Emissions Rise at Ireland's Power Stations Despite €6 Billion Investment in Wind Energy

One of the things consistently pointed out on this blog is that no matter how much wind energy you deploy, you can never shutdown a single power station. Those who advocate for more wind are slowly realizing this as more facts come out. 

Last year (2016), electricity demand in Ireland rose by about 2.3%.  An additional 600MW of wind was added to the system but the capacity factor (a measure of the annual output from wind farms) fell from 33% to 27%. Also during 2016 the limit on the amount of wind allowed into the system at any one time (non synchronous penetration) was raised from 50% to 55% and then at the end of the year to 60%. 

According to reports by the EPA, emissions and fuel consumption increased in eight out of the eleven power stations for which records were available for 2016. 

Six of these power stations were operated by gas, the other three by oil. Poolbeg (gas), Tarbert (oil) and North Wall (gas) power stations had the largest rises in emissions. Aghada (gas) and Tarbert (oil) power stations had the highest emissions since 2011, while Rhode power station (oil) had the highest since 2007.

Power station	Emissions Increase 2016 Vs 2015	Highest Emissions Since	Fuel Type
Aghada	72%	2011	Gas
Huntstown 2	19%	2013	Gas
Poolbeg	366%	2014	Gas
North Wall	249%	2013	Gas
Great Island	61%	Commissioned in 2015	Gas
Tynagh	70%	2014	Gas
Tawnaghmore	14%	2010	Light Fuel Oil
Tarbert	240%	2011	Heavy Fuel Oil / Light Fuel Oil
Rhode	93%	2007	Light Fuel Oil

Note the three oil run power stations at the bottom all had the highest emissions for many years.

Factors that lead to these increases were :

• The interconnector to the UK was out for four months at the end of 2016. This would partly explain the increases in Dublin power stations such as Poolbeg and North Wall.

• Electricity demand increasing by 2.3%. With new data centres on the way, demand will soon increase by much more than that. 

• Capacity Factor of wind dropping from 33% to 27%. It's an unfortunate fact that no matter how many wind farms there are, if there is no wind, you get no energy. Storage wont fix this problem either as the original energy source is still intermittent wind energy that can remain flat for months on end during periods of high pressure.

• The low price of oil and gas. 

• The low capacity credit of wind energy. Ireland now has 3,000MW of wind, but all these wind turbines cannot replace a single power station. All the power stations must remain on standby. An additional 600MW of wind was added in 2016, roughly a 25% increase on 2015. The only solution for this is nuclear. A nuclear power station can fully replace an existing power station and hence achieves much greater and much more consistent fuel and emissions savings in the long run than wind ever can.

How ironic that Ireland is now dependent on oil again for it's electricity needs after spending close to €6 billion on wind technology and another billion or two on grid upgrades to accommodate this wind. If this is not an indictment of the wind program, then I don't know what is.

Sources :

1) EPA Environmental Reports

http://www.epa.ie/terminalfour/ippc/index.jsp

2) Eirgrid Renewable Energy Curtailment Report 2016

http://www.eirgridgroup.com/site-files/library/EirGrid/Annual-Renewable-Constraint-and-Curtailment-Report-2016-v1.0.pdf

3) Cost of wind is estimated to be €2 million per MW installed.  

Price of Electricity and Renewables Revisited

Previous work by Willis Eschenbach and Euan Mearns showed the relationship between Electricity costs and per capita installed renewable capacity. A new European Commission report shows the increases in electricity prices since 2010. I put this on a graph alongside the increase in share of electricity from renewable sources [Figure 1].

Figure 1 : Increase in electricity prices 2010-2015 plotted alongside increase in share 
of renewables in electricity generation 2010-2014

So the UK went from renewables providing 7% of electricity generation in 2010 to 17% in 2014 resulting in almost a 50% increase in prices over the same period. Ireland is in the top five increases in electricity prices over this period. Denmark seems to be an outlier (although they started off from very high prices) but most countries who invested heavily in renewables saw a sharp rise in electricity prices. 

Something that struck me was the proliferation of PIIGS countries at the top of the graph. So I labelled the top government indebted countries on the same graph [Figure 2] :

Figure 2: Top 7 member states with highest Government debt as % of GDP 

Greece, Italy and Portugal are the top 3 indebted countries in the EU (Debt of general government, as a percentage of GDP). Most of the countries investing heavily in renewables are also running up the biggest fiscal deficits. They have put environmental sustainability above economic sustainability. However, surely the two are linked ? If capitalism is the driver of climate change then living beyond your means must be twice as bad.

References

_________________

1)  Monitoring progress towards the Energy Union objectives – key indicators - see Page 62

https://ec.europa.eu/priorities/sites/beta-political/files/swd-energy-union-key-indicators_en.pdf

2)  Share of electricity from renewable sources in gross electricity consumption (%) - unfortunately this only goes up to 2014, whereas the prices in 1) goes up to 2015, so if a more recent report comes out I will update this blog. Still, Figure 1 is indicative of the electricity price/ RES-E trend.

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/File:Share_of_electricity_from_renewable_sources_in_gross_electricity_consumption_(%25).png

3)  Risk Assessment of the EU Banking System - See Figure 1

https://www.eba.europa.eu/documents/10180/1315397/EBA+RISK+ASSESSMENT+REPORT.pdf/46d91b9a-f393-4b54-96eb-df06ca01bec5

Cold Winter Could Spell Disaster for EU's energy policy

There are significant signs that a cold winter is on the way for Northern Europe. The Polar Vortex is notably very weak for this time of the year. This means a weak jetstream, eastern winds and a cold winter. During the previous two winters we had a strong jetstream and strong westerlies, which explains why they were so mild. The Polar Vortex looked very different at this time of the year to what it looks like now i.e. much stronger. While Europe had mild winters, America had cold severe winters :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/niagara-falls-freezes-incredible-pictures-show-falls-partially-frozen-as-polar-vortex-is-set-hit-us-10055691.html

Coupled with the current weak Polar Vortex is a projected negative Atlantic Oscillation. There were also signs of a cold winter back in August when heavy snow fell in Germany to an extent not seen since 2009.

The problem for Europe in the event of a severe winter is inadequate generation capacity. France will be shutting down five of its nuclear reactors over the coming months.  This creates a big problem because other countries that have invested heavily in renewables are dependent on French imports. 

Comparing the French grid for October 2016 Vs October 2015 shows up a change in imports / exports profile :

You can see that last year, France was exporting large amounts of power whereas this year it is exporting much less and indeed importing half of the time. Belgium has also been having problems with their nuclear fleet recently. Spain which was importing up to 2GW this time last year is now exporting most of the time. Germany are also full time net exporters. This can change if output from renewables declines in these countries.

A cold winter accompanied by high pressure and low winds will put the Energy Union to the ultimate test. 

Most EU Renewable Targets Will Not Be Met

While the media and lobbyists keep insisting that fines loom over us unless we act urgently and not wasting time to do a cost benefit analysis, what they don't tell you is that most EU countries are now on track to miss their 2020 targets. The EU have finally admitted that biofuels were a waste of time. Most countries are learning the hard way that other sources of renewables like wind and solar were not all that they were "cracked up to be" either. 

Some ferocious overselling (and little analysis) has taken place. 

The EU funded website Keep on Track shows which countries are on track and which aren't in meeting their 2020 renewable targets.

Here is the list of some of the countries NOT on track to meet their 2020 targets :

• Portugal
• Spain
• France
• Belgium
• Netherlands
• Germany
• Slovenia
• Czech Republic
• Poland
• Slovakia
• Finland
• Latvia
• UK
• Denmark (doubts)
• Greece

I would personally add Ireland to the list, we have done little on transport and heating initiatives, instead focusing almost entirely on wind generation. With about 20% of electricity consumption coming from wind over six or seven years, we have to make up another 17% by the next three years (in an increasingly legal quagmire).

That to me seems like a disaster for the EU and it's wall to wall green lobby groups. The question is will they admit they got it all wrong ? 

BREITBART: Renewable Energy Infrastructure Costs More Than Greek and Irish Bailouts Combined

More on the Story first published a few days ago on this blog :

RENEWABLE ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS MORE THAN GREEK AND IRISH BAILOUTS COMBINED

Astonishing figures show that the total cost of renewable energy infrastructure in Europe to the end of 2012 came to over €600 billion, excluding additional fees for grid connections and upgrades.

And this enormous sum is one and a half times the cost of twice bailing out the Greek economy, which came to €320 billion and the Irish economy with a €70 billion loan, the Irish Energy Blog has calculated.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/05/renewable-energy-infrastructure-costs-more-than-greek-and-irish-bailouts-combined/

Cost of Renewables Infrastructure in Europe equal to 1.5 times the cost of Greek and Irish bailouts combined

The total cost of onshore and offshore wind and solar PV in Europe by the end of 2012 comes to over € 600 billion, not including grid connections and upgrades (workings provided below).

To put this in persepective, the cost of the two Greek bailouts came to € 320 Billion and the Irish bailout came to € 70 billion. So the cost of these investments in renewable projects came to one and half times the cost of the Irish and Greek bailouts combined. So what could we have got for all this money ?

•  Debt relief to Greece and Ireland with alot of change left over for useful projects

And by not spending this money at all we could have got lower energy bills - the € 600 Billion must be paid back to shareholders by ordinary people and industry, so we could have got lower energy bills by not spending this money in the first place. And as a result, more jobs as costs for energy intensive industries would be less now thereby increasing our competitiveness.

Perhaps even more incredibly, after spending these incredible sums, Europe is still as dependent on Russian gas and Saudi oil as it ever was. No conventional power plant has been shutdown anywhere in Europe and replaced by any of this wind or solar PV. This amounts to the greatest ever investment in non - dispatchable plant in Europe's history. Non dispatchable plant will always increase overall costs in an electricity system - if anyone has any evidence to the contrary I would like to see it. As a result, there has been a lot less investment in dispatchable generation than required with extraordinary consequences down the road, unless of course, you live as a hermit.

It was for these reasons that the European Network of Transmission System Operators (ENTSO) were forced to conclude in their recent Winter Outlook Report that :

Similar to the peak demand analysis, it provides an indication which countries require exports to manage inflexible generation. Indeed, this involved an analysis of their ability to export this energy to neighbouring regions that are not in a similar situation. The reason for this analysis pertains to the fact that a number of TSOs expressed that they are experiencing growing problems for system operation (mainly) due to the increase of variable generation on the system (wind and solar) and the lack of more flexible generation means.

and in a report issued in January this year :

In view of the rapid and significant development of dispersed generation [mainly PV] in recent years, the primary reserves of TSOs used to balance their systems will no longer suffice. As a consequence, TSOs in case of an incident will have no other option than to initiate major defence plans.

A number of EU countries were identified as facing long term issues with their security of supply (i.e. ability to provide reliable electricity) including Belgium, Finland, Germany and the UK :

Belgium

Compared to previous winter, these closures are - in terms of capacity - still more than compensated for by new renewable production units. However, the infeed of these renewable units is less stable and less guaranteed compared to classical production units, yielding a negative effect on global generation adequacy.

Due to the announced closing of different CCGTs and Doel 1 and the lack of new generation capacity, the Belgian parliament already enacted a new law in March 2014, introducing the concept of strategic reserves for the Belgian system. These additional reserves are constituted of generation units and demand response contracts amounting up to 840 MW in total for coming winter. The strategic reserves are taken out of the market, and can only be used when Belgium experiences risks of shortage to cover the Belgian load. This capacity is included in the Elia contribution to the ENTSO-E Winter Outlook under the "Load Reduction" category.

Finland:

As in the previous winters, Finland is a deficit area in peak demand hours. Demand is highly dependent on outside temperatures and most critical period is from week one to nine. The deficit is expected to be met with import from neighboring areas.

No specific problem should occur in the minimum demand hours because the installed wind and solar power capacity is relatively low in Finland.

Germany

To cover the anticipated very high redispatch demand as for the last winter, the German TSOs determined the need of an additional reserve generation capacity of about 3,1 GW for the winter 2014/2015. Almost the complete capacity has already been contracted. In order to contract these required reserves a new German regulation allows to prevent the switch-off of system-relevant units, which are instead transferred into a TSO-controlled reserve. They are still included in the data table. 

Additionally 0,8 GW of reserves have been contracted in Austria for the coming winters.

A further benefit for generation adequacy is provided by the new regulations for contractual load reductions.

UK

Under severe weather conditions (defined as 1 in 20 cold temperatures for GB), forecast demand including reserve would still be met, but full interconnector exports to the continent and Ireland would not be possible in all weeks of the year. In the unlikely event that the amount of generation does not meet the amount of demand for a period of time, National Grid, as GB TSO, would need to take mitigating actions to avoid any loss of load. These actions include the use of two New Balancing Services: Demand Side Balancing Reserve (DSBR) and Supplemental Balancing Reserve (SBR), which provide the option of additional capacity if necessary.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Workings - Thanks to Pat Swords:

From the 2013 Edition of the State of Renewable Energies in Europe [link]:

• 106,757 MW of total wind energy in EU 28 by end of 2012
• 5,022 MW of offshore wind energy installed by end of 2012
• 68,906 MW of installed photovoltaic cells by end of 2012

• Cost of installing 1 MW of onshore wind energy in Germany is estimated at €1.7 million per MW [Advice given by German renewable industry that the total cost of a 2 MW turbine installation is €3 million:], would be higher in other countries due to more difficult access (roads to be completed on tops of mountains in peat soil, etc.)
• Cost of offshore wind is recognised at between €3 to €4 million per MW [1,567 MW worth between €4.6 billion and €6.4 billion, were fully grid connected between 1 January and 31 December 2013]

• Cost of solar PV[link]:

• Assume an average of $7.5 per W, €6.25 per W. €6.25 million per MW.

• Total: (68,906 x 6.25) + (101,735 x 1.7) + (5,022 x 3.5) = €621,189 million.

So the total is  in excess of €600 billion, to which grid connections and upgrades have not been added.

Wind Energy a wasteful use of resources (EROI)

The Energy Return on Investment (EROI) measures the energy output given by a certain power supply technique over its lifetime relative to the energy required to extract the fuel and build the power station to provide that same power supply. Recent research into the German energy system reveals the EROI for different types of power supply based on the most detailed study yet into the area :

http://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf

They first of all calculated the unbuffered EROI for each power supply, which does not include storage systems. They then calculated the buffered EROIs, taking into account pumped storage which is required to balance wind power, so that like to like comparisons can be made with other power plants. 

The results show that nuclear and hydro come out best with coal and CCGT (gas) on respectable positions. Renewables in general dont come out too well. Solar CSP, which are built in deserts, comes out the best. As for wind, when you add in all the concrete, steel, water, magnet processing and oil that goes into their manufacture, installation and maintenance, you get a relatively small amount of energy back over the turbine's lifetime :

The lifetime of wind turbines

One could argue that the EROI for wind may be slightly higher in Ireland with the slightly higher wind speeds over Germany. However, a lifetime of 20 years was assumed in this study. The lifetime of wind turbines, in particular the larger ones, is now been questioned as the experience in Denmark shows that turbines installed between 1990 and 2000 lasted on average for 15 years [Figure 1].

Figure 2: Decommissioned Danish Wind Turbines from 1990 to 2000. (Graph provided by John Dooley based on data from Danish Energy Agency)

Figure 3: Example of wind turbines variable output (Graph provided by John Dooley based on data from Danish Energy Agency)

And Figure 3 shows how a wind turbines output is not consistent over its lifetime. In fact, the output deteriorates on average at around year 10. So the EROI of wind would be even worse if the above factors had been taken into account in the analysis.

The importance of EROI

So why is the EROI important ? Well, one needs to put it into context. Our modern society evolved around the use of coal and later oil as sources of energy. Our present society would be unimaginable without them. The fallacy thrown around by wind lobbyists (and that of many other renewables) is that wind energy is comparable with fossil fuels. You can't build a modern grid from the bottom up with wind energy. Just ask our 18th and 19th Century ancestors. But you can build a modern grid around fossil fuels and then integrate other less reliable sources into it, but always at an additional cost to the consumer. The fossil fuel plants still have to kept running and open for business.

As Charles A.S. Hall explains :

The importance of EROI is far more than simply whether it is positive or negative. Several of the participants in the current debate about corn-derived ethanol believe that corn-based ethanol has an EROI of less than 1:1, while others argue that ethanol from corn shows a clear energy surplus, with from 1.2 to 1.6 units of energy delivered for each unit invested. But this argument misses a very important issue. Think of a society dependent upon one resource: oil. If the EROI for this oil was 1.1:1 then one could pump the oil out of the ground and look at it and that’s it. It would be an energy loss to do anything else with it. If it were 1.2:1 you could refine it into diesel fuel, and at 1.3:1you could distribute it to where you want to use it. If you actually want to run a truck with it, you must have an EROI ratio of at least 3:1 (at the wellhead) to build and maintain the truck, as well as the necessary roads and bridges (including depreciation). If additionally you wanted to put something in the truck and deliver it, that would require an EROI of, say, 5:1.

Now say you wanted to include depreciation on the oil field worker, the refinery worker, the truck driver, and the farmer; you would need an EROI of 7:1 or 8:1. If their children were to be educated you would need perhaps 9:1 or 10:1, to have health care 12:1, to have arts in their lives maybe 14:1, and so on. Obviously to have a modern civilization one needs not just surplus energy, but lots of it—and that requires either a high EROI or a massive source of moderate-EROI fuels. If these are not available, the remaining
low-EROI energy will be prioritized for growing food and supporting families.

And to get to the stage where activist groups like Greenpeace can fly a bunch of unemployed people to Lima on a jet plane to desecrate an ancient structure in a protest against fossil fuels, you probably need something like an EROI of 20:1. And that's the trouble with fuel sources with such high EROI - it leads to large levels of waste. And the plans for large scale wind farms, storage units, pylons and interconnectors (all require significant use of fossil fuels and rare earths) are now becoming just that - wasteful projects.

What the green organisations don't tell you is that if their plans come to fruition, and oil and coal is kept in the ground, some very tough choices will need to be made about division of resources. Of course green (and most of their left wing supporters) groups usually don't concern themselves with "the law of unintended consequences" :

If the energy and hence economic pie is no longer getting larger—indeed, if because of geological constraintsit can no longer get larger—how will we slice it? This may force some ugly debates back into the public vision.If EROI continues to decline then it will cut increasingly into discretionary spending (the engine for economic growth) and we will need to ask some very hard questions about how we should spend our money.

A problem with substitutes to fossil fuels is that, of the alternatives currently available, none appear to have all the desirable traits of fossil fuels, especially liquids.These include sufficient energy density, easy transport-ability, relatively low environmental impact per net unit delivered to society, relatively high EROI, and availability on a scale that society presently demands. Thus it would seem that the United States and the rest of theworld are likely facing a decline in both the quantity and EROI of its principal fuels. How we adjust to this will be a critical determinant of our future.

Google engineers, once very pro-renewables, are only now beginning to realize the folly of investing large amounts of money and resources into renewables (full article here) :

At the start...we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope ...Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.

So the question is how long will it take for governments to realize their mistake or will they carry on spending citizen's money on wasteful projects ? It is estimated that 500 billion dollars has been invested in capital costs alone in European renewable projects - a lot of money that could have been invested in genuine environmental causes, education and health.

Based on this US comparative pricing, the major Nations in Europe have expended of the order of about $0.5trillion on Renewable Energy installations to generate an amount of electrical energy that could have been provided by conventional sources for about 16th of the capital cost. This 16th of the cost also represents an estimate of the approximate cost of the spinning reserve needed to support the Renewable Energy Technologies as they are intermittent and non-dispatchable (link) .