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

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 ]