Resource Library Category: Europe (20 items)
Documents presented here are not the product of nor are they necessarily endorsed by National Wind Watch. This resource library is provided to assist anyone wishing to research the issue of industrial wind power and the impacts of its development. The information should be evaluated by each reader to come to their own conclusions about the many areas of debate.
Wind and gas: Back-up or back-out – “That is the question”
Source: Méray, Nora
The focus of this study is to explore the effect that the deployment of a large share of wind energy has on the Northwest European power generation mix in the current market circumstances. The starting point of the study is that wind power is added to the power generation system with the aim to reduce CO2 emissions. Several other studies, papers and reports have been published on this subject which underline the complexity of the issue. Facts, projections and speculations from these studies have been assembled and analysed to give an as objective as possible overview on the foreseen effects of an increasing share of wind energy. As such, the study aims to give general insight in what would happen to the power mix if more wind energy were to be introduced, what the contribution to CO2 emissions reduction would be, and the potential role of natural gas and other fuels in handling long periods (> 4 hours) of low wind supply. The goal has not been to deliver an all-encompassing literature study, nor to calculate every scenario we could envisage, but rather to unravel some of the complexities related to back- up capacity required in an electricity system with a large share of variable power. …
Conclusion
Wind power has a low capacity credit (in NW Europe). This means that wind power does not significantly replace other generating capacity; alternative power sources need to be in place, together with new installed wind capacity for at least 80% of installed wind capacity, to ensure that there is sufficient back-up to meet market demand at times of reduced wind power supply. Most of this will have to come from conventional power plants. If hydro capacity from Norway is available, this back-up capacity could be reduced to approximately 70%.
Wind capacity will thus essentially be “surplus” to the necessary dispatchable system capacity, and thus costs of wind capacity will essentially come on top of the costs of the base conventionalcapacity. The extra costs of wind capacity can be reduced or compensated by the abated fuel and carbon costs from conventional generation.
The effectiveness of wind power to reduce CO2 emissions is directly related to the level of CO2 prices. In today’s energy market with low CO2 prices, new installed wind power tends primarily to replace gas-fired power, resulting in limited CO2 reduction, and thus becomes an expensive and less effective way of reducing CO2 emissions. …
Clingendael International Energy Programme
December 2011
Download original document: ‘Wind and gas: Back-up or back-out – “That is the question”’
Electricity costs: The folly of wind-power
Source: Lea, Ruth
Wind-power: inordinately expensive and ineffective at cutting CO2 emissions
The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government’s approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.
Electricity Costs: the folly of wind-power, by economist Ruth Lea, uses Government-commissioned estimates of the costs of electricity generation in the UK to calculate the most cost-effective technologies. When all costs are included, gas-fired power is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity in the short-term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium-term.
All that wind takes a lot of gas
Wind-power is acknowledged to cost more than traditional fossil fuel power stations. But estimates from Government-commissioned reports suggest that, when the cost of CO2 emissions is included, onshore wind-power becomes one of the more cost-effective means of generating electricity. Offshore wind does not however. [See p. 12 - p. 23] Unfortunately, these estimates fail to factor in all the costs of wind-power. These costs are due to the fact that energy output from wind is unpredictable and rarely occurs in areas of most demand:
… wind-power is unreliable and requires conventional back-up generating capacity when wind speeds are, for example, very low or rapidly varying … [p. 14]
This means that wind farms need to be supported by conventional capacity including gas-fired power stations that can be switched on whenever the available wind fails to match demand for electricity. Lea cites research by Colin Gibson, former Power Network Director at the National Grid Group, who has produced some of the most comprehensive estimates for these ‘add-on costs’.
When these add-on costs are included, the resultant levelised generating costs (£ per megawatt hour) for the main electricity generating technologies are, for medium-term projects:
- Nuclear pressurised water reactors (PWR): £67.8 per MWh.
- Gas-fired combined-cycle gas turbines (CCGT): £96.5 per MWh.
- Gas CCGT with carbon capture and storage (CCS): £102.6 per MWh.
- Coal (ASC) with CCS: £111.9 per MWh.
- Advanced supercritical (ASC) coal-fired power plants: £133.2 per MWh.
- Onshore wind: £146.3 per MWh (including ‘add-on costs’ of £60 per MWh).
- Offshore wind: £179.4 per MWh (including ‘add-on costs’ of £67 per MWh).
(Note: one megawatt hour can run approximately 1000 desktop computers for 8 hours)
The most cost-effective technologies are nuclear and gas-fired. Onshore, and especially offshore, wind technologies are inordinately expensive.
Pumping out more CO2
Besides the prohibitive costs, the report shows that wind-power, backed by conventional gas-fired generation, can emit more CO2 than the most efficient gas turbines running alone:
In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [p. 30]
This means that the cost of having wind is not just carried by consumers but by the environment as well.
Caught in a cross-wind
The report explains how two competing environmental policies have generated a perverse set of priorities. The renewables targets have forced the energy sector to focus on more expensive, less reliable power sources, rather than those most likely to reduce emissions while keeping costs to the rest of economy competitive:
- The Climate Change Act 2008 requires that Britain’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions be cut by 80 per cent by 2050 compared with the 1990 level and by 34% by around 2020.
- The EU’s Renewables Directive (2009) commits the UK to sourcing 15% of final energy consumption (FEC) from renewables by 2020. Renewable energy sources include wind, hydro and biomass, but not nuclear power. [pp. 4-5]
This means that UK legislation separately specifies an outcome (reduced CO2 emissions) and a process, more renewable energy.
The outcome itself is substantial and threatens many Britons’ standard of life and employment prospects if not achieved efficiently:
… consultants Redpoint Energy point out “… meeting these targets will mean a radical change in the way the UK produces and consumes energy over the coming decades.” [p. 4]
Unfortunately, the legislated process is ineffective at reaching its supposed outcome. The result of forcing unreliable renewables on the energy sector is higher costs to consumers as well as more CO2 emissions than are necessary for maintaining the electricity grid.
One outcome of this micro-managed approach is that commercial and public sector energy users are, paradoxically, charged under the Climate Change Levy for their use of electricity generated by nuclear power stations (nuclear plants emit no CO2 after construction). The CCL is designed to encourage greater use of renewable energy sources even though wind-power can result in higher CO2 emissions than efficient gas turbines. [pp. 6-7]
The report concludes:
[Wind-power] is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions. The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU. [p. 30]
For more information contact:
Ruth Lea, Director of the Manufacturing Renewal Project, 0207 799 6677
Civitas on 0207 799 6677
Notes
i. Ruth Lea is Director of the Manufacturing Renewal Project at Civitas and an economic adviser to the Arbuthnot Banking Group.
ii. Electricity Costs: The folly of wind-power is available to download here.
iii. Civitas is an independent social policy think tank. It has no links to any political party and its research programme receives no state funding.
Download original document: “Electricity costs: The folly of wind-power”
Wind Turbines and Proximity to Homes: The Impact of Wind Turbine Noise on Health
A review of the literature & discussion of the issues ~~
This paper addresses not only the issues of wind energy policy where it violates the basic living environment of families and the adverse health effects ofwind turbine noise, but also assesses the considerable number of anecdotal reports from people living with wind turbine noise. As noted in the authors’ 2007 paper, although there are many who dismiss anecdotal reports as inconsequential or meaningless, these reports are from real people, living with real problems, often with no recourse: they put ‘the human face on science’. The authors also examine how this translates into a human rights issue, as government policy assigns more credibility to acousticians’ reports than to medical evidence, and assigns more importance to renewable energy policy than to the individual lives injured by that policy.
The paper begins with a review of the acoustic impact of wind turbine noise reported by families and communities in the UK as well as similar cases in Japan, Australasia, the United States, Canada, and throughout Europe. This first chapter collates and details some of the evidence of recent reported cases and the extent of discomfort, distress, and health problems suffered by those families with prolonged exposure to wind turbine noise.
Chapter 2 examines the views of leading acoustic experts on the reasons that the acoustic ‘bombardment’ impacts people physically. This chapter also reviews the problems and complexities in interpreting the UK ETSU-R-97 guidance and subsequent apparent difficulty enforcing noise conditions that emerge from ETSU.
Chapter 3 discusses peer-reviewed medical research and reports from internationally recognised authorities, e.g., the World Health Organization, supporting the anecdotal evidence of health problems experienced by families living near wind turbines; these families endure the pulsating noise as well as prolonged exposure. There is also a growing body of evidence-based research substantiating the adverse health impacts of environmental noise pollution, particularly with extended exposure, of which wind turbine noise is an example.
As with many public health issues, the problems with wind turbine noise started with anecdotal reports where turbines were built too close to homes. These complaints emerged in a scattered pattern, because often the people affected did not associate the sudden onset of their sleep disturbances, headaches, or inability to concentrate with the noise. Most people were confident when told by the wind energy companies and their local officials that wind turbines were not intrusive, that the noise produced is easily masked by background noise, and that the noise compared favourably with familiar sounds, e.g., a home fridge, or a quiet conversation in the library. Initially, each affected person thought his or her new symptoms were unique.
As more complaints emerged from those who lived near newly operational wind turbine sites, and those who pinpointed the start of their newly identified health problems with the movement of the blades, some of those affected — and a few health professionals — suspected that the source of their problems might be associated with the noise generated by the wind turbines. This association seemed more likely because the victims’ symptoms were relieved when they were away from their homes or farms. Moreover, the symptoms recurred once they returned home. These patterns emerged only over time, and across many wind turbine areas, internationally. Chapter 3 also reviews several pilot studies conducted by physicians in order to assess the anecdotal reports of health effects from those living near wind turbines.
Chapter 4 considers basic international human rights, apparently sidestepped by Britain, as its environmental policy appears to assign greater priority to the protection of landscape, bats, dormice, and water voles (though the authors certainly applaud those efforts). The State appears to accord more importance to, and enforces with more stringency, those issues to the detriment of policy that protects the health and dignity of families. As a result, in their ambition to achieve renewable energy targets, public officials authorise what amounts to the degrading and inhuman treatment of families.
The influential wind energy industry and its lobbyists, public agencies, environmental organisations, and many media sources often employ pejorative labels, such as NIMBY – Not In My Backyard, to decry or stigmatise those who complain, as insensitive to environmental pollution and global warming, in order to dismiss these anecdotal reports. Yet, it is essential to remember that many of those affected by wind turbine noise were those same people who welcomed the wind turbine schemes and were skeptical of those who complained about potential or actual noise interference. Many early wind turbine noise studies focused on annoyance and identified sleep disturbance as a frequent problem, but these studies did not collect data on health effects. Public health problems often evolve gradually and become more evident only with the passage of time as more people are affected (duration of exposure).
UK government renewable energy policy has focused more on expanding the role of industrial wind turbines rather than ensuring the protection of the health of those exposed to wind turbine noise, i.e., the protection of the public’s health. Thus, the voices of those affected by wind turbine noise have grown more insistent as more wind turbine sites are located near homes and villages. The solution has always seemed transparently straightforward: locate wind turbines further from homes and other sensitive structures. Of course, one must then determine the optimum distance, and there lies the rub, with industry pushing for minimal distances, while many others seek a more precautionary stance, in an effort to protect health, well-being, dignity, and quality of life.
Wind turbine noise is a form of and another cause of environmental noise pollution. Recent studies, both medical and acoustic, offer data to assist with the decision on where to site and how to design wind turbine arrays. Notably, wind energy developers often assert that there are virtually no studies on wind turbine noise and no evidence of its ill effects. However, there are not only studies specifically on the adverse effects of wind turbine noise, there are also studies on noise with similar or shared acoustic characteristics. Wind turbine noise is especially complicated because of the ‘cocktail’ of physical acoustic characters that comprise the noise pollution. The pulsating noise, characteristic of wind turbines, can be more intrusive than other types of noise, and the pulsations include both audible and inaudible components, i.e., low frequency noise, infrasound, and vibration. Noise with these characteristics is more intrusive, and the World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend lowering the permissible decibel levels when noise contains these characteristics. WHO makes these recommendations not merely to reduce annoyance or nuisance. WHO makes these recommendations because epidemiological studies indicate clearly that environmental noise is prejudicial and injurious to health. [WHO 1999, 2010, 2011]
WHO’s impartial reports are particularly compelling because they undergo periodic review and updating by its international panel of experts from diverse, related fields. Moreover, the panel’s findings and reports undergo a process of stringent review internally amongst the panelists, as well as externally, by reviewers not on the panel. Most recently WHO issued Night Noise Guidelines for Europe 2009, and the Burden of Disease from Environmental Noise 2011, which, with EU directives and guidelines on noise, offer policy-makers and other invested parties with descriptions of how health is adversely affected by noise, as well as with methodologies to ameliorate or to prevent injury to health from environmental noise.
Those affected by wind turbine noise could be your relatives, friends, neighbours, and even — at some point — you. Often these are people who know austerity intimately, who understand the dilemma of balancing environmental issues such as energy supply and global warming with current policy and future demands. Instead, they are marginalised and made to feel doltish and selfish. They also feel disenfranchised and abandoned by those in whom they have placed their trust. This cynicism is not unfounded, as many are left financially impoverished as they seek advice and support in order to make their voices heard. The issue of wind turbine noise is about real people, who are genuinely suffering degrading and inhuman treatment.
Planning for industrial estates near dwellings is more restrictive on noise control, with those facilities rarely operating daily, 24/7, than the noise controls on wind turbines. Selecting a minimum distance of 2km as a buffer between homes and the placement of a wind turbine — though an even greater distance may be required — is not excessive when the lives and well-being of those affected are taken into account. There is still ample opportunity for developers to site their schemes more appropriately and for government to redress errors in policy that allow these untoward, unpredictable, and unacceptable effects.
Barbara J Frey, BA, MA (University of Minnesota)
Peter J Hadden, BSc (Est Man), FRICS
January 2012
Letter from Vestas worried about regulation of low-frequency noise
Source: Engel, Ditlev
Dear Karen Ellemann,*
Following previous correspondence, I am writing this letter to express my concern regarding the limits for low frequency noise from wind turbines now being proposed.
Back in January 2011 we applauded your announcement of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise and the fact that you also then emphasised that those regulations would not be tightened and that it was a question of improving the security in connection with the installation of wind turbines. Accordingly, the reaction from the industry branch back in January 2011 was positive, although as an industry we were uneasy about having heavier demands imposed on us than other industries.
When the new regulations were then published on 26.05.2011, we were of course convinced of your initial point of view. As a result, we were extremely surprised to find that the proposed new regulations do in fact include a significant and severe tightening of the previous noise regulations.
In fact, according to our analyses, the most economical turbines, the 3 MW category, are the ones that will be strongly affected by the new rules. This applies to open terrain in particular, where in future low frequency noise will dictate and increase the distance requirements to neighbours for close to half of the projects that we are already aware of over the next 2 to 3 years.
In a small country such as Denmark this means that a significant number of projects will not be viable as the increased distance requirements cannot be met whilst maintaining a satisfactory business outcome for the investor.
The Danish market for wind turbines is of minor importance for Vestas in terms of sales, typically less than 1% of our sales per year. However, the Danish market provides a number of other functions for Vestas which are of considerable value from a business point of view. By means of its high wind penetration, 24% in 2010 – still a world record – Denmark has a role as a forerunner country and a full scale laboratory for conversion to renewable energy.
This means that other countries often look to Denmark when adjusting their legislation regarding wind energy. We are therefore concerned – justifiably so as history shows – that the proposed Danish regulations for low frequency noise from wind turbines will spread to a large number of other markets with much higher commercial impact for Vestas and consequently for employment in the business.
The Danish wind turbine industry employs approx. 25,000 people in Denmark and boasts an export which is about 8.5% of total Danish exports. Such “over-proportional” presence has become possible because Denmark has been able to create the conditions for good correlation between demonstration, education and industry research and development. In reality we fear that the demonstration element will suffer irreparable damage as a result of the new regulations regarding low frequency noise. When combined with the imminent danger that important markets will copy the new Danish regulations, I consider the new regulations to be extremely damaging to the prospects of further popularisation of land-based wind energy.
At this point you may have asked yourself why it is that Vestas does not just make changes to the wind turbines so that they produce less noise? The simple answer is that at the moment it is not technically possible to do so, and it requires time and resources because presently we are at the forefront of what is technically possible for our large wind turbines, and they are the most efficient of all.
In the light of this it seems strange that the wind turbine industry is being discriminated against compared to other industries. All other industries are subject to differential noise requirements regarding low frequency noise for night and day (20, respectively 25 dB), whereas the wind turbine industry are subject to requirements of 20 dB 24 hours a day.
The proposed low frequency limit values may hinder the development of onshore wind in Denmark, including meeting our commitments in relation to the EEC. Ultimately, we consider there is a danger that the regulations will be copied by other countries and accordingly this will provide an obstacle to the popularisation of wind energy at a global level. Both issues will damage Vestas as a business, including affecting Danish activities.
Yours sincerely,
Vestas Wind Systems A/S
[Signature]
Ditlev Engel
Chief Executive Officer
Alsvej 21, DK-8940
Dir. +45 9730 0000, www.vestas. com
A copy of this letter was sent to Lykke Friis, Minister for Climate and Energy
*Karen Ellemann, Minister of Environment
Department of Environment
Højbro Plads 4
1200 Copenhagen K
Randers, 29 June 2011/erlgs
Translated from Danish by Bente H. Sorensen, Translationz.com.au
[See Danish news story about subsequent lax rules: Miljøstyrelsen anklages for at fifle med vindmøllestøj]
