Instead of
That means that any wind farm which is built, including when penetration will already be quite high, will provide "real" capacity, and real kWh that only very marginally need to be backed up by conventional capacity, as shown from this graph, from a
I should have written:
That means that any wind farm which is built, including when penetration will already be quite high, will provide "real" capacity, and real kWh that only very marginally need to be backed up by conventional generation, as shown from this graph, from a
That was sloppy. But the main point stands: wind can replace conventional kWh, even if it cannot replace conventional MW.
As to the poor owners of the existing capacity, I fail to see where they will lose out. Marginal prices will still be determined by them pretty much all the time, so they will get whatever returns they want to have by bidding appropriately their power on the grid - knowing that lots of cheap wind kWh will be displacing the dispatch curve somewhat. The cheapest conventional will still be around (nuclear), and gas fired plants will be able to sell spinning reserves and peak capacity. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Being able to draw a straight line in a graph doesn't mean that it's actually feasible in reality. And none of your quotes say it is actually feasible because none of them address the > 30% generation scenario.
None of them are concerned with wastage and you never address the issue yourself. See my other comment below.
Quick question: how much wind power capacity would it take to generate 100% of a country's electric production?
If I wanted to, I could take that chart of yours into photoshop and extend the line all the way up to 100% of energy produced. That wouldn't make the chart meaningful since the scenario where wind power generates 100% of all electricity is absurd.
But why is it absurd? Because of wastage. Wastage which the chart you're pointing to blithely ignores. That chart gave you the impression that wastage wouldn't occur at 50% energy production but it would.
The chart lies. It lies by making you think the red line can be extended to 50% without any change in wind power's cost because of wastage.
As for the poor owners of the existing capacity, I don't cry any tears for them because the scenario you outlined, where they were forced to eat losses, is never going to happen. Wind power is never going to be that big a fraction of the energy mix.
Until then, you're just objectively helping the coal industry. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
All the time you spend criticizing what might be an issue with wind generation in 10 or 20 years is time not spent criticising coal. It's a pity.
Also, it's not quite true that wind cannot kill coal. If externalities are properly accounted for (starting with carbon emissions, something now under way) then coal is not very competitive against wind. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Note that beyond the 100 / 50 % divide, there's the fact that wind has to be augmented with hydroelectric dams or gas production. The former is enormously destructive environmentally and the latter is enormously draining economically. So if a country such as Turkey is going to be building 2 nuclear power plants, better it build 4 or 8. Especially since you get further economies of scale the more you build.
As for wind killing coal, that proposition is a little dubious. What advantage does wind have over nuclear? Does construction of a wind farm take less time than a nuclear power plant? Do the environmental studies take less time?
Never mind the fact that global wind turbine production capacity is booked solid for the next several years while nuclear production could be quickly ramped up. Probably because hey, 3x as many turbines.
Nevermind also that offshore wind farms cost much more than onshore ones. Nevermind that siting is much more difficult. Nevermind that the grid connections have to be more sophisticated.
Nevermind also the fact that the people who push windfarms, and photovoltaics, are the same crazy idiots who want to kill nuclear power. That's not you, but it doesn't exactly make me like wind power.
So speaking objectively, and not of smoke and mirrors, what's to like about wind farms?
