No technical limitation to wind power penetration | 48 comments (48 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: No technical limitation to wind power (none / 1)

Your conclusions are fucked Jerome. I read your quotes and they clearly state the exact opposite of what you're trying to conclude.

From your own quotes:

For example, for 8000MW of wind (e.g. in line with Government's 2010 target of 10% renewables), around 3000MW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25000MW of wind only 5000MW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production. It follows that the electricity market will need to maintain in service a larger proportion of conventional generation capacity despite reduced load factors. Such plant is often referred to as "standby plant".

The negligible costs of the former (10% capacity) are of course entirely irrelevant since we already know that you can go up to 20% capacity in Germany.

In order to displace the next 10% block of existing capacity, you have to use more than 3x as many wind turbines as for the first block of capacity.

That's because for the first block, the wind turbines can be used at 37% load factor, while for the second block they can only be used at 12% load factor.

Which means that the price of windpower is tripled.

I do not call these "negligeable" costs and I do not see how you can either. Or how you can mislead by association, implying that since the first block's balancing costs are negligeable then the second block's balancing costs are negligeable.

But more than anything, these are your figures. Your figures which state that wind power triples in cost (for the UK) as you go from 10% of generation to 20% of generation. Wanna bet how much wind power costs in the third block?

We have here a geometric progression. Which makes wind power "fucking useless".

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 10:31:10 AM EST

Did you even read what I wrote? (none / 1)

It does not triple the cost of wind, it triples the capacity that needs to remain in standby, which is not quite the same thing, because that capacity is already here, and it will not need to be used, because the kWh of wind can replace conventional kWh almost one for one (that would be the red line in the graph above).

Capacity and generation are not the same thing, as you well know.

The price that matters is the price per kWh, not per MW.

So the good news is that wind can reach high proportion of generation penetration. So what if we have to keep plenty of (already built) conventional power plants to ensure the safety of the system? They will not pollute and will not emit carbon because they will (almost) not be used.

Ta da!

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 11:03:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you even read what I wrote? (none / 0)

It doubles (I made a mistake, it's not triple) the size and cost of the reserve capacity. Especially spinning reserve capacity. For low wind capacity, that reserve capacity is already there. Which is why balancing costs are cheap for low capacity. For higher capacity, well we just don't know, do we? Nothing you quote and nothing you mention really talks about the structure of existing generation capacity.

Furthermore, what you say in

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

is just screwed up. The graph you refer to doesn't support you, it disproves you. The "real" capacity which a wind turbine provides is the delta in the lower curve (what it displaces). How much backup it requires is the difference between the deltas of the upper and lower curves. Already at 50% of energy production, adding more wind turbines produces no additional "real" capacity (displaces nothing). At that point, wind turbines have to be matched almost 1 to 1 by some backup form of generating capacity.

This is probably the poorest article of yours I've read. The reasoning and argumentation are just that poor. Nothing you say connects, it's all a bunch of meaningless slogans and mumbo jumbo. You usually only do that when you step way out of your field of expertise.

What you say here has at least a semblance of an argument. And that argument, when stated plainly, is "backup capacity for wind power can be had cheaply because the power plants are already build and can't be moved, so we can forcibly appropriate them from their owners for a song".

You're entirely ignoring that their owners might decide to not go along with your snazzy plan by, for example, selling their plants for scrap. You're also ignoring the operations costs of being on standby, which I admit are negligeable compared to fuel costs. And that certain power plants (coal) might not be suitable as backup reserve.

And you're especially ignoring that at the end of the current crop of gas plants' useful life, you're going to have to build a new generation of gas plants to serve as reserve capacity. And YOU will have to pay for them because they will not have been built.

You're trying to justify the cheap cost of backup reserve for renewable generation on the basis of unsustainable market conditions. This is just wrong.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:01:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you even read what I wrote? (none / 0)

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you even read what I wrote? (none / 0)

No, you shouldn't have written that because it's even sloppier. First, it's tautological. And second, the graph doesn't say anything of the kind.

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.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You're funny (3.50 / 1)

Worryign about what happens when wind reaches 50% when we haven't yet gone above 10% is pointless. Let's get to 30% and then your points might have some relevance.

Until then, you're just objectively helping the coal industry.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:42:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You're funny (none / 0)

I could say the same thing about you. Wind power can't kill the coal industry for many reasons. It hasn't got the potential, it hasn't got the political goodwill (from grid operators), and it hasn't got the necessary low cost. Nuclear power has all of those things. So nuclear is the coal-killer and wind power is the distraction saving coal.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 01:01:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Meh (none / 0)

You will note that I never criticize the nuclear industry while pushing wind. Both are needed. Why can't you return the courtesy?

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

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 01:21:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Meh (none / 0)

Because I disagree that "both are needed". Nuclear is needed, wind is optional.

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?

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 02:29:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you even read what I wrote? (none / 0)

Note that none of your snazzy graphs, or any of your quotes, proves that wind generation capacity above 30% average energy production isn't wasted.

As soon as the average wind production (as a fraction of the system's total) exceeds your average load factor, exceptionally windy days will produce more than 100% of needed electricity. At 40% of average energy production, you definitely have some waste. At 50%, you have still more waste.

The balancing costs (demands for backup) produce an S-curve that starts low and hits a high point when you need 1-1 matching of wind with backup.

The waste costs produce a geometrically increasing curve that starts at 0% waste at <average load factor> and increases geometrically as you add wind turbines to the system.

The neat little graph with the red and purple lines doesn't say anything at all about wastage. The fact that something is "technically" possible doesn't say anything about its economics. Especially when you ignore some of the costs.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:21:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you even read what I wrote? (4.00 / 1)

As soon as the average wind production (as a fraction of the system's total) exceeds your average load factor, exceptionally windy days will produce more than 100% of needed electricity. At 40% of average energy production, you definitely have some waste. At 50%, you have still more waste.

One of the authors of the report has provided a separate presentation, which I did not link to (I'll post the link later, I do not have it on this computer) where he suggested to curtail wind power at no more than 50% of total production, in kWh. He showed that even with 40% wind penetration, the number of hours per year when this would eliminate wind production was very low, and with a negligible cost.

In any case, you seem to worry a bit too much about what happens when wind reaches such high penetration. Let's get there first. There are no obstacles, nor costs, to get there, so let's worry about building this, which will have a very real impact on emissions.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:40:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you even read what I wrote? (none / 0)

You have very little ambition.

The carbon dioxide production in industrialized countries needs to be reduced by greater than 90%. Not 50%, greater than 90%.

Producing steel releases CO2 as a byproduct. So does producing copper, silicon, concrete and even aluminum. And aluminum is produced by electrolysis!

If the industrial countries are to reduce their carbon dioxide output while maintaining their industrial production. And if the developing countries are to increase their own productions, it's pretty clear that there can be no allowance made for the energy sector.

The energy sector has to become completely carbon free by 2050. Not "let's dream about 50% some time in the far off future" but "we need to get rid of CO2 right here and now".

Wastage might be tolerable up to 50% of energy production but it increases geometrically as you add capacity. And since there is a non-zero chance that all of a country's windmills cannot spin on a given day, either because of too little wind or too much wind, the waste curve rises to infinity as production approaches 100%. So it's not even geometric, it's worse.

In the big picture, wind power is useless. It is definitely useful for niche applications like pumping water in isolated communities, but not for large scale decarbonization of the energy sector. For the industrial energy grid, wind power is entirely useless and is in any case not as good an option as nuclear power.

We need to push for nuclear power with everything we have because wind power is just not good enough. And because the developing countries will experience a lag. The sooner and more completely Europe switches over to all-nuclear, the less intransigent China and India will be.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 12:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you even read what I wrote? (none / 0)

George Monbiot, the anti-nuclear fanatic says the UK needs to cut CO2 emissions by 87% by 2030. Good luck doing that with wind power.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 01:04:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Walking and chewing gum (none / 0)

Where did you ever see that I wanted to go with wind alone?

I've always stated that we need to pursue all possible solutions, with the following order of priority:

conservation and energy efficiency
wind
nuclear
others

If we go to 30% wind with lower consumption, nuclear can easily cover the gap, with a few gas plants for network stability and peaking needs.

Do remember that I'm in France, so your arguments to do more nuclear sometimes sound silly to me from my EDF-fuelled perspective...

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 01:33:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Walking and chewing gum (none / 0)

You know what's really funny? Richardk's ranking of energy sources (including "negawatts" from conservation) in his diary on implications ot technology matches your ranking.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 01:36:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Almost (none / 0)

Energy

conservation

shifting demand to off-peak hours

nuclear, hydro [update]

wind

oil, gas; the global warming costs of past usage may easily climb into the tens of trillion USD range

coal

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 01:41:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Almost (none / 0)

Where [update] means that wind and nuclear traded places.

"It's the statue, man, The Statue."

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 02:06:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Almost (none / 0)

And conservation isn't monolithic by any means. There's a study on http://nuclearinfo.net about the cost of conservation measures in Australia. The costs of the measures was geometric and only the first block of conservation was cost-effective.

It's odd to think of giant nuclear plants as a tool for the masses. The only thing I can think of to reconcile the two views is that nuclear's non-modularity (you need a half-dozen nuclear plants to get to the cheap rates) adds extra non-monetary costs.

I've learned a great deal about energy production in the last year, since I first made that list.

by richardk (richard kulisz gmail) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 02:15:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I see (none / 0)

sweet

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Jan 29th, 2007 at 04:43:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]