Reply #42: Your post #3 is not a rebuttal

[Nederland]

The paper in your link derives its conclusion from simulations:

A conservative example serves to illustrate the fuel- consumption and emissions impacts stemming from wind’s regulation requirements. Compare three situations: 1) a block of energy is provided by fossil-fueled plants; 2) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that require no incremental reserves; and 3) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that do have incremental reserve requirements. It is assumed that the average fleet fossil-fuel efficiency is unchanged between situations one and two. This might not be precisely correct, but a sophisticated operational simulation is required to address this issue quantitatively. In fact, this has been done in several studies, which bear out the general conclusions reached in this simple example.

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf


In contrast, the studies referred to in the OP are an analysis of actual utility data:

After skepticism was expressed by technical analysts in the US, the UK, Denmark, the Netherlands, etc., about claims regarding CO2 reductions due to wind energy during past years, the reductions have finally been more accurately quantified as a result of two studies based on measured operations data of the grids in Colorado, Texas and Ireland, all with significant wind energy penetration."

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29


As usual, you prefer the results of a simulation to reality because it conforms to your beliefs.