The AWEA Blog: Into the Wind


Mythbusting fact: Wind power is valuable even if the wind doesn't blow all the time

Posted: 2011-04-20 Tom Gray

A common fallacy promoted by anti-wind groups is that because wind cannot replace fueled power plants (they're needed when the wind doesn't blow), wind power has no value.

Setting aside for the moment the fact that no power plant runs 100% of the time, here's a simple way of looking at the question:

Suppose you drive to work, five days a week, and you decide to buy a bicycle and bike to work when the weather permits, which turns out to be 3-4 days a week much of the year.  But, you still need a car, because some days the weather is bad.  Does your bike have no value?

Well, of course not:

  • Your gasoline payments have suddenly dropped by 50% or so (whoa, it's almost as if you're getting 50 miles a gallon, instead of 25 mpg, for the same number of miles traveled).
  • You're getting more exercise and becoming healthier--probably saving some additional money on health care, in the longer term.
  • Your car is getting less wear and tear and will likely last quite a bit longer.
  • You're generating less air pollution per mile traveled, which is better for public health and also the environment.


This is a pretty close analogy to adding wind power to the electric utility system. Yes, fueled power plants are still needed, because sometimes the wind does not blow. But those same power plants, like your car, will run much less and use much less fuel whenever the wind is blowing. Further:

  • More money will be paid to farmers and ranchers who host wind turbines on their property (the "rent" for hosting a wind turbine amounts to $3,000 to $7,000 per year or more).
  • Less water will be used.  Thermal power plants--coal, nuclear, and natural gas--use an average of half a gallon of water for each kilowatt-hour of electricity generated, which means that roughly 5,500 gallons of water are consumed every year to produce the electricity used by an average American home. Wind uses virtually no water.
  • Less air pollution, water pollution, and hazardous waste will be produced.
  • Less mining and drilling for fuel will be needed.
  • Less transportation of fuel will be needed (a secondary energy savings).


The bottom line?  Even if the wind doesn't always blow, wind power is an energy source that makes perfect sense in a nation that is still getting 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels.
 


10 responses

  1. Energy Expert April 23, 2011 03:48AM
    So much to say, so little space. I am a big believer in analogies, but to be meaningful they need to be accurate. A few other details should be added to the analogy to make it more of a real-world parallel: 1 - the bike costs $30,000 (i.e. more than the car). 2 - the distance to work is 10 miles. 3 - the government mandates that you MUST use the bike 3 days a week. 4 - you have no choice as to when you use the bike. Every day before you go to work you get an email saying whether today is a required bike day or not (rain, shine or snow). 5 - you are no longer able to schedule meeting with clients due to your restricted transportation on these three random days a week, so your business substantially suffers. Etc., etc. For a scientific perspective on wind energy see EnergyPresentation.Info
  2. John Facts April 22, 2011 12:08PM
    Besides that wind power saves fossil fuel and water in hydro reservoirs ( reut.rs/gpzZX0 ). And besides that hydro power can be increased without having to build new dams. (Switzerland is 240 times smaller than the US is currently increasing hydro capacity by 3.2 GW without flooding any new valleys. Not to store renewable power, but because trading electricity with neighboring countries is good for business) And besides that North America already has 175 GW ( bit.ly/eFIUx7 ). ( The US imports oil from Canada and Mexico why shouldn’t the US export surplus Wind power to Canada and Mexico? Is an increasing dependence on imported resources and a continuously value losing currency the better option? ) And besides that interconnected wind farms provide baseload ( bit.ly/4rsozo ). And besides that the US already has over 600 GW flexible power capacity installed ( 1.usa.gov/g2crIL ). (Max combined US wind power generation is probably less than 30 GW - Spanish wind farms never reach 70% of their nameplate capacity combined ). (The US does definitely not need to increase the already existing flexible capacity.) And besides that more subsidies go to fossil fuels and nuclear than to all renewable options combined ( bloom.bg/9mus7t , bit.ly/9H16Ok ). Fact is that significantly more energy is needed for heating, hot water and cooling than direct electric energy and heat energy can be stored cheaply (in fact France stores nuclear energy in millions of hot water tanks every single night). In order to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, hot water and heat generation will eventually need to be electrified (e.g. heat pumps), which will significantly increase the flexibility of the grid. (In fact this house stores the hot water collected on the roof during the summer month to heat and provide hot water for the building during the entire winter: bit.ly/dLSrzK But this enormous storage capacity would of course never be necessary with a renewable grid and heat pumps, because there are no dead calm periods which last 6 months.)
  3. Rosa G. April 22, 2011 10:39AM
    That is indeed the case as long as wind is only a few percentage points of the load. And, it would seem, that describes my analogy. Once wind becomes a significant part of the grid, however, new backup is required, or, as more often seems to be the case, new connections with other grids are pursued to spread out the effect of wind.
  4. Tom Gray April 22, 2011 07:33AM
    Here is a very specific quote from the Power Engineering article on Wind Power Myths Debunked (which was authored by a number of leading experts on utility system integration): "In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load. “Backup” generating plants dedicated to wind plants—or to any other generation plant or load for that matter—are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources."
  5. Tom Gray April 22, 2011 07:28AM
    No, that wouldn't be the more accurate analogy, as our fact sheet on Backup Power and Emissions explains in copious detail. This issue is also dealt with in the Wind Power Myths Debunked that appeared in Power Engineering magazine, which is the magazine of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers' (IEEE) Power Engineering Society. Here are the citations again: Backup Power, and Emissions, fact sheet, http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=4127 (why the myth that wind power needs large amounts of backup power is false); Wind Power Myths Debunked, article by Milligan et al from Power Engineering magazine, http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf (discusses in detail the integration of variable wind energy with electric utility systems)
  6. Rosa G. April 21, 2011 07:44AM
    What if, when you use the bike, you have your spouse drive behind you in case the weather changes? That might be the more accurate analogy.
  7. Paul Hughes April 20, 2011 06:46PM
    You all are ignoring the facts that we are running out of fossil fuels faster than predicted 5 years ago and the more we burn the more damnage to our planetet we do nad that translates to huge costs..Simpley stated.eventually we will run out of Fossil fuels. So then the choice is when to start the build out of renewables. Right now it is relatively chep. The longer we wait the more costly it gets and the more likely that it will become more difficult. BTW have you guys checked out the Chinesse investment numbers in RE...their new investment in Australia...they are interested in covering the world with this stuff and making a hefty profit at it, NOW....Well Maybe you all are much smarter than they are. I hope so.
  8. Tom Gray April 20, 2011 02:30PM
    For readers who may wish to pursue these subjects further, AWEA has the following resources available: Wind, Backup Power, and Emissions, fact sheet, http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=4127 (why the myth that wind power needs large amounts of backup power is false); Wind Power Myths Debunked, article by Milligan et al from Power Engineering magazine, http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf (discusses in detail the integration of variable wind energy with electric utility systems); Wind Energy and Energy Subsidies, fact sheet, http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=4131 (compares incentives for wind with those for fossil fuels); The Hidden Costs of Energy: National Academy of Sciences, fact sheet, http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=4135 (the NAS study analyzes costs of fossil fuels, in particular their effects on human health, that are not reflected in their market price and thus amount to a very large hidden subsidy).
  9. Eric S. April 20, 2011 01:00PM
    Alvn, you're ignoring facts. 1) All forms of electricity generation receive tax subsidies. Fossil fuel fired generators get their subsidies in their fuel supply. Renewables get it at the generator. 2) This constant backup argument is incorrect. First, there are always reserves (your "constant backup") in all power systems because all power plants and transmission lines can (and do) spontaneously fail, often without any warning. Recall Fukushima. Second, these reserves cover all power plants, including your "unreliable wind." The amount of reserves are determined by an engineering analysis using probability and reliability standards. Third, at some point with lots of renewables you may need to carry more reserves, but it is never even close to 100% of the renewables output capacity for any large networked power system. Fourth, by the laws of the thermodynamics even if you kept 10 MW natural gas plant on spinning reserve putting no power into the system to "backup" your wind plant generating 10 MW you still get a reduction in GHG emissions. If you don't see that a 10 MW gas plant on spinning reserve putting 0 MW of power into the grid generates less emissions then a 10 MW gas plant generating 10 MW of power for the grid then I refer you to a thermodynamics textbook. Putting this all together your emissions savings even with your ridiculous 100% backup argument would still save you the difference between the emissions of a gas plant at 10 MW full output and 0 MW output but spinning online. There's roles for all forms of generation in modern power systems, but let's avoid using specious technical arguments to mask the fundamental market competition between all the generators in a power market that isn't even close to a free market with layers of incentives and subsidies for ALL forms of generation.
  10. Alvn Newlin April 20, 2011 11:05AM
    You are ignoring the facts which prove that having wind generation actually increases the fossil fuel consumption, and that the farmers and land owners are the only people benefitting because they get subsidies from the American taxpayers. Why not let everyone know that other generation sources are needed as constant backup to the extremely unreliable wind generation. Why not inform the public that the only reason it is a win win for you is that you recieve tons of subsidies to promote your green agenda, even though it may very well be a total waste of time and money for everyone involved except the people who recieve the taxpayer subsidies. You guys are promoting this like it actually works, why not publish the truth from actual operations and wind farms with real numbers instead of just generalities.

Please Enter Comments