffled by this – how does a free market discipline polluters? How has the free market disciplined sulfur emissions from coal plants??
Parenthetically, when you say It is the supposed climate change that requires government coercion. You appear to say that you feel that climate change isnt a problem – if so then I believe youve succumbed to wishful thinking about climate change. I would refer you to the extremely conservative appellate judge Posner, who said that he was willing to trust the consensus of the scientific community. Beyond that, I dont pretend to be an expert – well just have to agree to disagree.
Similarly, what do you mean by Free Markets always consider such things as pollution and security of supply. ?? That appears absurd on the face of it. I am guessing that you mean to say that countries oriented towards free markets tend to have reasonably balanced regulation of pollution and security concerns. The problem is, the US isnt doing so adequately. In particular, we have the absurd situation of the US spending trillions on intervention in the Middle East, while not charging oil consumers for the privilege.
Just look at the worst polluted states in the world and you will find that they have command economies. Lets look at less extreme examples than the USSR. As far as I know, for instance, Sweden (as an example of a high-regulation economy) is pretty clean pollution-wise.
The same with security of supply. If the government mandates supply it will be based on government speculation Well, perhaps Eisenhower should have stayed out of Iran in 1954, and Bush Sr and Bush Jr should have stayed out of Iraq – Id probably agree with you, but, sadly, I think wed be pretty alone in that thesis. Still, I have to agree with the general consensus that OPEC is not to be trusted with our oil supplies – if thats the case, we need to do some planning in order to not be dependent on it.
ME intervention and homeland security are both government …That is a different question from the economic realities.
I would think you would agree with the principle of No Free Lunch. If were going to spend trillions to protect oil supplies, shouldnt we charge oil consumers for the privilege?
There is no overborrowing for oil.
Dont you agree that many homeowners have borrowed excessively on their homes? Dont you agree that the US has an excessive federal deficit? These were both a direct result of the loss of spending power due to payments for oil imports (as well as asian merchandise imports, I should note) – the resulting petrodollars had to be recycled to the US economy by someone.
NickG, I note your change of subject from mine, windmill efficiencies, to windmill capacities. Two totally different subjects. Windmills are theoretically [due to physics] limited to efficiencies ~59%. These maximum efficiencies are reduced due to gear box losses, turbine blade efficiencies, optimum wind speed designs versus actual wind speeds, wind direction and the windmills ability to compensate, etc, and many more losses. Finally we reach optimum efficiencies nearer 40%, when the wind is at the windmill’s designed operating efficiency. Which is usually a fraction [typically less than 20%] of the time.
Couple this loss in efficiencies with the total loss in output when the wind does not blow, and we have at best an intermittent electrical power source. One thing we have learned with the recent blackouts is that intermittence is not a tolerable condition for electric generation. Solar is even more intermittent than wind. Storage can not be developed that would totally mitigate their down times in every location.
Compounding the intermittence issues is the large number of windmills needed to replace fossil fuel power generation in the US. If it would take at least 147,000 windmills to replace the relatively low demands reported in the WaPo articles, how many are needed to replace total fossil fuel production? 100 times more? 200? How many are needed to back up the primaries? How many are needed to resolve the efficiency issues noted earlier. How many acres do they represent? Does human impacted acreage effect climate? [Hint: why worry about the rain forests?] Actually does that large number of windmills effect climate?
So when you so blithely claim there are many farmers willing to place a windmill on their properties, I assume that means they will also allow the frequent maintenance crews on their property, and the extension of the grid not previously there? Their neighbors will not fight the installation of these beautiful windmills? And, finally, these many farmers willing to put up with these life style changes, are they located in even minimally optimal wind locations?
When I make it an us versus them issue, the them are the environmentalist who believe in tooth fairy fantasies. Think past the obvious glitter of the environmental gold, and begin to see the unanticipated consequences of a poorly defined alternative energy strategy.
Buzzcut, this is a discussion of retail pricing, which isn’t nearly as controversial and difficult to regulate as the wholesale markets
You’re kidding, right? The whole reason that California deregulated wholesale and not retail is that the politicians feared backlash from the voters.
Retail deregulation is a hard sell. It takes all the risk and puts it on the consumer. While this benefits the consumer 99.95% of the time, it bankrupts the consumer 0.05% of the time. It is a lot of risk to take at a time when I’m only paying 9.5 cents a kilowatt hour at the margin.
Now, that’s not what Californians are paying, but everything costs more out there.
NickG,
I do not say this to end our discussion but it is very difficult to discuss the free market when it is assumed that government intervention is necessary and more efficient.
On the market discipline of polluters consider the huge hit China just experienced with their tainted dog food and baby formula. Then on the other side consider the huge loss tomato farmers experienced when government scientists misdiagnosed the cause of the illnesses actually caused by tainted peppers.
On climate change I believe it is very important. Goods sold in Chicago are much different from goods sold in Orlando. That is significantly due to climate change. But having the government mandate changes based on a computer model that can’t accurately predict the temperature tomorrow much less 100 year in the future is nonsense and destructive. If we had allowed the government to mandate changes due to climate change models in the 1970s we would have all been fighting global cooling. Now we must fight global warming. Imagine how hot it would be if we has reacted the the rantings of the global cooling crowd.
Your comment, “I am guessing that you mean to say that countries oriented towards free markets tend to have reasonably balanced regulation of pollution and security concerns illustrates what I mean by assuming a god-like status for the state. Government regulation of pollution and security of goods supply almost always creates leds to negative unintended consequences.
Sweden is an industrialized state. It does have a mixed economy but the free market portion of its economy gives it sufficient income to deal with pollution. If you want to see real pollution you must always go to poor countries. People don’t like pollution and so in countries that can afford it removal of pollution is a national industry. You have a narrow view of pollution. If you go into a grocery store or a Home Depot or Walmart many of the goods you see are intended to fight pollution from cleaning solutions to toilet seat covers.
If you do not believe that security costs are part of the cost of oil then you do not understand the price of oil especially as it changes due to world political events.
You ask, “Dont you agree that many homeowners have borrowed excessively on their homes? If they did it is because of government intervention in the loan market. In a free market there are lending standards so the lender does not suffer loss. In our credit crisis the government took on the risk so that lenders would lend below their standard.
Dont you agree that the US has an excessive federal deficit? Absolutely. Our government over spends like crazy. That has nothing to do with the free market except where there is intervention.
These were both a direct result of the loss of spending power due to payments for oil imports (as well as asian merchandise imports, I should note) – the resulting petrodollars had to be recycled to the US economy by someone.
Absolutely wrong. Both are because of government intervention and as a matter of fact so it the price of oil (can you say Federal reserve).
CoRev said “I note your change of subject from mine, windmill efficiencies, to windmill capacities”
No, you referred to windfarms producing below capacity – that refers to capacity factor, which is usually the hot topic in this kind of discussion. Efficiency of conversion from wind kinetic energy to electrical power is unimportant by itself because wind is free and abundant. What matters is the power output and the cost of that power, which is largely a function of the capital investment required. Of course, higher efficency is always better because it increases the ratio of power produced to capex, but in isolation it’s meaningless. That’s why you very rarely see it discussed by power engineers or analysts, and the conversion efficiency specifications very rarely get much attention – it’s the nameplate capacity, capacity factor and capex costs that are important.
“Storage can not be developed that would totally mitigate their down times in every location.”
Intermittency can be addressed with geographic diversity, demand management, and fossil fuel backup. There is inexpensive central storage possibilities with flow batteries and pumped storage (google ludington pumped storage), but that’s not the important thing: extremely cheap demand buffering and storage will come from PHEV/ErEV/EV’s. Intermittency as a problem is much exaggerated.
“how many are needed to replace total fossil fuel production? 100 times more? 200?”
That’s easy to calculate: total fossil fuel production in the US is about 310GW, on average. Take the standard, older windmill size of 1.6MW, and assume average production ofa bout .5MW. That gives you 620,000 windmills, about 4 times the number you cited. If you were to look at the actual numbers you’d get a better feel for these things…
“How many are needed to back up the primaries”
Probably none, though I’d note that the current grid is also overbuilt – the average capacity factor for the US grid is only about 45%.
“How many acres do they represent?”
At about 60 acres per windmill, they represent about 36 million acres, which isn’t much. Keep in mind that’s the spacing to prevent shadowing – the actual land consumed is only about .5 acre per windmill, which is very, very little for the roughly $2,000 per year of income they give to farmers.
“Does human impacted acreage effect climate? ”
Not much. There has been one peer-reviewed paper on this, so far, and the authors agreed that the possible impact was much smaller than the (much more likely) benefits.
“So when you so blithely claim there are many farmers willing to place a windmill on their properties, I assume that means they will also allow the frequent maintenance crews on their property, and the extension of the grid not previously there?”
Absolutely. Most farmers are on the economic edge, and windmill income usually makes the difference between bankruptcy or subsistence, and comfortable success.
“Their neighbors will not fight the installation of these beautiful windmills?”
Most farmers don’t have close neighbors. The neighbors won’t fight if they can get windmills as well. Of course, there are a few conflicts, and of course these very rare situations get disproportionate reporting.
“And, finally, these many farmers willing to put up with these life style changes, are they located in even minimally optimal wind locations?”
Oh, yes. The windbelt down the middle of the country, located largely in farm country, has lots of wind.
I suggest you do some research of your own, instead of relying on vague and unrealistic assertions from anti-wind websites.
Buzzcut, though time-of-day pricings is conceptually somewhat similar, we’re really not talking about deregulation – that’s a whole different kettle of worms. Take a look at http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS274507+31-Jan-2008+PRN20080131 and http://www.thewattspot.com .
DickF said: “it is very difficult to discuss the free market when it is assumed that government intervention is necessary and more efficient.” I do believe it’s necessary. After all, the traditional conception of the business corporation is that profit is it’s only goal, not social welfare. It is necessary, therefore, for government to set goals not related to profit.
“On the market discipline of polluters consider …tainted dog food and baby formula…illnesses actually caused by tainted peppers.”
These are quality problems directly experienced by consumers. I’m not aware of anyone calling that pollution. Now, occasionally businesses will accidentally shoot themselves in the foot while engaged in the effort to push their wastes onto someone else’s plate (the normal definition of pollution), but not usually. For instance, how does sulfur pollution come back to haunt utilities in any direct way?
“On climate change I believe it is very important. Goods sold in Chicago are much different from goods sold in Orlando. ” That’s local climatic varation. I don’t understand how that relates to the issue of “climate change”, as generally understood.
” a computer model that can’t accurately predict the temperature tomorrow ”
While I’m not an expert, I understand from those who are that this is a “straw man” concept, used to mislead by “climate change deniers”, who are engaged in wishful thinking. I urge you to research this more carefully, rather than rely on non-scientific sources.
“If we had allowed the government to mandate changes due to climate change models in the 1970s we would have all been fighting global cooling. ” This is another myth – a review of what climatologists were saying in the 1970’s reveals that even then they were concerned about global warming/climate change.
“If you want to see real pollution you must always go to poor countries. ” I agree. The USSR was a poor country, which is why it was heavily pollluted, not because it was centrally planned. Look at London 120 years ago – you could hardly breathe due to the coal pollution.
“You have a narrow view of pollution. ” I’ve never seen this definition widely used before. I believe you’re referring to “waste”, not pollution. See my comments above.
“If you do not believe that security costs are part of the cost of oil then you do not understand the price of oil especially as it changes due to world political events.”
Of course the price of oil incorporates some supply concerns. Nevertheless, the US has spent trillions on military costs to improve supply security, and that’s not priced into the cost of oil. Wouldn’t you agree? What about “no free lunch”?
“In a free market there are lending standards so the lender does not suffer loss.” In this case the ultimate lenders were mostly in foreign countries. Arguably, they were defrauded by loan originators in the US, who allowed homeowners and buyers to borrow excessively. Isn’t one of the basic purposes of the government in a libertarian model the enforcement of contracts, including prevention or prosecution of fraud?
More importantly, exporting countries are engaged in a long-term effort to beggar the US by exporting, but refusing to import (and piling up debt instead). In the 19th century the British responded to similar Chinese policies (piling up gold) with gunboats. Don’t you agree that responding to such things is the province of national governments, not individual homeowners?
“Absolutely wrong. Both are because of government intervention and as a matter of fact so it the price of oil (can you say Federal reserve).”
Could you expand on this? As far as I can tell, the Fed was simply doing what I described – lowering interest rates to replace purchasing power stolen by imports, which supported excessive US borrowing. I would say an important solution here is to reduce imports caused by unrealistically low-priced oil. The best way to do so would be to allocate costs properly.
NickG, you are swimming in that Kool Aid. You are so wrong I will concentrate on only the two key points to which I reacted. You said: Intermittency as a problem is much exaggerated. Exaggerated??!!??. Only one outage will tell us just how wrong your “happy talk” assumption actually is! Sheesh!! Here’s a interesting number: A report from Denmark noted that their wind power network was without power for 54 days during 2002. That is just uner 15% of the time that the wind farms in an entire country did not produce ANY energy. In reality, the North Sea Highs which generate these periods usually effect nearly all of Western Europe. Load sharing gets to be real issue if you are reliant on wind.
you said: Does human impacted acreage effect climate? ”
Not much. There has been one peer-reviewed paper on this, so far, and the authors agreed that the possible impact was much smaller than the (much more likely) benefits. One peer-reviewed paper??!!?? I guess you are not familiar with the NASA work. Y’ano the stuff we have spent billions on to see from space? R. A Pieke Sr’s work? CSIRO’s work? The multitude of studies on the rain forests and their effect on local climates and man’s impact on desertification and their effects on climate. Man’s farming practices and their effects on the sequestration and production of CO2. Man’s beef/meat animal production and the animals production of methane. O the effects of man made aerosols on clods and cloud formation and their effect on climate. Or maybe you have heard of the Urban heat island effect and it’s effect on local climates. One peer reviewed article? Pshaw!
Man’s land use effect on climate is extensive and may be one of the most important. The analysis is NOT just my own studied opinion, but that of many, some even renowned, climate scientists.
Taking another many millions [by your own estimate] of acres out of production, and/or CO2 sequestration is not important when we can produce more expensive electricity from wind.
See paper by Stanford’s Archer & Jacobson, Supplying Baseload Power and Reducing Transmission Requirements by Interconnecting Windfarms.
Key finding: given adequate geographic dispersion of enough windfarms, 33-47% of the yearly average power can be treated as reliable baseload. Of course, this takes better grids.
John Mashey, I’ve seen the paper and IIRC it also recommends a High Voltage Direct Current grid. Does that meant two separate grids? DUNNO, but it is an interesting issue.
NickG,
On the “Global Cooling” fiasco, I lived through it so I am not relying on myth. There were all kinds of kooky ideas for warming the earth just as there are kooky ideas today for cooling the earth.
I am going to move away from global warming because those who believe in anthropomorphic global warming have a stronger blind faith than suicide bombers.
But let me touch on the credit crisis:
Mortgage companies had strong lending standards when the risk of loss was on their shoulders. Under Jimmy Carter the government passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). Compliance was based on the mix of loans to classes in society rather than credit worthiness. In 1989 George H. W. Bush signed the Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act that expanded the intrusion of government into lending standards. In 1992 the Boston FED did a study (totally refuted) that “proved” mortgage-lending discrimination was systemic. The Boston FED published a guide to lending that because the tool of government to attack lending standards.
In an effort to increase lending to unqualified borrowers in 1992 the government passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 requiring Fannie and Freddie set aside a percentage of their loans for “affordable housing,” a euphamism for unqualified borrowers. This in effect passed the risk of unqualified loans from the mortgage company to the GSEs.
At this point Fannie and Freddie became the focus of lower lending standards. With the burden of rish no longer on the mortgage companies they felt free to lend to anyone. Standards no longer had any meaning. Loans were packaged and soon there were all kinds of instruments out there. Fannie and Freddie, in order to continue to loan to unqualified borrowers, began to package good and bad loans together so that they could sell them to the mortgage bankers on Wall Street.
The only involvement of foreign investors was in Fannie and Freddie bonds and stock because they could get a better rate that on t-bills and they assumed the GSEs were backed by the government, an assumption that turned out to be true.
The whole thing fell apart when the mortgage bankers ran into a problem selling their paper to others. They then stopped buying from Fannie and Freddie. Suddenly Fannie and Freddie were stuck with the bad loans. They stopped buying from the mortgage companies. Suddenly there was no mortgage money out there because the market was oversold. It was a classic boom-bust.
I was going to touch on oil but I don’t have time.
CoRev said “A report from Denmark noted that their wind power network was without power for 54 days during 2002. That is just uner 15% of the time that the wind farms in an entire country did not produce ANY energy.” First, I would note that Denmark is a tiny country, and that the windfarms are concentrated in West Denmark, which is even smaller.
“In reality, the North Sea Highs which generate these periods usually effect nearly all of Western Europe” Do you have a source for that – it doesn’t sound accurate – there was a recent study that found that the UK has much steadier wind than that.
“One peer-reviewed paper??!!?? I guess you are not familiar with the NASA work….Man’s land use effect on climate is extensive and may be one of the most important. ”
I think we’ve had a miscommunication. You’re talking about Climate Change in general, and I was talking about the impact of wind farms on climate. I don’t think we have a disagreement on Climate Change.
“Taking another many millions [by your own estimate] of acres out of production” No, 1/2 acre times 620,000 wind turbins equals 310,000 acres – that’s not much.
“more expensive electricity from wind”
More expensive than what? New coal and nuclear are both just as expensive, perhaps more so.
DickF, on climate change: I’m puzzled, because AFAIK neither the popular nor scientific literatures support your memories. If you have further info/sources I’d be curious to see them.
I’m interested in your thoughts about mortgages, though I have to say it seems Off Topic for this energy-related discussion. I’d be curious to get your thoughts on the energy related stuff, esp the question of giving oil a free ride on military/security costs.
Let me summarize your mortgage-related points:
1) There was a concerted effort, especially through the CRA, to lend to people known to be unqualified.
2) Due to Fannie and Freddie’s actions, lending standards in general deteriorated.
3) Fannie and Freddie originated and were primarily responsible the practice of bundling low and high quality mortgages together, not investment banks.
4) Foreign investors didn’t buy mortgage securities, such as CDO’s, just Fannie and Freddie bonds and stock.
5) In general, Fannie and Freddie were the main problem, not investment banks.
Now, this doesn’t sound quite right, but I don’t have indepth knowledge. Anyone out there want to comment??
NickG,
That is pretty close. I don’t want to be an absolutist so my minor exceptions to your summary are.
1. CRA was just on of many programs to get mortgage companies to lend to unqualified people by both Democrats and Republicans.
2. Lending standards started to deteriorate when the government began to attack loans based on class rather than objective standards, but changes at Fannie and Freddie in the 1990s put this into overdrive.
3. The bundling of mortgages was a group effort but Fannie and Freddie provided the vehicle.
4. The top five foreign investors in Fannie and Freddie bonds are China, Japan, the Cayman Islands, Luxembourg, and Belgium according to Mish’s. This could have included MBS but was mostly long-term bonds.
5. Without Fannie and Freddie the investment banks would not have existed in the form they took(note there are none now that Fannie and Freddie have been officially nationalized.) There will be other investment banks in another form but the ones going crazy over mortgages existed because of Fannie and Freddie.
NickG, I’ll concede the acreage point, but I do think it is probably 3 times what you estimate due to access roads, and grid demands. It still is not much.
As to my source for the North Sea High, it was something I read ~ 2 months ago in an article in an UK paper re: the UK wind farms. Nearly all W Europe can be effected by a high that parks over the North Sea for weeks. This makes sharing wind energy difficult when nearly all are not producing. I would compare it to the Mid Atlantic’s Bermuda highs which can effect nearly the total East coast.
If you follow my site’s URL above, you can understand why it is so hard for me to recall a specific article. I see/skim nearly 100 daily.
As to the Denmark wind farm location, remember they are placed where there is wind and few to fight their installation. So being in “Western” Denmark is where they could be optimally placed.
BTW my daily CC/AGW research tells me that Europe is actually moving away from wind and the “Green” movement. Some of this due to the economic down turn, but it is also due to the cost and intermittency problem. Folks are beginning to question the need for fossil fuel back up. If they are there for backup why are they not also used to reduce costs instead of the investing in development of new untried technologies.
To my bottom line: Wind can be intermittent as much as 15%, as shown by the Denmark report, and solar is 50% and even more intermittent, then we will need fossil fuel for ever. Saying we are rep[lacing our fossil fuel plants with these renewable sources is just lying. The best we can do is augment the fossil fueled generation plants.
NickG,
There has been an orchestrated effort to change history concerning the claims of global cooling so most of the material you find on line will make claims that global cooling was not really serious.
Let me give you one record of the type of reporting in the early 1970s.
The National Science Board’s Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period.
Now just as the Global Warming experts have now changed their name to Global Change experts so the Global Cooling experts hedged their bets by injecting comments on warming in with their cooling. The propaganda is similar only with a different emphasis.
If you have been following recent trends you will find that there has been virtually no change in temperature for the past 5 years and the NOAA reports that the winter of 2008 was coldest winter since 2001. The moral to this story is that modeling is not even close to actual measurements.
CoRev, said “As to my source for the North Sea High, it was something I read ~ 2 months ago in an article in an UK paper re: the UK wind farms.”
hmmm. A popular article in a paper isn’t a very reliable source. I’ll try to find the source for the serious research which found that UK wind resources were pretty stable.
“Nearly all W Europe can be effected by a high that parks over the North Sea for weeks. ”
But who says a grid can’t extend beyond the Atlantic coast of W Europe, or the US’s East Coast?
“As to the Denmark wind farm location, remember they are placed where there is wind ”
Yes, but this is still a very small area. As I’m sure you know, it is fairly well connected to other areas, just like France’s nuclear.
“BTW my daily CC/AGW research tells me that Europe is actually moving away from wind and the “Green” movement.”
Hmm. Any links for this?
“Folks are beginning to question the need for fossil fuel back up.”
Which isn’t really proven, in the long run. Even if we stipulate the point, if you only need the FF backup for 15% of the time, you’ve reduced FF consumption by 85%, which is all to the good.
DickF, I think you and CoRev should talk to each other. 🙂
Well, as I said, I’m not an expert on this. I simply rely on the current scientific consensus, which really does exist. There essentially no professional climatologists which disagree with the premise of Climate Change, and very few serious scientists in general. Recent attempts to publicly corral a bunch of scientists to rebut CC was an embarrassing failure.
Further, the IPCC is a consensus forum, to which agreement has been given by every country in the UN, including oil exporters and high-CO2 emissions countries like the US and China (most climatologists, as best represented by James Hansen, agree that things are much worse than the IPCC consensus document). Even the top appointee from the Bush administration, appointed to replace a previous official who was too outspokenly advocating for CC, has spoken publicly to strongly affirm the IPCC findings.
Actually, this seems a bit Off Topic. I’m more interested in questions about oil imports, and the proper allocation of US security costs (including military and Homeland Security). What do you think?
DickF, I looked up your source – this looks like a good discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
It suggests that 1) the report you cited is obsolete, and 2) it didn’t really support global cooling to begin with – as you noted, the report noted an historical cycle which might predict cooling, and then went on to note the possibility of warming.
I haven’t heard of “global change” as a synonym for Climate Change, and I haven’t heard anyone suggest that CC doesn’t mean overall warming. As I understand it, the change to CC isn’t a hedge for uncertainty about warming, it’s an acknowledgement that warming effects will be distributed unevenly, and that much local climate change will be in the form of drought, changed weather patterns, ocean acidification, and a wide range of effects that makes the term “warming” much too narrow.
NickG, I will not take apart all of your points, but this one does intrigue me in your misconception. Which isn’t really proven, in the long run. Even if we stipulate the point, if you only need the FF backup for 15% of the time, you’ve reduced FF consumption by 85%, which is all to the good. No, 15% is the time when 100% of the electricity must be generated by something other than wind. As you well know, much of the time , ~60%, wind farms produce at much less than optimum. During these times the wind farm must be augmented by alternatives or must be sized to reach the needed level of production.
It is statements like these that deceive the general population into thinking it is the bestest solution. It is a partial solution, but to what? Saving the planet from CO2? Reducing the need for fossil fuels? Why?
CoRev said: “I will not take apart all of your points”
That’s too bad – you’re missing a chance to learn something. 🙂
“15% is the time when 100% of the electricity must be generated by something other than wind”
No, the % of total kilowatt hours would probably be substantially less than 15%.
“~60%, wind farms produce at much less than optimum”
What do you mean by “optimum”? Yes, there is random variance in wind turbine output, and very roughly half the time, output will be below average. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Reminds me of Lake Webegon, where all of the children are above average.
“During these times the wind farm must be augmented by alternatives”
Not really. Other source output may be varied, it’s true, which isn’t necessarily a problem. Or perhaps we’ll tune consumption instead – it’s called Demand Management – an old and well-tested method of dealing with system variance. We might tune PHEV/EV charging, or tap PHEV/EV power through V2G. There are a lot of possibilities.
Yes, we might overbuild wind a bit, just like every other source (except nuclear). Don’t forget, the US grid is only 45% utilized, on average.
“It is statements like these that deceive the general population into thinking it is the bestest solution.”
Bestest?
“Saving the planet from CO2? Reducing the need for fossil fuels? Why?”
uhmmm…why not? Seriously, I thought you thought Climate Change was a problem? In any case, fossil fuels are polluting (even without CO2 problems), getting more expensive (often more than wind already), and in time will run out, and will have to be replaced eventually. Why not now?
NickG, yup! “Bestest.” A childish word for a childish belief. I don’t disbelieve in wind power, I do not believe it is the only answer, which is what you have been preaching.
I also note that you are primarily arguing from opinion. You said: What do you mean by “optimum”? Yes, there is random variance in wind turbine output, and very roughly half the time, output will be below average. No. The wind turbine output is not random. Breakdowns may be random, but wind is predictable.
BTW, “optimum” from Merriam… 2: greatest degree attained or attainable under implied or specified conditions Production from it;’s design characteristics and the wind conditions for which it is designed. For most windmills a typically small window of wind conditions where above and below output is reduced to the point as conditions move away from that optimum condition that production actually stops.
Comments like this, just make no sense: “During these times the wind farm must be augmented by alternatives”
Not really. Other source output may be varied, it’s true, which isn’t necessarily a problem. Or perhaps we’ll tune consumption instead – it’s called Demand Management – an old and well-tested method of dealing with system variance. Demand Management? Usually that means restricting use in the energy field. Just how do we restrict use when there is no or way insufficient wind-based electricity. We normally call that a “blackout/brownout.” Consumers never complain, right?
My beliefs in AGW/CC are just now getting solidified after six months of daily research of literature. Yes, daily. Your blind belief that wind is the answer corresponds with the same belief that CO2 is the cause for warming. I have noticed a consistent failing in the AGW/CC world of science. Most analysis and their results are based upon statistical analysis, and many of those same scientists are not very good statisticians. M. Mann being perhaps the best example. Most of AGW/CC is a political not scientific movement. Very few IPCC members are actually scientists let alone climatologists. But, I digress.
When you say: fossil fuels are polluting (even without CO2 problems), getting more expensive (often more than wind already), and in time will run out, and will have to be replaced eventually. Why not now? Solve the pollution problem(s). We have made a good efforts already with some technology improvements in their use. Why are we limiting fossil fuels, which BTW as a class of fuels are far from close to running out, by implementing restrictive policies? Peak oil is here, although mostly caused by policy and not production.
To bottom line my comments: technology is the answer to the energy issues, but locking in on a single technology just slows development of the evolving options.
“I don’t disbelieve in wind power”
I’m glad to hear it. Then why are we arguing?
“I do not believe it is the only answer, which is what you have been preaching.”
Uhm, no, I never said that. I was just addressing some wind-related issues in the Original Post. I think solar is also very useful. I am hopeful for other renewables like geothermal and wave, though they’re further out. I think nuclear is likely to be a big part of the solution.
“The wind turbine output is not random. Breakdowns may be random, but wind is predictable. ”
I’m glad to hear you say that – it’s part of the reason why wind intermittency is exaggerated. BTW, something can have a random distribution, and still be predictable, which is the case of wind – it’s just not predictable a-priori, and predictions have to be made within days or hours of the event.
“For most windmills a typically small window of wind conditions where above and below output is reduced”
That’s true for individual windmills, but not for windfarms, and even less so for a collection of geographically dispersed windfarms. For instance, an individual wind turbine will commonly run up to maximum power, but a windfarm will very rarely (less than 1% of the time) go above 85% of nameplate power rating.
“Demand Management? Usually that means restricting use in the energy field. Just how do we restrict use when there is no or way insufficient wind-based electricity. We normally call that a “blackout/brownout.” Consumers never complain, right?”
My mistake – I assumed familiarity with utility load following techniques. Demand Management is a technique widely used by utilities by which industrial/commercial or residential customers are paid to turn off selected equipment (smelters, compressors, freezers, etc) at times of peak load. It may involve notification of an I/C plant or energy manager, or direct control of appliances or A/C. It’s old and widely used, it’s cheap, and it’s effective. It will be very, very useful with PHEV/EV’s.
Two things about DM – 1st, it’s currently underused because most utilities don’t have a rate-based incentive to use “negawatts” – they’re paid for production. 2nd, it’s now primarily a peak-load related technique, but it could be used around the clock, especially with PHEV/EV’s.
“blind belief that…CO2 is the cause for warming.”
It’s not my belief – see my comments above.
“Why are we limiting fossil fuels”
Because gas is getting more expensive than wind, and coal is a high CO2 emitter.
“locking in on a single technology just slows development of the evolving options.”
Well, I think we agree.