Booker: It Is Wind Power That Will Send Our Bills Sky-High

[easy2012]

Even at 30% or 20% or 10%, you still need 100% dedicated backup for those wind farms for the days it's not windy.

You can't rely on current surplus capacity because that capacity is there for a reason - because it's needed to deal with usage peaks and potential outages. Should it not be windy and you have to use existing surplus to deal with low wind production, then if you have a demand peak or other outage you wont have capacity available and either the frequency will drop below range or you will have to cut off selected areas of the country.

To add to that, We are converting wind (kinetic) energy into electricity and we are not quite sure how this wind capture will affect the availability of wind. Presumably wind captured by Rep Of Ireland, France, Norway/Sweden/Denmark means less wind here too ?

[@contradevian]

same why Germans are replacing nukes in good conditions by brown coal -> politics

there is no point to replace nuclear by wind as the nuclear fuel costs do not effect the price of electricity too much (about 1% of the price only)

German base load cheaper than France over 12 months

http://www.renewablesinternational.net/german-baseload-power-cheaper-than-french-12-months-running/150/537/57302/

The news is especially important because nuclear power, which provides slightly more than 75% of France's power supply, is often held to be an especially inexpensive source of baseload power. Furthermore, opponents of renewables repeatedly voice their concern about the cost impact of green power scaring away industry. But in fact, industry by and large pays rates on the power exchange, which are determined by the most expensive power generator that needs to be ramped up to meet demand, not by the least expensive source. And over the past year in particular, the tremendous growth of photovoltaics in Germany has offset demand for more expensive peak power, thereby bringing down spot market prices.

[Damik]

German base load cheaper than France over 12 months

http://www.renewable.../150/537/57302/

what about these official EU statistics:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

what about these official EU statistics:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Energy_price_statistics

What about them?

[Damik]

What about them?

they show that German electricity is 70% more expensive than the French one. the extra German levies are for the renewables ...

http://www.thegwpf.org/green-energy-levy-rocks-germany-electricity-prices/

Germany’s surcharge for renewable energy will rise by almost half next year, a government source told Reuters on Wednesday, intensifying the burden for consumers from the country’s shift away from nuclear power.

The 47 percent increase reflects the fact that renewable sources are providing increasing amounts of electricity, which is bought from producers at guaranteed prices above market rates.

Coming a year ahead of a federal election in which Chancellor Angela Merkel will seek a third term, the sharp rise in the surcharge is politically charged.

The so-called ‘Umlage’ — charges levied on German consumers to support renewable power — will rise to 5.3 euro cents per kilowatt hour (kWh) in 2013 from 3.6 cents in 2012, the source said.

[gadget]

On a related note:

Is crowd-funding the future for wind farms in the UK?

When two areas in Gloucestershire were approached about plans to build wind turbines within close proximity, one was vehemently opposed, while the other seemed to embrace it as an investment opportunity.

The "olde worlde" charm of St Briavels in the Forest of Dean is popular with tourists. They can even stay in a 13th Century gatehouse, built by Edward I to defend a crossbow bolt factory.

But now there is a new addition to the landscape - a wind turbine local people have helped fund.

It took engineers 24 hours to erect the turbine

The money was raised by green crowd-funding company Abundance Generation, under a scheme in which locals can invest as little as £5 and are promised a return of up to 8% on the investment, depending on how much electricity the turbine generates and sells.

In addition to this, Abundance promises a "community dividend" between £15,000 and £20,000, for use on local projects every year.

....

But just four and a half miles up the B4228 there is a very different story.

A proposed wind turbine in the town of Coleford - put forward by a different company - ran into substantial local opposition. And in April 2012, planning permission was rejected.

David Thomson, a district councillor, voted for the project at St Briavels and against the one at Coleford. He says there was an "extraordinary difference" in the local response.

"In St Briavels there was one person against it and they then withdrew that objection. In Coleford, it's almost impossible to count. If you look on the council website there are pages and pages of letters, plus petitions with hundreds of objections to it."

So, could the answer to wind farm success lie in an innovative approach by developers, aimed at deliberately encouraging local buy-in?

The turbine in Coleford would have been 86m tall, but crucially would have stood in clear view of many houses, on the edge of a golf course.

Alison Breton, the owner of the golf club, was part of the campaign against the turbine and still fears there may be an attempt to challenge the planning decision.

She says she is not against turbines per se, but argues that location is crucial.

Irony: A windmill is vetoed on the edge of what in my mind is one of the worlds ugliest and unnatural man-made environments

[@contradevian]

Just caught something on the local news, about a new incinerator plant and I think would generate energy using the latest "gas plasma" technology(?)

Anyway don't worry. The NIMBY's are blocking it.

[alexw]

Even at 30% or 20% or 10%, you still need 100% dedicated backup for those wind farms for the days it's not windy.

You can't rely on current surplus capacity because that capacity is there for a reason - because it's needed to deal with usage peaks and potential outages. Should it not be windy and you have to use existing surplus to deal with low wind production, then if you have a demand peak or other outage you wont have capacity available and either the frequency will drop below range or you will have to cut off selected areas of the country.

There is no difference between unplanned shutdowns in power stations and a low wind day. Power stations suffer from equipment failures which can take down the power station and several hundred megawatts offline. Individual wind turbines can break but the power loss resulting is absolutely tiny. However they do suffer from low wind days. Thus the analog of equipment failures in normal power stations which require back-up capacity, is for wind power low wind days which similarly require back-up capacity. Thus from a load balancing point of view they are the same.

[fluffy666]

I have to say that I'm getting suspicious of our collection of AGW activists and windfarm promoters.

You should be. Even your cat is one of us.

[alexw]

yes; you need to back-up nuclear power plants for about 10% of their poduction (usually you back-up for 2 largest plants going off same time); wind for about 90/95% of their production

the point is why would you add wind if nuclear is required for base? is not it cheaper just to extend nuclear for additional 20% of production? you need to subsidise windmills, they need interconnectors and they have to be back-ed up for 90/95%; if you take off wind subsidy the wind can not compete with gas/nuclear/coal

so why the extra effort if renewables can be only 20% of the production mix anyway and they are still more expensive ??? it seems it does not solve anything

so much effort and money for 20% of production ... ???

A couple points.

Nuclear power is waayyyy more subsidized than wind. Consider the subsidies the nuclear industry want to build the next generation of nuclear plants. They are talking of costs of £100 per MWh, and this won't included the end decommissioning costs. If we factor those in the end cost will more likely be £150 per MWh. The EU is estimating decommissioning for current reactors to be on average £1 billion per reactor, but given the cost over-runs nuclear typically has you can double that figure. New nuclear power plants will be more complex and thus cost more to decommission. So nuclear as base is certainly not cheaper than wind, also as wind costs continue to fall (in contrast to nuclear) the subsidy disparity will grow.

As for coal and gas there is only one direction their costs will go - up. Coal and gas are non-renewable limited resources. Thus as cheaper supplies are used up we move on to more low grade and harder to extract sources. This means their costs in the medium to long term can only increase. As an example hard data coming in shows fracking needs gas prices of $6-8 per million BTU to be profitable, which is basically 2006-2008 peak prices (as a result the fracking companies in the US are going bust). In contrast wind has only capital costs no energy dense feed stocks. Thus in the medium-long term we will see the costs of wind and conventional power going in opposite directions. But as energy production is a long term process we need to be rolling out that wind now so we develop the long term technology to have £50 per MWh in 20 years (adjusted for inflation) vs £150 per MWh (or higher) gas/coal/nuclear in 20 years (adjusted for inflation).

Edited October 29, 2012 by alexw

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

There is no difference between unplanned shutdowns in power stations and a low wind day.

The difference is you'll suffer wind days several days a month, not several days a year. Eventually a low wind day will combine with high usage and a shutdown and all the lights go out.

The lights going out isn't a minor issue, people will die, business will leave.

[alexw]

The difference is you'll suffer wind days several days a month, not several days a year. Eventually a low wind day will combine with high usage and a shutdown and all the lights go out.

The lights going out isn't a minor issue, people will die, business will leave.

And when a power station goes out it goes out for several weeks or possibly months at a time. See sizewell B. As said there is no difference.

Edited October 29, 2012 by alexw

[alexw]

Just caught something on the local news, about a new incinerator plant and I think would generate energy using the latest "gas plasma" technology(?)

Anyway don't worry. The NIMBY's are blocking it.

"Gas plasma? Isn't that what they used on the starship enterprise? It must be dangerous, lets block it"

[tomandlu]

This all seems remarkably luddite. I mean, we're not talking time-travel, ftl or cold fusion. We're talking about adjusting our energy usage to suit necessarily lower production (surely a good thing in principle?), new engineering techniques, and better energy storage technology. The basics of the latter two are things that we've excelled at throughout civilisation (as in technique and tech).

I mean, at least it's something tangible rather than BTL...

[Goat]

And when a power station goes out it goes out for several weeks or possibly months at a time. See sizewell B. As said there is no difference.

With respect, the chances of all of the nuclear power plants going down at the same time is next to zero; the chance of all of the wind turbines going down at the same time is 100%.

[Goat]

You should be. Even your cat is one of us.

How could you possibly know that?

OMG! Fluffy! When did you learn to type?

[alexw]

With respect, the chances of all of the nuclear power plants going down at the same time is next to zero; the chance of all of the wind turbines going down at the same time is 100%.

What you state simply does not happen. If your really interested read this....

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:zECGO6BmMQAJ:www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden06-windresource.pdf+&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiM3Y1npgg_Bn_HOKqkVv6KNlBy_WbML5xnNzD265ttRxb5oYJv2XwUCCTjD5y8wQsOgsxcI5D87lHjUlqPADTen4lWlvImYwDOvp8Oizs9zeQ_pQSp0kJ1Cqqnnq4OY1gCvoLl&sig=AHIEtbSvMJcE_5oKTfs1t1ugeKg9bFogmA

[jaspers]

On a related note:

Is crowd-funding the future for wind farms in the UK?

Irony: A windmill is vetoed on the edge of what in my mind is one of the worlds ugliest and unnatural man-made environments

That would have been a fantastic opportunity for the worlds largest Crazy Golf course.

Edited October 29, 2012 by jaspers

[Goat]

What you state simply does not happen.

Really?

Analysis of UK wind power generation

There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).

The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

I suppose to be precise I should have said 95%+ of the wind turbines going down but I really think that is splitting hairs.

[alexw]

Really?

Analysis of UK wind power generation

I suppose to be precise I should have said 95%+ of the wind turbines going down but I really think that is splitting hairs.

Which basically says very little that is useful.

When was it? During the night when wind speeds drop and our electricity usage also drops? Or during the peak morning and evening periods for electricity usage when co-incidentally wind speeds are at their maximum and low winds are the least likely to occur? Or perhaps during winter evenings or mornings when usage reaches its yearly peaks, and again co-incidentally the winds are at their yearly maximums and the likelihood of low winds are at their yearly minimums.

If those 124 times were during summer nights its meaningless.

Edited October 29, 2012 by alexw

[Goat]

Which basically says very little that is useful.

When was it? During the night when wind speeds drop and our electricity usage also drops? Or during the peak morning and evening periods for electricity usage when co-incidentally wind speeds are at their maximum and low winds are the least likely to occur? Or perhaps during winter evenings or mornings when usage reaches its yearly peaks, and again co-incidentally the winds are at their yearly maximums and the likelihood of low winds are at their yearly minimums.

If those 124 times were during summer nights its meaningless.

You could always look for yourself.

But since you can't be bothered: http://www.windbyte.co.uk/windpower.html

National Grid’s view:

Recent history has shown that wind power output at the time of the winter peak can be very low. The winter peak normally occurs when temperatures are low and this often results from anti-cyclonic conditions that also mean very little wind. High pressure normally extends over a large area and this could mean there would be very little wind generation in Western Europe.

....

During the winter of 2009-2010, the coldest for 30 years, we experienced repeated cold spells when electricity demand soared and wind power generation failed to deliver.

Taking as an example 18-20 February, we saw a settled, continental weather system bringing cold weather to the UK. Demand rose as temperatures fell, but the 1588MW of wind capacity that was metered by National Grid, all in the windiest part of the UK (Scotland), was effectively delivering 0.0% of load.

Also note the reference to your earlier source document.

Apologists for the wind industry are fond of referring to research by Mr Graham Sinden which, supposedly, demonstrates the ‘smoothing effect’ of wind power generation over very large areas.

Mr Sinden correctly claimed that it was very rarely the case that wind failed to generate any power at all anywhere in the UK.

But, as members of a Select Committee on Science and Technology pointed out, Mr Sinden had cherry-picked the worst possible case and had avoided examining the frequency of very low, rather than zero, wind speeds over the whole of the UK, a fairly frequent occurrence.

As can be seen from the power curve diagram below, turbines do not start to generate until the wind is 2-3m/s and do not generate any significant amount of power until wind speeds are over 5m/s. At low wind speeds turbines can be net consumers of power. This is especially the case in low winter temperatures when turbine de-icing and heating can consume 20% of a turbine’s rated capacity.

[Damik]

Which basically says very little that is useful.

When was it? During the night when wind speeds drop and our electricity usage also drops? Or during the peak morning and evening periods for electricity usage when co-incidentally wind speeds are at their maximum and low winds are the least likely to occur? Or perhaps during winter evenings or mornings when usage reaches its yearly peaks, and again co-incidentally the winds are at their yearly maximums and the likelihood of low winds are at their yearly minimums.

If those 124 times were during summer nights its meaningless.

you are just plain wrong; please see the German data based on the real production numbers:

http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbines-as-yet-unsuitable-as-electricity-providers/

[Kurt Barlow]

Really?

Analysis of UK wind power generation

I suppose to be precise I should have said 95%+ of the wind turbines going down but I really think that is splitting hairs.

Except unlike an unplanned trip out of a nuclear power station that scenario is quite predictable 5-7 days in advance. It will only be an issue if wind capacity is so large to exceed dispatchable power generation plant and furthermore coinciding with peak demand. If this occurs then the National Grid has several days to prepare which would include bringing into operation small plant around the country and if necessary curtailing demand at large industrial sites for limited periods (as often occurs in any case with many industrial users agreeing to be on interruptable supply arrangements).

Longer term developments with dyamic demand systems to turn on and off refrigeration, air con, water heating will make managing intermittant output from renewables easier.

National Grid have repeatedly said that managing a system from which wind contributes 20% of output requires little amendments to existing infrastructure.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Kurt Barlow

[koala_bear]

Really?

Analysis of UK wind power generation

I suppose to be precise I should have said 95%+ of the wind turbines going down but I really think that is splitting hairs.

The dates for that analysis were obviously very carefully chose as it will exclude the big 7 offshore wind farms starting operation which should be more reliable than onshore...

I suspect 2012 onwards figures would produce different results.

JMT who paid for that work have an anti-wind stance so the figures should be taken with a pinch of salt.

Edited October 30, 2012 by koala_bear

[koala_bear]

I've now read the JMT sponsored report in full.

My comments:

The author recognises only ~50% of the then wind capacity is identifiable directly on the national grid data that he has used but compares it with 100% of the installed capacity to produce some of his figures.

None of the wind generating capacity in England, Wales or NI was directly metered at the time so the report is comparing 80% of generation in Scotland with capacity in the whole UK. The assertions about low wind periods is a bit shaky as it is effectively just Scotland only.

I though HPCers were always very careful when quoting VI reports