The fossil fuel lobby continues its widely discredited misinformation campaign against wind energy, which in its latest form attempts to use false and misleading claims about Denmark’s experience.

In its latest salvo on the topic of Denmark, the fossil fuel lobby front group Institute for Energy Research does get one thing right when they note, "As the Danish wind study shows, Denmark’s situation is substantially different from the situation in the United States."

We couldn't agree more. Integrating wind energy onto the U.S. electric grid will be far easier and offset far more carbon emissions, given the superiority and greater diversity of our wind energy resources, the fact that our electricity mix is much more heavily dominated by fossil fuels, and the additional flexibility that comes with having a power system 100 times larger than Denmark’s. Unfortunately, IER’s other claims about wind energy in Denmark are still dead wrong, as we illustrate in a point-by-point refutation.

The fact that smaller European countries with relatively isolated power systems and less stellar wind resources have successfully obtained large amounts of their electricity from wind energy is a great indicator that obtaining 20% or more of U.S. electricity from wind energy will be even easier. In addition to Denmark –which IER now apparently admits obtains 20% of its electricity from wind energy– Spain obtains 12% of its electricity from wind power, Germany obtains 7%, Portugal 9%, and Ireland 11%.

The example of Ireland is particularly noteworthy, given that recent studies there have concluded that the country can obtain at least 40% of its electricity from wind energy, a remarkable feat for a small island country with only minimal grid ties to surrounding countries. The power system of Spain and Portugal is similarly isolated from the main European power grid, yet grid operators there have had no problems obtaining more than 10% of their electricity from wind.

Spain and Ireland recently set records by obtaining Of course, studies in the U.S. have already verified that high wind penetrations are achievable here. In 2008, the Bush Administration’s Department of Energy released a 200-plus page study concluding that there are no technical barriers to obtaining 20% of America’s electricity from wind energy. Other peer-reviewed studies have examined higher potential wind penetrations in different regions of the U.S. and similarly concluded that they are readily achievable.

To continue with a point-by-point refutation of the false and misleading claims made in the fossil fuel lobby’s latest attempt to bash clean energy:

How wind is integrated into the electric grid in Denmark

Before explaining why IER’s case study of Denmark has no bearing on the U.S., aside from illustrating that wind integration is even easier here, it’s important to correct IER’s false claims about Denmark. In its latest rebuttal, IER makes contradictory claims about how wind energy is used on the power grid in Denmark.

First, IER claims that the share of Denmark’s wind power that is temporarily exported to Scandinavia “directly replaces hydropower in Norway and Sweden, allowing Norwegian and Swedish lakes and reservoirs to retain more water then release the water to produce electricity.”

This is correct, and it is good to see IER acknowledge this important fact that AWEA pointed out in our first rebuttal to the IER report. Unfortunately, IER then conveniently ignores an equally important fact, which is that when this stored water is later released it is used to produce electricity to offset fossil generation, chiefly in Denmark. Thus, IER’s later attempt to claim that electricity exported from Denmark does not reduce carbon emissions is entirely false.

How wind energy is integrated into the electric grid in the U.S.

Of course, as IER itself notes, “Denmark’s situation is substantially different from the situation in the United States,” a fact the report’s author also admitted in a debate with Rob Gramlich, AWEA’s VP for Public Policy, on September 16. The reality is that the U.S. power system creates a far more favorable environment for the integration of wind energy.

For one, wind energy output in the U.S. is much less variable than in Denmark. If the wind slows down in one part of the U.S., it is almost certain to be increasing in another region. The simple fact that the land area of the U.S. is 200 times larger than that of Denmark provides us with a tremendous advantage for the integration of wind energy. In addition, the average wind turbine in the U.S. produces 50% more electricity than the average wind turbine in Denmark, making it even more certain that if the wind slows in one area another region’s wind turbines will be able to make up the difference.

In addition, the U.S. power generation mix is well-suited for wind integration, with a mix of coal (50%), natural gas (20%), and hydroelectric generation (6%). During parts of the year with high wind output, wind energy makes it possible to turn off coal power plants that would have otherwise run, substantially reducing carbon emissions. Our 400,000 MW’s of natural gas power plants, a large share of which can flexibly change their level of output, are ideally suited to accommodate changes in wind output that can occur over the course of a day.

Our almost 100,000 MW of hydroelectric capacity are also available to store extra wind energy during periods of very high output and provide additional flexibility to the power system. Moreover, the demand for electricity in the U.S. is around 100 times greater than in Denmark, providing ample demand for much larger amounts of wind energy as well as a massive yet largely untapped source of demand response resources to help accommodate wind’s variability.

To sum up, we’d have to agree with IER on one point, “Denmark’s situation is substantially different from the situation in the United States.” Since that’s the case, one might wonder why they even bothered paying for this study and an expensive media campaign to attack U.S. wind energy in the first place?

Click here to read more