A Problem With Wind

[John D]

This article is worth reading as it details the 'Problems with windpower' throughout the world.

A Problem With Wind Power [AWEO.org]

John D

[Lancashire Lad]

An interesting article John, for those prepared to read it.
Unfortunately liable to fall upon deaf ears though, as have so many equally enlightening reports.

Were this not such a serious issue, I might have been mildy amused when I clicked on the very last link at the end of the article: -
Big Money and Big Wind [aweo.org]
Although that relates specifically to the USA, one could just as easily insert GB for every mention of US within it. (Particularly in light of our governments recent extension of wind power subsidies in this country to March 31st 2037!).

Shades of deja-vu with this post I think: -
Very interesting facts

Regards,
Mike.

[John D]

Hi Mike,

As I'm sure you know by now I have a real interest in 'the future energy scene' and read quite a lot on the subject including of course related threads on WAB. This particular report is one of several I have recently read and is without doubt one of the most interesting and comprehensive of the ones related to 'windpower'.
I just cannot understand how 'the powers that be' can carry on with their 'energy policies' when articles such as this spells out quite clearly 'The Problems with Wind Power'.
I am not against wind generation as such as long as it is recognised that it can only ever be a supplementary source of power and a very limited one at that.
It was interesting to read in one of the appendices just how much power is required to maintain 'wind power generation' and that the required power is imported from the grid. It appears that the cost of this imported power at times is not taken into the overall equation.
The other major factor of course is that associated with the system stability and the factoring in of 'spinning plant'.

There are other appendices listed at the end which also provides very good information and important facts.

Will articles such as this make a difference ?? I doubt it, as long as there remains the opportunity to make a fast buck and then be able to walk away a much richer person/organisation.

I trust you will understand my concerns.


John D

[Fuzzy-felt bloke]

The author to against wind power (see opposition links) so the whole argument is one sided, not read the article yet but after a quick scan I cannot see any referencing to any scientific studies. Will read it later when I have time, apologies if there is referencing.

Fuzzy-Felt Bloke

[Cotham Marble]

Originally Posted by John D

This article is worth reading as it details the 'Problems with windpower' throughout the world.

A Problem With Wind Power [AWEO.org] John D

For a critique of the critique Eric Rosenbloom Distortions - LI Offshore Wind Initiative

CM

[Lancashire Lad]

Naysayers may scoff, and pick fault with individual documents. (Incidentally, the document linked in original post, and that in post 5 were both written in 2005, and both have points which, with the benefit of the intervening years can be selectively dismissed as factually incorrect).

However, the fact remains that wind power is and always will be unreliable. If the total installed capacity of wind power exceeds the daily reserve margin of the system as a whole, and then at some inevitable point, the wind fails to blow, the system will fail, and power cuts will ensue. This is simply a truth which cannot be denied.

I have posted along these lines before, but it warrants repeating, as this is a specific, actual, and easily understood example of what will happen: -

By agreement with the European Union, Britain is legally committed to produce 15% of its total energy needs from low carbon sources by 2020.

Britain’s plan for achieving that target is described in “ #1 The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan National Strategy for Climate & Energy, July 2009” - (UKLCTP), and the “ #2 UK Renewable Energy Strategy, July 2009” - (UKRES).

As information is quoted from those documents in this post, I fully acknowledge the specified conditions - i.e. that text may be freely reproduced, providing it is reproduced accurately, not used in misleading context, acknowledged as Crown copyright, and the title of the document is specified.

Page 4 (UKLCTP) includes the statement: -

QUOTE
• Produce around 30% of our electricity from renewables by 2020 by substantially increasing the requirement for electricity suppliers to sell renewable electricity.

UNQUOTE

The statement is repeated in the “Power” section of the time-line graphic on pages 17/18.

Chart 2.4 on page 44 of (UKRES), includes a graphical breakdown of the projected proportions of the various renewable electrical technologies expected to satisfy the plan.

From that chart, approximately 38Gw of renewables electrical generating capacity is being proposed. And of that amount, approximately 27Gw is to be contributed by onshore/offshore wind. (27/38ths, equates to approximately 72% of the total proposed).

I really do question the common sense of placing reliance of almost three-quarters of this proposed renewables generated electrical capacity on the vagaries of the wind.

Try as I might, I have been unable to reconcile the stated renewables figure of 38Gw with 30% of the UK’s demand for electricity.

Table 2.1, page 37 (UKRES) shows the projected annual electrical consumption for the year 2020 as 386Terrawatt-hours. That being compared with year 2008 at 387Terrawatt-hours. (i.e a projected reduction of approximately 0.26%, but to all intents and purposes, much the same as it is now).

From National Grid metered half-hourly figures for total gross system demand, ( #3 Jan/Feb 2010), it can be ascertained that the average daily demand during the period was 45.297Gw. Metered maximum demand figure (i.e peak daily demand) during that period is shown as 59.298Gw.

Peak daily demand has hovered around the 60Gw mark for some years. Thus, (excluding daily reserve margin), the amount to be generated by renewables, (30%), would then need to be 18Gw.

So, if for the purposes of my calculation we agree that 18Gw is 30% of total daily electrical demand, (i.e. the average requirement of 60Gw x 30%), then according to the plan, 72% of that 18Gw, (i.e.12.96Gw), would need to be generated by wind. 12.96Gw sounds much better to me, than the projected 27Gw in the UKRES.

But hold on a minute, is even my much more conservative 12.96Gw a realistic figure?

The UK already has over 2Gw of installed wind generating capacity, but on January 7th 2010, the total amount of wind generated electricity was only 5% of the installed capacity. On January 17th the amount generated was zero! (Source – #4 text for the Grand Committee 11th March 2010 debate on Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2).

It just so happens that January 7th was the same date that the total gross system demand during the period Jan-Feb 2010, was at its peak, at 59.298Gw.

If those by no means unusual conditions were to arise in 2020, when 72% (of the overall 30%) of our renewables electricity generation is to come from wind, then, in my very conservative example, only 5% of the required 12.96Gw (i.e. 0.648Gw) would actually be delivered.

Thus leaving a shortfall of 12.312Gw (i.e about 20% of the total demand), that would need to be filled by gas/coal fuelled intermittency/secondary back-up generation. All of which would be at increased cost, reduced efficacy, and greater carbon deficit.

If that intermittency/secondary back-up generating capacity has not been provided for, (and since the National grid operates with a daily reserve margin of less than 10%), it is clear that a 20% overall shortfall would leave the system with a reserve of minus 10% (i.e. the lights will have gone out !!!).

Sources: -
#1 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/w...sitionplan.pdf (PDF Download 5.16Mb)
#2 http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/W...rategy2009.pdf (PDF Download 4Mb)
#3 National Grid: Metered half-hourly electricity demands
#4 Lords Hansard text for 11 Mar 201011 Mar 2010 (pt 0001)

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

A graphical way of demonstrating the above mentioned problem: -
Note, Daily Reserve Margin, for the purposes of this demonstration, comprises of any surplus capacity in the system, plus an agreed reserve margin which the National Grid has contracted to be made available by importing electricity from overseas.

SCENARIO 1
The wind is blowing strongly, and the system is producing sufficient electricity, without the need for the Daily Reserve Margin Capacity.


SCENARIO 2
The wind is not blowing strongly enough, but there is sufficient capacity in the Daily Reserve Margin to make up the shortfall. - The system copes with the problem, and power is maintained.


SCENARIO 3
The wind is either not blowing at all, or is not blowing strongly enough. The Daily Reserve Margin is utilized, but cannot make up for the shortfall in wind generated electricity. - The system fails, with resultant power cuts.


SCENARIO 4
The only viable solution, and which must be provided because the required input of wind generated electricity exceeds the Daily Reserve Margin.
Additional back-up (Intermittency) generating plants fuelled by coal/gas/oil, must be permanently available and ready to cut in at a moment's notice. (Known in the industry as "spinning"). All of which, with a reliable primary generating source, would be unnecessary.


Regards,
Mike.

[John D]

It appears Mike you can state all THE FACTS that you want the 'supporters of wind' will not be convinced. That is until the 'candles' are required or 'dark days' are with us.

It should be noted that the publication mentioned at the start of this thread covers not only the authors views but a factual insight and many additional reports on the global situation with regards to the suitability of wind generation. Why can't folks read it through and give it some serious thought before condemning it out of hand. There are many more similar reports which provide similar facts all are worth reading.

You and I Mike are obviously looking at this situation from 'within' due to our lengthy involvement in the 'supply industry'. We may have a better understanding of the many issues that will be involved, in what will be a very 'mixed and complex generation system'.
Continuity and stability of the generation,grid and distribution system is paramount if we are not to have to look out the candles in the near future
I only hope the 'powers that be' get it right before its too late.

John D

[Lancashire Lad]

You may perhaps be aware of the document “The Power of Scotland Renewed – Clean, green energy for the nation’s future” - a précis of the “Power of Scotland Renewed” report. - http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/p...nd_renewed.pdf

The document suggests that Scotland will, by 2030, be in a position to supply between 60% and 143% of its electrical demand from renewables. Which, on the face of things, sounds pretty good.

However, when one considers that a major proportion of these renewables will be the highly subsidised offshore wind farms, (already consented under the Crown Estate’s Round 3 Offshore Wind Development leasing agreements), the fact that the electricity produced will not solely be used within the Scottish borders, the fact that Scotland makes up only 8.6% of the United Kingdom’s population, etc. etc. etc., the claim is perhaps, more of a bold twist on words.

Nice glossy brochures, with pretty pictures and bold claims might satisfy much of the population, who then go about their business under a deluded belief that the panacea that is wind energy is saving the world, – but how many would have read the document’s conclusion? from which I extract the following quotes: -

QUOTE “As the proportion of electricity derived from variable energy sources such as wind, wave and tidal power increases, care must be taken to ensure that security of supply is not compromised……The analysis indicates that under either the base case or Case 2, the worst-case situation (minimal output from variable sources of renewable energy coinciding with a period of peak demand) would not result in power shortages, although Scotland might be forced to rely upon imports of electricity from elsewhere in the UK” UNQUOTE.

QUOTE “The system can be made more secure by increasing the capacity of interconnectors to England and Wales, Northern Ireland and elsewhere in Europe, enabling electricity to be exported during periods of excess production and imported when very low (or extremely high) winds mean that Scotland’s variable renewable sources are not operating” UNQUOTE.

QUOTE “However, combining increased development of renewables with a realistic programme of demand reduction means that Scotland’s renewable resource can meet – and exceed – our annual electricity demand, even when a significant proportion of heating and transport demand are electrified. Under such a scenario, it is entirely feasible for all centralised thermal generation to be closed by 2030, delivering almost complete decarbonisation, with our security of supply relying on interconnectors, storage and deferrable demand” UNQUOTE.

And how many of those who read the conclusion would pick up the major implications of those sentences which I’ve emboldened? – Yes, like the rest of Britain, Scotland intends to be lean and green, but when the wind doesn’t blow, it will need to rely on interconnectors from other countries to maintain its security of supply – and yet, security of supply maintained, many of the Scottish populace would continue in their belief that Scotland was at the forefront of the renewables supply race. – Blissfully ignorant of the fact that the lights were only staying on because of imported supplies of electricity from more reliable sources.

Windpower has its place. It can, and will be be a valuable commodity - but only if it is used within the bounds of technological realism.

What should be so painfully obvious to even the most educationally, logic, and mathematically challenged of our government’s many and ridiculously highly paid policy makers, is that if the plan was to keep proposed wind generated electricity to levels below that of the daily reserve margin, there would be no need for the vast cost of grid network interconnectors, no need for any of the highly inefficient and inordinately costly intermittency generating plants that will otherwise be required, and no need to spend anywhere near the currently committed billions of taxpayer pounds of grossly inappropriate subsidies being given to wind farm entrepreneurs.

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

I have always maintained that wind generated electricity has a valid part to play in our national energy strategy, both from its effectively “free” energy source, and also its low carbon footprint, which place it firmly on the environmentally friendly sources of power generation thus far commercially available.

However, I also maintain that our national energy strategy must be technologically robust, consistently economically viable, and that we shouldn’t be blindly following any long term strategy which cannot guarantee security of supply.

As anyone who has read my previous posts on this subject will be well aware, I am wholly against the government’s present energy policy commitment - which states that by the year 2020, approximately thirty percent of our electricity needs will be generated by renewable sources – and that approximately three quarters of that thirty percent, will be generated by wind power.

My reason is simple: - In basic terms, this policy means that approximately 22% of our total electrical demand will need to be generated by wind power. The national grid as a whole, has roughly 8% (maximum), of spare capacity (reserve margin) available, – and on many occasions, considerably less than that.

Thus, it is blatantly obvious that if, at any given time, the wind does not blow strongly enough to produce at least 14% (best case) of our total demand, or (worst case) 22% minus whatever reserve margin we happen to have at that specific time, the system will fail and power cuts will be the order of the day.
See: - A Problem With Wind (posts 6 & 7 above).

As far as I’m concerned, no further evidence should be needed. But there are those who, (unfortunately including governmental policy makers), are still consistently advocating that major reliance on wind power is “the way to go”.

Recently issued statistics by the Department of Energy and Climate Change only reinforce my stance on this situation, and should be of concern to everyone with any interest in our nation’s energy requirements: -

Total Installed Capacity for Wind Generation at end of year 2008 = 3406.2MW (Megawatt)
Total amount of wind generated electricity (1st qtr. 2009) = 2.63TWh (Terawatt hours)
(Giving an average of 0.0772121Terawatt hours per Installed Megawatt)

Total Installed Capacity for Wind Generation at end of year 2009 = 4424.4MW (Megawatt)
Total amount of wind generated electricity (1st qtr. 2010) = 2.39TWh (Terawatt hours)
(Giving an average of 0.0540186Terawatt hours per Installed Megawatt)

So, at a cost of several £billions, the installed capacity was increased by 30% during 2009, but the amount of electricity actually generated in the first quarter of 2010 reduced by (coincidentally) 30% when compared to the same period in 2009. – All due to the vagaries of wind speed! – (Hardly conducive to being a major part of a reliable and robust energy strategy, is it?).

A calculation, (also giving similarly unfavourable results), can be made for the second quarter of 2010 by substituting the relevant values, which are also available in the reference documents noted below.

Reference: -
: Department of Energy and Climate Change (Link to Excel spreadsheet download).
http://www.decc.gov.uk/assets/decc/S...s-2010-ch7.pdf (PDF - see table 7.4 page 206).

Regards,
Mike.