NY TIMES GETS WIND FACTS WRONG

The New York Times gets it wrong on wind report
Chris Madison, 22 January 2010 (Into The Wind via the American Wind Energy Association)

"…This week the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), an institution funded by the U.S. Department of Energy, issued a comprehensive report assessing the feasibility of substantially increasing the use of wind energy in an area known as the Eastern Interconnection…a wide area of the northeastern United States…

"It’s a crucial question because states in the Midwest and Northeast [will likely follow the lead]…[and the] NREL study is a big deal because the complex network of utilities, power generators and transmission lines has been built over many years, and its operations can only be changed if it can be shown to be economical and cost-effective."

click to enlarge

"NREL took on the task of measuring whether it would be possible to generate 20% or even 30% of electricity needs using wind in the Eastern interconnection. The chief conclusions [were]…[1] The integration of 20 percent wind energy is technically feasible, but will require significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure and system operational changes in…[2] Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment of wind generation would be required…[3] The relative cost of aggressively expanding the existing transmission grid represents only a small portion of the total annualized costs…[4] Drawing wind energy from a larger geographic area makes it both less expensive and a more reliable energy source…[It] makes the aggregated wind power output more predictable and less variable…[5] Wind energy development is a highly cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions…[6] Carbon emissions are reduced by similar amounts in all scenarios, indicating that transmission helps to optimize the electrical system and does not result in coal power being shipped from the Midwest to New England States…[7] Reduced fossil fuel expenditures more than pay for the increased costs of additional transmission…

"…[S]omehow the New York Times…wrote: 'Regardless of where the windmills are built, the projected global warming benefits are modest: a drop of about 4.5 percent in emissions, at best. If no additional wind machines are built, carbon emissions will rise...And [wind] would have only a modest impact on cutting emissions linked to global warming, the study found.'"

click to enlarge

"These sentences misleadingly claim that wind would only reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 5%. In fact, emissions would have been 28.5% higher in 2024 if today’s generation mix (about 2% wind) were used to meet growing electric demand, while achieving 20% wind can turn that massive 28.5% emissions increase into a 5% emissions reduction…[C]arbon emissions would be reduced 25.5% in the 20% wind scenario and a whopping 37% in the 30% wind scenario…[and contradictory to what the Times wrote]…the study found that coal generation declined by around 23% from the business-as-usual case to the 20% wind case, and by 35% in the 30% wind case…

"The Times also said the transmission expansion necessary to meet the increased 20% wind scenario 'would require spending about $93 billion in today’s dollars.' True, but as NREL noted in releasing the report, 'Reduced fossil fuel expenditures more than pay for the increased costs of additional transmission in all high wind scenarios.' In other words, the net economic cost, which is more relevant in terms of the economy and consumers, is zero, not $93 billion…[Perhaps most importantly, contrary to a Times claim, the] NREL study found that when wind turbines are spread out over a large area, the majority of the energy they produce can in fact be counted on to provide capacity…[and] grid operators across the country already count on wind turbines to provide capacity, and dozens of peer-reviewed studies in the U.S. and Europe have already established the fact that wind turbines provide significant capacity value."