|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > February 2006 > Whoa! Wyoming has a lot of wind power!
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Whoa! Wyoming has a lot of wind power!
|
|
| thegrq@gmail.com 2006-02-16, 11:21 am |
| >From http://www.thewatt.com/modules.php?...rticle&sid=1013
Compared to Europe, the US doesn't have much wind power installations
per person, only 15 watts/person compared to Denmarks leading 540
watts/person. But, Wyoming actually has more wind power than Denmark,
at 568 watts/person and they have another 390 watts/person proposed
installations. Not bad...who would have though?
| |
| LongmuirG 2006-02-16, 1:21 pm |
| the...@gmail.com wrote:
> Wyoming actually has more wind power than Denmark,
> at 568 watts/person and they have another 390 watts/person proposed
> installations. Not bad...who would have though?
See the thread about German wind-power experience further back.
German utility E.ON, who is the largest user of wind-generated
electricity in the world, has concluded that:
"traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the
installed wind power capacity must be permanently on-line in order to
guarantee power supply at all times".
90%! Why not just forget the wind-power installations and use the
"permanently on-line" conventional backup stations?
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2006-02-16, 2:21 pm |
| Why not? You're serious, right? Maybe because the fossil-fuel consumed
per kw-h while they're under load is kinda larger than with a
wind-farm?
Makes sense to me. Easy enough to have gas-turbine sets ready to spin
and switch in. Nukes, especially light-water, take longer. Lots longer.
J
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-02-16, 2:21 pm |
| LongmuirG wrote:
....
> German utility E.ON, who is the largest user of wind-generated
> electricity in the world, has concluded that:
> "traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the
> installed wind power capacity must be permanently on-line in order to
> guarantee power supply at all times".
>
> 90%! Why not just forget the wind-power installations and use the
> "permanently on-line" conventional backup stations?
Wind turbines don't require fuel and while they spin, the utility
can shut down some of those other generators.
Anthony
| |
| LongmuirG 2006-02-16, 2:21 pm |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Wind turbines don't require fuel and while they spin, the utility
> can shut down some of those other generators.
Go back, download the E.ON report on their real-world experience with
wind-power, then read it.
E.ON has invaluable real-world experience actually using large-scale
wind power to meet consumer demands for power. According to their
report, E.ON handles more wind-power capacity than the entire US. If
they have found, in meeting real consumer needs, that they need to
cover 90% of the installed wind power capacity with permanently on-line
conventional back-up, we all need to take that experience seriously.
And factor it in to realistic assessments about how/where/when to use
wind power.
| |
| sugna41@hotmail.com 2006-02-16, 4:21 pm |
| Wind Power should be the primary source of electricity. With
connections to a single NA grid the backup wouldn't be as much a
concern. The Power generated from wind can be transmitted to where its
needed or where consumption is highest, throughout the NA continent
just as hydro electricity is transmitted from Quebec and Labrador to
the new England States during peak consumption times. What wind does
is prevent the depletion of stored water in a dam or reduce the
consumption of fossil fuels when it is used as a primary source. This
scenario of back up also applies to hydro dams since most hydro sources
don't have enough capacity to satisfy all their customer needs either.
Wind power is always used when it is availible thus reducing stored
water depletion, fossil fuel consumption or nuclear generation-all of
which have drastic environmental costs as compared to wind generation.
| |
| LongmuirG 2006-02-16, 4:21 pm |
| sugn...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Wind Power should be the primary source of electricity.
Stop & think about what you just wrote. Does it make any sense at all?
And why ignore E.ON's real-world experience in favor of a fantasy?
E.ON's experience (and you really should download their report & read
it) is that wind-generated electric power input to the grid varied from
approximately 0 to (briefly) about 85% of installed capacity, in a
rapidly-varying pattern that was difficult to predict. How can a
utility provide customers with reliable power using that as the
"primary source of electricity"? E.ON's report suggests that the
greater the proportion of power coming from unpredictable wind power,
the greater will be the problems of grid stability.
If you have spent any time in developing countries, you know how
difficult life is in a place where the electric supply is undependable,
and quite variable even at the best of times.
| |
| DustyB 2006-02-16, 5:21 pm |
| "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140119518.946679.33300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> sugn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Stop & think about what you just wrote. Does it make any sense at
> all?
> And why ignore E.ON's real-world experience in favor of a fantasy?
>
> E.ON's experience (and you really should download their report &
> read
> it) is that wind-generated electric power input to the grid varied
> from
> approximately 0 to (briefly) about 85% of installed capacity, in a
> rapidly-varying pattern that was difficult to predict. How can a
> utility provide customers with reliable power using that as the
> "primary source of electricity"? E.ON's report suggests that the
> greater the proportion of power coming from unpredictable wind
> power,
> the greater will be the problems of grid stability.
Exactly! And a point that most of the "isn't solar (insert your own
specific target: wind, water, PV, etc method here)-power wonderful?"
crowd always seem to ignore. Wind, solar, tides, whatever! While
those kinds of power are touted to be both "clean" and "cheap", and
make the user feel oh so superior; the real costs of transitioning
to it are never factored it.
As it is, at the moment, here in California, neither the "wind
farms" nor the direct solar harvesting plants are contributing at a
competitive cost (not yet, anyway). Nor may they ever. But what no
one seems to factor in is how expensive it's going to get. Never
mind the cost of the "farms" themselves (which is considerable), how
about just the cost of the replacement power for when the wind
doesn't blow or the sun don't shine. And I don't know how it works
in other parts of the world, but I can tell you for first hand
experience that this happens with predictable regularity at least
once a day around here...(:-o)!
The problem comes in when we silly, routine bounded organisms want
power to "consume". Unless you're willing to sit in the dark when
the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow, you're going to be in
for a long disappointing ride. The costs to deliver a Kw of
electricity to you 24/7/365 is amortized over the 24/7/365 delivery
cycle. While the costs of the fuel consumed is surely a significant
fraction of the cost/Kw to the consumer, it only represents a rather
small fraction of the delivery price. If you think power is
expensive today, just wait until "renewables" comprise 70-80% of our
daily energy consumables; and you get hit with the per Kw charge of
delivering the power to your socket for that 30-20% of the power
that your "renewables" are short.
Just because you only need your friendly local power-plant for a few
hours each night, don't think that their property taxes, insurances,
salaries, fuel delivery contracts, rent, equipment depreciation,
delivery infrastructure, maintenance, expansion costs, etc. follow
that same period. It won't!
Besides that, you can't start a power-plant up from scratch in a few
minutes. The boilers will always need to be "on", the staff will
need to be there to attend to things whether you use the power or
not, maintenance will need to be done, taxes paid, salaries for all
shifts, and so on, and so on...
Converting an entire society into one depending on some sort of
mystical conversion to temporally cyclic power "renewable" energy
sources is little more than a fools errand. Sadly though, there
seems to be no shortage of fools willing to give it a lash anyway...
> If you have spent any time in developing countries, you know how
> difficult life is in a place where the electric supply is
> undependable,
> and quite variable even at the best of times.
Yep. BTDT. I've seen that first hand. And one of the reasons I
don't subscribe to the kind of folly (wind/solar power) so often
espoused here... There's a time and place for it (especially so
since I *do* use it) but it's not going to work for "main stream"
power consumption.
What we have to do is make it a national priority to convert our
power generation to nuclear over the next 30-years, and use TDP for
our remaining hydrocarbon needs (primarily for transportation) until
those too have been weaned away. No amount of "wishin' & hopin' "
is going to make any other form of power currently under scruitny
work any better.
DustyB
San Jose
>
>
| |
| gogreenweb@gmail.com 2006-02-16, 5:21 pm |
| Get rid of the dams, wind power and hydrogen fuel is here. Now if
someone can get this into mainstream media. lol
| |
| G. R. L. Cowan 2006-02-16, 6:21 pm |
| DustyB wrote:
>
> "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1140119518.946679.33300@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Exactly! And a point that most of the "isn't solar (insert your own
> specific target: wind, water, PV, etc method here)-power wonderful?"
> crowd always seem to ignore. Wind, solar, tides, whatever! While
> those kinds of power are touted to be both "clean" and "cheap", and
> make the user feel oh so superior; the real costs of transitioning
> to it are never factored it.
>
> As it is, at the moment, here in California, neither the "wind
> farms" nor the direct solar harvesting plants are contributing at a
> competitive cost (not yet, anyway). Nor may they ever. But what no
> one seems to factor in is how expensive it's going to get. Never
> mind the cost of the "farms" themselves (which is considerable), how
> about just the cost of the replacement power for when the wind
> doesn't blow or the sun don't shine. And I don't know how it works
> in other parts of the world, but I can tell you for first hand
> experience that this happens with predictable regularity at least
> once a day around here...(:-o)!
>
> The problem comes in when we silly, routine bounded organisms want
> power to "consume". Unless you're willing to sit in the dark when
> the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow, you're going to be in
> for a long disappointing ride.
Maybe you haven't been going on and on about this;
maybe it's just an impression I get from listening to many like you.
Collectively, aren't you all being rather stupid to harp and harp
on this point without ever mentioning the molten-salt experimentation *
that casts doubt on it?
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
Boron: fire with nuclear cachet http://tinyurl.com/4xt8g
* http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/20..._600-00-017.PDF
| |
| Nanook 2006-02-16, 6:21 pm |
| In article <1140117773.262940.91050@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, sugna41@hotmail.com writes:
> Wind Power should be the primary source of electricity. With
> connections to a single NA grid the backup wouldn't be as much a
> concern. The Power generated from wind can be transmitted to where its
> needed or where consumption is highest, throughout the NA continent
> just as hydro electricity is transmitted from Quebec and Labrador to
> the new England States during peak consumption times. What wind does
> is prevent the depletion of stored water in a dam or reduce the
> consumption of fossil fuels when it is used as a primary source. This
> scenario of back up also applies to hydro dams since most hydro sources
> don't have enough capacity to satisfy all their customer needs either.
> Wind power is always used when it is availible thus reducing stored
> water depletion, fossil fuel consumption or nuclear generation-all of
> which have drastic environmental costs as compared to wind generation.
The grid is a real issue though. We don't have a single north american
grid, we have an eastern and western grid, which is overloaded and antiquated.
There really needs to be a major investment to bring the grid up to
snuff, conversion of AC lines to high voltage DC lines, superconductive in
some cases, etc.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers.
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
| |
| DustyB 2006-02-16, 6:21 pm |
| "G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:43F4EA15.D7214842@eagle.ca...
....
>
> Maybe you haven't been going on and on about this;
> maybe it's just an impression I get from listening to many like
> you.
Many like [me]? Who would those "many" be?
> Collectively, aren't you all being rather stupid to harp and harp
> on this point without ever mentioning the molten-salt
> experimentation *
> that casts doubt on it?
Certainly, and collectively--as you've so amply demonstrated,
there's more enough stupidity to go around without anyone having to
jump up and vociferously claim their share.
I am only familiar with a few of the uses of "molten-salt": In
certain fuel cells; in one experimental Sandia Labs funded solar
harvesting experiment; in certain classes of nuclear reactors; and
as one method of producing Aluminum and Titanium. Which one were
you referring to, and how would that apply?
What problem does that process (cost-effectively) solve, and how
could it be taken to market soonest? And if it solves a problem and
does so cost-effectively, why isn't it being produced and
implemented?
Given the context here, I'm assuming you mean the MSHT process that
Sandia is using. While interesting, it hasn't proven all that cost
effective...at least not so far. And, as someone often living in
the Seattle area, I'd submit not as good a solution as if I still
lived in the Mojave desert.
DustyB
....
| |
| sugna41@hotmail.com 2006-02-16, 8:21 pm |
| So What happens when Hydro Dams can't supply the elctricity?
The Coal/Oil/Gas/Nuclear plants have to be there on stand by. This is
the same senario. If global warming continues in the same path as is
now, many of the large(James Bay, Churchill Falls-combined capacity
11000 MW-just to name a couple) jusy won't work because the snows that
enable the massive runnoff wont be there. Windmills combined with
these existing hydro dams and some coal/oil/gas/nuclear for backup
along decent conservation program(we could reduce our consumption by
205 without major changes in lifestyle-look to Europe and Japan for
guidance on this)could reduce the carbon significantly over a decade or
two. It's time to stop thinking inside the oil box and llok to the
future for carbon emmisions reductions. Windnd power(at approximately
15 to 20 percent of our consumption needs) will play a significant role
in that reduction.
| |
| Eric Gisin 2006-02-16, 10:21 pm |
| <sugna41@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140133814.849918.260590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> So What happens when Hydro Dams can't supply the elctricity?
>
This is bullshit. It doesn't matter whether it snows or rains, dams fill up.
BTW, ScienceDaily.com has a recent article on rising CO2 decreasing
the water plants need, leaving more (many km3) for rivers.
> The Coal/Oil/Gas/Nuclear plants have to be there on stand by. This is
> the same senario. If global warming continues in the same path as is
> now, many of the large(James Bay, Churchill Falls-combined capacity
> 11000 MW-just to name a couple) jusy won't work because the snows that
> enable the massive runnoff wont be there. Windmills combined with
> these existing hydro dams and some coal/oil/gas/nuclear for backup
> along decent conservation program(we could reduce our consumption by
> 205 without major changes in lifestyle-look to Europe and Japan for
> guidance on this)could reduce the carbon significantly over a decade or
> two. It's time to stop thinking inside the oil box and llok to the
> future for carbon emmisions reductions. Windnd power(at approximately
> 15 to 20 percent of our consumption needs) will play a significant role
> in that reduction.
>
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-02-17, 12:21 am |
| LongmuirG wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>
> Go back, download the E.ON report on their real-world experience with
> wind-power, then read it.
....
Why? Do you value me opinion? Do you wish to convince me that wind
turbines burn fossil fuels, that they are a net consumer of gasoline
or that they are worse than useless no matter how much power they
generate?
Anthony
| |
| LongmuirG 2006-02-17, 12:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote, in response to a suggestion that it would be a
good use of his time to read E.ON's report on their wind power
experience:
> Why? Do you value me opinion? Do you wish to convince me that wind
> turbines burn fossil fuels, that they are a net consumer of gasoline
> or that they are worse than useless no matter how much power they
> generate?
The answers are: it would be good for you; possibly; no.
A general principle in engineering is that a good theory is worth a
lot, but good data is priceless. E.ON (with a lot of assistance from
the German taxpayer) has world-leading experience in using
wind-generated electric power. They have willingly shared their
real-world data. Why would anyone who is genuinely interested in
alternative energy NOT be prepared to look at what they have learned?
The E.ON experience could be summarized as: buy and install 1,000 MW
of wind turbines; then buy, install, and run 900 MW of back up
conventional power generation equipment to be able to maintain customer
service; get an annual average of about 200 MW of delivered power from
the wind turbines; and invest heavily in additional transmission lines
to be able to use that wind-generated power.
This is real-world data, and it is not promising! When 19th Century
Scottish bridge builders put up the Tay Rail Bridge only to see it fall
down in the first storm, they didn't just ignore that real-world data;
they analyzed what went wrong, and built a better bridge that is still
standing. If wind power is going to have any future, the proponents
are going to have to take that same hard-nosed attitude.
| |
|
|
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message news:1140148237.708927.26690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Anthony Matonak wrote, in response to a suggestion that it would be a
> good use of his time to read E.ON's report on their wind power
> experience:
>
> The answers are: it would be good for you; possibly; no.
>
> A general principle in engineering is that a good theory is worth a
> lot, but good data is priceless. E.ON (with a lot of assistance from
> the German taxpayer) has world-leading experience in using
> wind-generated electric power. They have willingly shared their
> real-world data. Why would anyone who is genuinely interested in
> alternative energy NOT be prepared to look at what they have learned?
>
> The E.ON experience could be summarized as: buy and install 1,000 MW
> of wind turbines; then buy, install, and run 900 MW of back up
> conventional power generation equipment to be able to maintain customer
> service; get an annual average of about 200 MW of delivered power from
> the wind turbines; and invest heavily in additional transmission lines
> to be able to use that wind-generated power.
>
> This is real-world data, and it is not promising! When 19th Century
> Scottish bridge builders put up the Tay Rail Bridge only to see it fall
> down in the first storm, they didn't just ignore that real-world data;
> they analyzed what went wrong, and built a better bridge that is still
> standing. If wind power is going to have any future, the proponents
> are going to have to take that same hard-nosed attitude.
>
Some states and even the US Congress are talking about a 20% renewable
"portfolio" by 2020. If wind is 20% of that it would be 4% of our electricity.
In California, we use 3 times the nominal usage in the summer days for A/C.
If the wind can provide some of that peak demand, great. That would be one
less power plant built that uses natural gas. California gets about 50% of its
electricity from natural gas and a lot of those are peaker plants for A/C. Even
if wind and other renewables offset some of the growth in the need for new
power sources, it would be a good thing. California has more than 36 million
people and that increases about 2% a year. Plenty of room for renewables of
all types.
| |
| dbohara@mindspring.com 2006-02-17, 12:21 am |
| Wyoming has less than 500,000 people and LOTS of wind so this amount of
windpower per person is meaningless. Wyoming also has lots of
hydro-power per person and lots of gas and oil and coal power per
person.
| |
| Arnold Walker 2006-02-17, 4:21 am |
|
"SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8RbJf.33454$0H1.22626@trnddc04...
>
> "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1140148237.708927.26690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Some states and even the US Congress are talking about a 20% renewable
> "portfolio" by 2020. If wind is 20% of that it would be 4% of our
> electricity.
> In California, we use 3 times the nominal usage in the summer days for
> A/C.
> If the wind can provide some of that peak demand, great. That would be one
> less power plant built that uses natural gas. California gets about 50% of
> its
> electricity from natural gas and a lot of those are peaker plants for A/C.
> Even
> if wind and other renewables offset some of the growth in the need for new
> power sources, it would be a good thing. California has more than 36
> million
> people and that increases about 2% a year. Plenty of room for renewables
> of
> all types.
Also plenty of room for a Natural gas well ....until those renewables do
come on line.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| sugna41@hotmail.com 2006-02-17, 6:21 am |
| Bullshit?
The large dams in northern canada were designed around melting snow.
If it doesn't snow the dams won't fill up in the spring and then they
won't have generating capacity. The dams in Quebec and Labrador both
are two primary sources of electricity in New England States.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2006-02-17, 7:21 am |
| "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote:
> The E.ON experience could be summarized as: buy and install 1,000 MW
> of wind turbines; then buy, install, and run 900 MW of back up
> conventional power generation equipment to be able to maintain customer
> service; get an annual average of about 200 MW of delivered power from
> the wind turbines; and invest heavily in additional transmission lines
> to be able to use that wind-generated power.
Smaller windmills could INcrease vs DEcrease existing transmission capacity,
and better controls could precisely synchronize them and adjust their power
output, even at times when they supply 100% of the grid power.
Nick
| |
| Steve Spence 2006-02-17, 12:21 pm |
| sugna41@hotmail.com wrote:
> Bullshit?
> The large dams in northern canada were designed around melting snow.
> If it doesn't snow the dams won't fill up in the spring and then they
> won't have generating capacity. The dams in Quebec and Labrador both
> are two primary sources of electricity in New England States.
>
Much of NY and New England get their power from the St. Lawrence Seaway
power dams which isn't all that dependent on snow.
--
Steve Spence
Dir., Green Trust, http://www.green-trust.org
Contributing Editor, http://www.off-grid.net
http://www.rebelwolf.com/essn.html
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-17, 12:21 pm |
| LongmuirG wrote:
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
> Go back, download the E.ON report on their real-world experience with
> wind-power, then read it.
>
> E.ON has invaluable real-world experience actually using large-scale
> wind power to meet consumer demands for power. According to their
> report, E.ON handles more wind-power capacity than the entire US. If
> they have found, in meeting real consumer needs, that they need to
> cover 90% of the installed wind power capacity with permanently on-line
> conventional back-up, we all need to take that experience seriously.
> And factor it in to realistic assessments about how/where/when to use
> wind power.
I still don't get where this is a problem. Fossil plants can be kept
"online" using minimal power and ramp up very rapidly. They don't say they
have to keep their other plants producing maximum power - and in fact, it
wouldn't make sense. Since nobody is ever expecting wind power to generate
more than half of any country's power needs, this sounds quite reasonable.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-17, 12:21 pm |
| LongmuirG wrote:
> sugn...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Stop & think about what you just wrote. Does it make any sense at all?
> And why ignore E.ON's real-world experience in favor of a fantasy?
OK, I was wrong, when I said "nobody" expects wind power to generate more
than half of a country's needs. Nobody who really works it out...
--
derek
| |
|
| thegrq@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Compared to Europe, the US doesn't have much wind power installations
> per person, only 15 watts/person compared to Denmarks leading 540
> watts/person. But, Wyoming actually has more wind power than Denmark,
> at 568 watts/person and they have another 390 watts/person proposed
> installations. Not bad...who would have though?
Most of our wind is coming from Washington out of both ends.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-17, 12:21 pm |
| Eric Gisin wrote:
> <sugna41@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1140133814.849918.260590@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> This is bullshit. It doesn't matter whether it snows or rains, dams fill
> up.
Except for a very small amount of additional water vapor in the air due to
higher carrying capacity of the (average) warmer air.
>
> BTW, ScienceDaily.com has a recent article on rising CO2 decreasing
> the water plants need, leaving more (many km3) for rivers.
I'll have to look at that - I would have thought simply increasing CO2
encouraged plant growth, causing _more_ plant H2O uptake. Of course, we're
taking out more than we allow to regrow, so maybe that's what it's about.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-17, 12:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> sugna41@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Much of NY and New England get their power from the St. Lawrence Seaway
> power dams which isn't all that dependent on snow.
>
I think he's misunderstood "designed around melting snow" to mean that they
_require_ melting snow. These dams are built very large to be able to
handle spring run-off. If the entire precipitation of the winter months
didn't all arrive in the reservoir at once, the dams could actually have
been built smaller.
--
derek
| |
| LongmuirG 2006-02-17, 1:21 pm |
| Derek Broughton wrote:
> I still don't get where this is a problem. Fossil plants can be kept
> "online" using minimal power and ramp up very rapidly.
It would be interesting to know your information source for fossil fuel
plants ramping up very rapidly. Also, your information source for
keeping them online using minimal power.
Here is the kind of real-world problem that E.ON describes themselves
as having to handle:
"Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve [2004] reached
its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within
only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the
capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day,
wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW. Handling such
significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to
grid operators."
Remember there is a cost for everything -- and the people who pay those
costs are us, directly as electricity charges or indirectly through
taxation. How much is it going to cost the consumer/taxpayer to pay
for the capital costs of both windmills and back-up fossil generators?
And any extra money that gets spent on power supply is money that is
not available to pay for health care or pensions or whatever.
Gas turbine electric generation plants could certainly ramp up more
quickly than coal plants, but where are the Germans going to get the
gas? If they go to the Russians and try to line up a gas supply that
they use only when the wind does not blow, they will very quickly learn
the Russian for "Take or Pay Contract" and "Premium Pricing". Where
are anti-development Californians going to get gas, as Californian gas
production slides and Canadians develop closer friendlier markets?
The implication of E.ON's experience is that windpower would be better
used off-grid.
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-17, 3:21 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:ar5hc3-9jf.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> LongmuirG wrote:
>
>
> I still don't get where this is a problem. Fossil plants can be kept
> "online" using minimal power and ramp up very rapidly. They don't say
> they
> have to keep their other plants producing maximum power - and in fact, it
> wouldn't make sense. Since nobody is ever expecting wind power to
> generate
> more than half of any country's power needs, this sounds quite reasonable.
The *physics* of it may sound 'quite reasonable'. The bigger issue is the
*economics* of it.
Most conventional power plants charge for their output based on three price
components and their total energy output. Their capital investment costs,
their operating and maintenance costs (excluding fuel), and their fuel
costs. The O&M costs vary only slightly with the operating schedule, and
the capital costs don't vary at all. And of course the fuel costs are
almost directly proportional to output power level. When a plant operates
near full power all the time, you add up all the costs and divide by the
total energy output from a fossil plant, and you can get some low-dollar
electricity (albeit with some undesirable environmental effects). But if
you only operate the plant infrequently, you have the same capital costs,
almost the same O&M costs, and very low fuel costs. Spread over the small
amount of energy produced, the cost/kwh is much higher.
When the wind blows (or sun shines), the capital and O&M costs of the back
up plant still have to be covered somehow. Do we just have our electric
rate skyrocket on days when the plant has to operate (trying to recover a
year's worth of capital and O&M costs in a few short days of operation) ?
If the renewable energy company is separate from the back-up plant, do they
pay some fee to the back-up plant for 'standing by' ?
Such schemes certainly *would* reduce the burning of fossil fuels. But the
price of electricity would most likely go up, not down. The capital and O&M
costs of maintaining twice the generating capacity, even if the total fuel
costs are much lower.
And who is going to take the leadership role in this? Government? If such
a future causes a rise in prices, then free-market forces would push us away
from such a scheme.
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-17, 4:21 pm |
|
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140193241.533810.91020@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
> It would be interesting to know your information source for fossil fuel
> plants ramping up very rapidly. Also, your information source for
> keeping them online using minimal power.
>
He's right though. Gas turbine plants can go from <25% to 100% in fifteen
minutes. Old coal burners, if kept loaded to at least 20%, can ramp up to
100% in under four hours. Once these types of units are started, the rate
of power change is limited mostly by the allowable heat-up/cool-down rates
of the massive metal components (steam turbines and re-heaters especially).
Heck, even nuclear plants, once 'on-line' can ramp up/down at rates of
2%/minute. They don't *like* to for economic reasons, and nuclear fuel has
to be 'pre-conditioned' in many plants to extend the life of the fuel
assemblies, but units sold to other countries are sometimes operated in this
fashion.
> Here is the kind of real-world problem that E.ON describes themselves
> as having to handle:
> "Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on Christmas Eve [2004] reached
> its maximum for the year at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within
> only 10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds to the
> capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired power station blocks. On Boxing Day,
> wind power feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW. Handling such
> significant differences in feed-in levels poses a major challenge to
> grid operators."
>
Compare this with the typical summer day in something like the NYISO, or the
PMJ interconnect. In the course of just a few hours from 5:00AM to 3:00PM,
PMJ's load can go from 70,000MW to 115,000 MW. That corresponds to the
capacity of *90* x 500 MW plants. That's just a *typical* day, in one ISO's
jurisdiction.
> Remember there is a cost for everything -- and the people who pay those
> costs are us, directly as electricity charges or indirectly through
> taxation. How much is it going to cost the consumer/taxpayer to pay
> for the capital costs of both windmills and back-up fossil generators?
> And any extra money that gets spent on power supply is money that is
> not available to pay for health care or pensions or whatever.
>
This is very true. Building twice the generating capacity that is needed,
(once with renewables, and a second time with fossil) is a very expensive
proposition. And considering that private investors have been a bit
'burned' by changing regulations on such long-term plant investments, it's
not going to be easy attracting the funding for this.
daestrom
| |
| LongmuirG 2006-02-18, 12:21 am |
| daestrom wrote:
> Compare this with the typical summer day in something like the NYISO, or the
> PMJ interconnect. In the course of just a few hours from 5:00AM to 3:00PM,
> PMJ's load can go from 70,000MW to 115,000 MW. That corresponds to the
> capacity of *90* x 500 MW plants. That's just a *typical* day, in one ISO's
> jurisdiction.
Indeed! Of course, that variation is on the demand side. If I
understood the E.ON report, that kind of variation in power demand over
the course of each day is relatively predictable, and grid operators
are quite efficient at scheduling plants to meet the anticipated
varying level of power demand.
But when they try to add significant amounts of windpower to the grid,
they then also have to deal with variations in power supply --
variations which are much less predictable. Hence the need to maintain
a large amount of conventional rotating reserve, which seems largely to
defeat the point of using wind power.
Thanks for the info on the time to power up a coal-fired plant. Four
hours to reach full output sounds pretty good -- but in my neck of the
woods (SW US), it can go from howling winds to an erie flat calm in
about half an hour; and does so quite often! Which brings us back to
the grid operator's problem of balancing demand & supply.
It would be great, daestrom, if you could find the time to look through
the E.ON report and pass on what you make of it. You could clearly get
a lot more out of it than someone like me. The way I read that report,
wind-power is not going to be able to contribute much economically to
grid power (once subsidies and preferential pricing go away, as they
eventually will). Seems that wind power would be better used off-grid
in association with something storable -- like the old western windmill
pumping up water into a stock tank large enough to see the herd
through the calm spells.
| |
| ronwagn 2006-02-18, 1:21 am |
| Hydrogen or hydride slurry can capture energy from windmills or solar
etc. It will then be available as needed. It will leave no deadly waste
to threaten humanity for thousands of years. Biomass can be quickly
turned off and on as needed, especially when energy is distributed in
small plants and not on a massive grid. We need to bite the bullet, and
start thinking creatively. We can grow more fuel from switchgrass than
we can ever use, and that is only one technology of many. They must all
compete and let the chips fall where they may. Heating is the first
and easiest biomass task. When done with biomass it will make a huge
dent in our oil dependence. This will force petroleum producers and
distributors to lower their prices. They will try to short circuit our
efforts, as will many bloggers.
All the best,
Ron Wagner
| |
| Chris Torek 2006-02-18, 2:21 am |
| In article <1140235074.689897.260180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
LongmuirG <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote:
>Indeed! Of course, that variation is on the demand side.
Yes.
>Thanks for the info on the time to power up a coal-fired plant. Four
>hours to reach full output sounds pretty good -- but in my neck of the
>woods (SW US), it can go from howling winds to an erie flat calm in
>about half an hour; and does so quite often! Which brings us back to
>the grid operator's problem of balancing demand & supply.
One plus to combining wind with hydro power is that hydro operators
are serving multiple competing interests. One of these is "recreation"
(boaters on the lake behind the dam); recreationists want the lake
to stay as full as possible.
Because hydroelectric plants can go from 0% to 100% output in just
ten minutes, a wind-and-hydro combination is pretty much ideal:
use the wind for power when the wind is blowing, keeping the lake
"reasonably full". When the wind stops, switch to draining the
lake.
This does, of course, cost more than simply draining the lake
all the time. But then, a lakefront house costs more than one
without such a view. One must pay for one's amenities.
>... Seems that wind power would be better used off-grid
>in association with something storable -- like the old western windmill
>pumping up water into a stock tank large enough to see the herd
>through the calm spells.
This is functionally identical to what I just described.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
| |
| Jim Baber 2006-02-18, 3:21 am |
| Jim Baber wrote:
The E.ON report mentioned so prominently in this thread, is probably
quite accurate as to the problems with wind as an energy source needing
a lot of fill-in capacity, when the energy source is in a relatively
small area like E.ON serves in Germany.
I question whether the same problem would occur if the equivalent source
capacity were to be widely distributed all over Europe. I believe that
a very widespread lull is very unlikely, particularly as far north as
Europe. This is a common problem with Solar PV, and bad weather. Solar
does benefit from the fact that in inclement weather and at night the
load is naturally lighter, so need for fill-in capacity is more
predictable and consistent.
If you were generating wind power sourced power in Wyoming, Idaho,
Washington, Oregon, and California these are close enough to be linked
via a High Voltage DC grid economically and yet are so widely separated
and would be located in historically major wind paths that would be very
unlikely to be lulled at the same times.
| |
| Nanook 2006-02-18, 4:21 am |
| In article <1140235074.689897.260180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> writes:
>
> Thanks for the info on the time to power up a coal-fired plant. Four
> hours to reach full output sounds pretty good -- but in my neck of the
> woods (SW US), it can go from howling winds to an erie flat calm in
> about half an hour; and does so quite often! Which brings us back to
> the grid operator's problem of balancing demand & supply.
>
Here in Washington we have some sites, like the ridges above Yakima valley
where the wind is pretty constant that would make good sites for reasonably
reliable wind power.
Also up in the skagit valley they've already installed a number of power
windmills that use a variable pitch blade to turn a constant RPM with varying
wind and I've never seen them not turning.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting.
Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers.
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-18, 9:21 am |
| daestrom wrote:
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:ar5hc3-9jf.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> The *physics* of it may sound 'quite reasonable'. The bigger issue is the
> *economics* of it.
But the real situation is that wind is never likely to be more than 10% of
production - even if all the wind stations went off-line at once, it's a
number that could be absorbed by the grid without difficulty. The other
stations need to exist, but they're _not_ surplus to requirements. If you
have to add capacity to your grid, and you do it with wind, your excess
costs are essentially the difference in capital costs between a fossil or
nuclear plant and a wind plant - meaningful numbers, but perhaps not
forever.
--
derek
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-18, 10:21 am |
|
"LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1140235074.689897.260180@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> daestrom wrote:
>
> Indeed! Of course, that variation is on the demand side. If I
> understood the E.ON report, that kind of variation in power demand over
> the course of each day is relatively predictable, and grid operators
> are quite efficient at scheduling plants to meet the anticipated
> varying level of power demand.
>
> But when they try to add significant amounts of windpower to the grid,
> they then also have to deal with variations in power supply --
> variations which are much less predictable. Hence the need to maintain
> a large amount of conventional rotating reserve, which seems largely to
> defeat the point of using wind power.
>
Indeed. But current ISO operations must also include contingincies for
plant trips. If the largest two plants in an ISO area add up to 1800 MW,
then they must have 'spinning reserve' and continginent agreements with
neighboring ISO's to allow for the sudden tripping of those plants without a
loss of power.
So for a given area, the variability in the wind and the rate at which it
changes would factor into those same contingincy plans. It would probably
require an increase in the 'spinning reserve' requirements and that would
have to be added onto the consumer costs.
> Thanks for the info on the time to power up a coal-fired plant. Four
> hours to reach full output sounds pretty good -- but in my neck of the
> woods (SW US), it can go from howling winds to an erie flat calm in
> about half an hour; and does so quite often! Which brings us back to
> the grid operator's problem of balancing demand & supply.
>
> It would be great, daestrom, if you could find the time to look through
> the E.ON report and pass on what you make of it.
Got a link?? Looked through the thread and didn't see one.
> You could clearly get
> a lot more out of it than someone like me. The way I read that report,
> wind-power is not going to be able to contribute much economically to
> grid power (once subsidies and preferential pricing go away, as they
> eventually will). Seems that wind power would be better used off-grid
> in association with something storable -- like the old western windmill
> pumping up water into a stock tank large enough to see the herd
> through the calm spells.
>
As I had pointed out in another message, yes the *economics* of large scale
wind power is not the simple 'free energy' some folks would like to believe.
But even so, the *environmental* impact is definitely positive. Every MWhr
generated by wind is one less MWhr generated by fossil fuels and several
tons less CO2.
Since economics will not drive us to save the environment (until fossil gets
much more expensive), what will? Altruistic appreciation for the
environment? While it's nice to think we all want to do our part, human
nature being what it is means "...let the other guy pay for cleaning up the
environment, I want *cheap*!!!" At some point, we just have to force
ourselves to do the right thing, even if it hurts.
daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-18, 11:21 am |
|
"Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message
news:6-GdnbhKX4HiIGveRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> Jim Baber wrote:
> The E.ON report mentioned so prominently in this thread, is probably
> quite accurate as to the problems with wind as an energy source needing
> a lot of fill-in capacity, when the energy source is in a relatively
> small area like E.ON serves in Germany.
>
> I question whether the same problem would occur if the equivalent source
> capacity were to be widely distributed all over Europe. I believe that
> a very widespread lull is very unlikely, particularly as far north as
> Europe.
I can't speak for Europe's climate, but I think this is trickier than this.
Does anyone know if there are some daily/hourly wind data from wide spread
areas? Looking at NOAA, they have wind information for each weather
station, but it would be rather hard to correlate daily wind data from
hundreds of separate sites.
> This is a common problem with Solar PV, and bad weather. Solar
> does benefit from the fact that in inclement weather and at night the
> load is naturally lighter, so need for fill-in capacity is more
> predictable and consistent.
>
> If you were generating wind power sourced power in Wyoming, Idaho,
> Washington, Oregon, and California these are close enough to be linked
> via a High Voltage DC grid economically and yet are so widely separated
> and would be located in historically major wind paths that would be very
> unlikely to be lulled at the same times.
>
While HVDC *can* be used to distribute power economically, what you're
proposing has a couple of pitfalls. Let us say that we have enough
wind-generating capacity on the Pacific coast to meet their needs when the
wind is blowing. And we have a few HVDC tie-lines over the Rockies to
supply the coast when the wind isn't blowing. What's feeding the tie?
Another, redundant amount of generating capacity that isn't needed on windy
days.
So to supply region 'A' with some amount of wind capacity *without* fossil
standby, we need an equivalent amount of wind capacity in some other region
'B' and a tie line between them. Presumably region 'B' has other wind
capacity that they use themselves, so this 'extra' capacity that will be
used to supply region 'A' when the wind in region 'A' is calm is necessary,
but seldom used. How to pay for it and justify it economically would be a
tricky issue.
Seems like the cheaper alternative is to have some standby fossil. Provided
its fuel supply is reliable (i.e. not like Russian pipeline gas to eastern
Europe), and it doesn't have to run too often.
daestrom
| |
| LongmuirG 2006-02-18, 12:21 pm |
| daestrom wrote:
> Got a link?? [to the E.ON report] Looked through the thread and didn't see one.
Sorry, the link was on a prior thread. E.On has published Wind Reports
for 2004 and 2005. They are available in German & English --
downloadable .pdf files, or they will gladly mail you a hard copy.
http://www.eon-netz.com/EONNETZ_eng.jsp
The underlying question in this discussion seems to relate to how to
pay for interruptible supplies to cover for intermittent sources. Gas
suppliers, for example, prefer to produce at near-full capacity to
amortize their own very expensive investments in wells, compressors,
pipelines. If they are asked to build a gas supply capacity that is
used only irregularly and intermittently to back up unpredictably
variable wind power, they are going to have to get financial
compensation beyond the normal Btu value of the gas.
If we really want to preserve the environment without putting wind
factories into Ted Kennedy's back yard, expanded use of nuclear power
would look to be a very serious contender. And maybe we should think
outside the box about dealing with the diurnal/seasonal variation in
demand -- say, have some valuable (but interruptible) large loads, like
water desalination and aquifer recharge?
| |
|
| On 16 Feb 2006 08:22:34 -0800, "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote:
>the...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>See the thread about German wind-power experience further back.
>
>German utility E.ON, who is the largest user of wind-generated
>electricity in the world, has concluded that:
>"traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the
>installed wind power capacity must be permanently on-line in order to
>guarantee power supply at all times".
>
>90%! Why not just forget the wind-power installations and use the
>"permanently on-line" conventional backup stations?
Natural gas is so expensive now (in the us) that wind power is
becoming cost-efficient EVEN if it's only a fuel saver (meaning it
allows to reduce gas use but does not provides extra capacity).
Natgas is now at around 7.5$ per MMBTU.
A NGCC has a heat rate of about 7000 BTU / kwh. NGCC = Natural Gas
Combined Cycle, the prefered thermal power plants.
This mean that gas-fired electricity is around 5.25 cents per kwh ONLY
FOR FUEL. This price does not include the construction cost, neither
the maintenance of the plant.
The natgas price i took is at henry hub, it can be significantly more
expensive in a given region (pipeline cost).
The state-of-the art wind farms, on good locations, makes electricity
at around 6 cents/kwh (full cycle cost, including construction,
maintenance, decominssing).
At this point, complementing a NGCC fleet with wind energy seems
neutral. Meaning that is i, a utility, have a fleet of NGCC as base
generating capacity and i complement that with a big wind farm, the
total full-cycle cost of my wind farm will be roughly equal to the
price of spared natural gas. I'm not winning neither losing much
money.
BUT, several factors can change that, and makes the wind farm an
attractiv investissment :
1 - I assumed wind power only saves fuel and does not provides
capacity. This is simplistic. Wind power is intermittant, but so is
thermal power after all, because of forced stops for maintenance. And
wind power, reducing the load factor of NGCC's, reduce their maintance
times, increasing availability. I can also make some maintenance when
the wind is blowing. So I win a bit of available capacity.
2- I can be pretty sure of the price of the electricty my wind farm
will generate during its 20 yars lifetime. Future natural gas price is
unknown, but long-term trend is clearly up (it was at 3$ in 2000!). So
my wind farm provides some certainy.
3- Wind power cost is reduced by the 1.8 cents/kwh Production Tax
Credit.
4- CO2 credits may provides an extra return in the future for wind
power.
5- I assumed that supplementing NGCC's with wind only saves natural
gas. In fact it also saves a little bit of maintenance cost, because
if the NGCC is less used, I will need less replacement parts.
6- Natural gas price is not constant at 7.5$. It's more expensive in
Winter. And it's in winter that wind farms generated the more power.
7- The ~6 cents price for wind power is for a nominal lifetime (20
years). Since the price is mostly capital return, the cost is reduced
it I can stretch the lifetime by a year or two.
8- Wind power is quite popular. By giving my company a "green" label,
it providess me a marketing edge.
9- If I also operate a dam, wind power is particularly usefull. Dams
can't run at full capacity all the time because the amount of water in
the aticifial lake is imited (and varies from one year to another).
Wind power can save water at a given time, to keep more available
capacity for another moment (maybe 6 months later!).
| |
| sugna41@hotmail.com 2006-02-19, 8:21 pm |
| St Lawrence Seaway?????
Thats a canal waterway system for moving ships from Great Lakes to Gulf
St. Lawernce. No Electricity Dams there. Some on Tributaries maybe
but most of electricity from Quebec comes from the James Bay Project
and Churchill Falls-all far up north about 11 000 MW in those two alone.
| |
|
|
| Don Kelly 2006-02-19, 9:21 pm |
|
"cyril" <meynier.cyril.enlever-delete@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:b8fgv110576dssrcp6gmpvqvrltiu8f3jj@4ax.com...
> On 16 Feb 2006 08:22:34 -0800, "LongmuirG" <LongmuirG@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> Natural gas is so expensive now (in the us) that wind power is
> becoming cost-efficient EVEN if it's only a fuel saver (meaning it
> allows to reduce gas use but does not provides extra capacity).
>
> Natgas is now at around 7.5$ per MMBTU.
>
> A NGCC has a heat rate of about 7000 BTU / kwh. NGCC = Natural Gas
> Combined Cycle, the prefered thermal power plants.
>
> This mean that gas-fired electricity is around 5.25 cents per kwh ONLY
> FOR FUEL. This price does not include the construction cost, neither
> the maintenance of the plant.
>
> The natgas price i took is at henry hub, it can be significantly more
> expensive in a given region (pipeline cost).
>
> The state-of-the art wind farms, on good locations, makes electricity
> at around 6 cents/kwh (full cycle cost, including construction,
> maintenance, decominssing).
>
>
> At this point, complementing a NGCC fleet with wind energy seems
> neutral. Meaning that is i, a utility, have a fleet of NGCC as base
> generating capacity and i complement that with a big wind farm, the
> total full-cycle cost of my wind farm will be roughly equal to the
> price of spared natural gas. I'm not winning neither losing much
> money.
>
> BUT, several factors can change that, and makes the wind farm an
> attractiv investissment :
>
> 1 - I assumed wind power only saves fuel and does not provides
> capacity. This is simplistic. Wind power is intermittant, but so is
> thermal power after all, because of forced stops for maintenance. And
> wind power, reducing the load factor of NGCC's, reduce their maintance
> times, increasing availability. I can also make some maintenance when
> the wind is blowing. So I win a bit of available capacity.
--------------
NG units can be scheduled for shutdown and maintenance at light load
periods. Wind cannot be pre-scheduled. There is still the need for
alternative capacity in non-wind sources because there is no way to predict
the availability of wind energy when needed. The maintenance schedule of Ng
or other fossil units does not win any available capacity gains.
--------
>
> 2- I can be pretty sure of the price of the electricty my wind farm
> will generate during its 20 yars lifetime. Future natural gas price is
> unknown, but long-term trend is clearly up (it was at 3$ in 2000!). So
> my wind farm provides some certainy.
----------
True- but why are you comparing wind with NG only? What is the price of
availability. Personally, I think that NG is such a big deal compared to
other sources is that gas turbines have low capital costs which makes them
attractive on the short term profit basis- blame deregulation for this. NG
units are great for peaking rather than base load short term "grocery store"
economics has an effect. Wind is not good for peaking as nature's schedule
doesn't coincide with man's schedule.
>
> 3- Wind power cost is reduced by the 1.8 cents/kwh Production Tax
> Credit.
--------
Fair enough but who pays for this credit?
---------
>
> 4- CO2 credits may provides an extra return in the future for wind
> power.
--------
There is a valid point but is there a political will?
---------
>
> 5- I assumed that supplementing NGCC's with wind only saves natural
> gas. In fact it also saves a little bit of maintenance cost, because
> if the NGCC is less used, I will need less replacement parts.
-----------
True but how much is gained?
---------
>
> 6- Natural gas price is not constant at 7.5$. It's more expensive in
> Winter. And it's in winter that wind farms generated the more power.
----------
But do they do it at the time of day that it is needed? If so- great- but if
not, then there is still the need for reserve generation that can be made
available quickly.
----------
>
> 7- The ~6 cents price for wind power is for a nominal lifetime (20
> years). Since the price is mostly capital return, the cost is reduced
> it I can stretch the lifetime by a year or two.
------
However the net cost to the consumer must also include the cost of capital
of plant required to replace the wind when it is not available- availability
and reliability of generation is an important factor. Do you want to say
"sorry, you do not have electricity because the wind is too high or low and
there is no other capacity to replace it"?
>
> 8- Wind power is quite popular. By giving my company a "green" label,
> it providess me a marketing edge.
-----------
Very true but it is actually bullshitting the public. Is that what you
want?
---------
>
> 9- If I also operate a dam, wind power is particularly usefull. Dams
> can't run at full capacity all the time because the amount of water in
> the aticifial lake is imited (and varies from one year to another).
> Wind power can save water at a given time, to keep more available
> capacity for another moment (maybe 6 months later!).
-----------------
You are right there-for small hydro- not larger schemes which are generally
not energy limited. Energy limited hydro can work well with any other
source-not necessarily wind- as peaking plant. However, given the capital
cost of a hydro system (far exceeds "fuel" cost), the combination of wind
and gas turbines makes more sense.
I have no objection to wind power and would like to see more of it. However,
there are realistic limitations and advantages to it. Its main advantage is
that it can reduce net use of fossil fuels. Its main disadvantage is that
its availability is out of our control and doesn't match our needs. In any
power system there has to be a balance between cost (including
environmental) and reliability of service. Hence there has to be a mix of
sources. If wind meant fewer fossil plants- fine- but, in fact it has little
impact on the total fossil plant capacity needed. It does have an impact on
the fuel used by such plants. That is its main benefit. Don't compare wind
to, say, gas turbine plants as they have different and, to some extent,
complimentary, characteristics. If wind is available -use it- if not, then
what should replace it? There is, or was, a well established process for
looking at the best alternative for future sources. This seems to have
disappeared in recent years because of ill-considered incentives and "I want
a return on investment now" approach to system planning that has developed
because long term planning is now discouraged by the marketing/deregulation
changes.
We have to keep an open mind to the available alternatives including wind
among them. Natural gas is a premium fuel and should be used for premium
purposes but it isn't and there is the problem. Modern coal technology and
nuclear (bad word) should be explored and used more thoroughly and reliance
on NG reduced.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-02-19, 11:21 pm |
| Steve Spence wrote:
> sugna41@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Wow ......
>
> It happens to be a river littered with power dams, including the Robert
> Moses 25 miles from me. You need to study:
>
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/stlaure...onsslseaway.htm
> http://collections.ic.gc.ca/stlauren/econ/ec_energy.htm
>
You would tend not to notice the dams, because the river is moving so much
water, year round, that large reservoirs are not needed, but there
certainly are dams. Then there are the generating stations at Niagara -
and perhaps elsewhere - that don't require dams at all.
--
derek
| |
| Don Kelly 2006-02-23, 12:21 am |
| "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
news:43f5e857_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> sugna41@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Much of NY and New England get their power from the St. Lawrence Seaway
> power dams which isn't all that dependent on snow.
They get their energy from the same source- precipitation. Whether it comes
from snow or rain doesn't matter. In either case it ends up as water behind
the dam. The dams in Quebec weren't designed on the basis of melting snow-
They were designed on the basis of the available water, head and storage.
Getting the water from melting snow means no more than collecting water
during the "rainy season" in other parts of the world. Is there anyplace
where precipitation is uniform through the year, and it such places exist-
is there enough of it?
Do you think that the inflow into the Great lakes isn't affected by run-off
from melting snow? T'ain't so.
The Seaway production is actually quite dependent on snow fall- but there
are several big natural reservoirs upstream to smooth the flow in the river.
--
Don Kelly @shawcross.ca
remove the X to answer
----------------------------
| |
| daestrom 2006-02-23, 7:21 pm |
|
"Don Kelly" <dhky@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:dCaLf.62758$sa3.25541@pd7tw1no...
> "Steve Spence" <sspence@green-trust.org> wrote in message
> news:43f5e857_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
>
> They get their energy from the same source- precipitation. Whether it
> comes from snow or rain doesn't matter. In either case it ends up as
> water behind the dam. The dams in Quebec weren't designed on the basis of
> melting snow- They were designed on the basis of the available water, head
> and storage. Getting the water from melting snow means no more than
> collecting water during the "rainy season" in other parts of the world.
> Is there anyplace where precipitation is uniform through the year, and it
> such places exist- is there enough of it?
All true. But the GLakes do a pretty good job of acting as a natural
reservoir (to the tune of smoothing out a couple of years worth of precip.).
We have some 'run-of-river' hydro on several rivers that lead from the
Adirondacks to the GLakes here in NY, they suffer from the usual late-summer
'dry-out' from lack of rain, and the spring 'run-off' rush.
Of course the St Lawrence is just a natural 'spillway' for the precipitation
gathered from three Canadian provinces and eight or ten US states.
> Do you think that the inflow into the Great lakes isn't affected by
> run-off from melting snow? T'ain't so.
> The Seaway production is actually quite dependent on snow fall- but there
> are several big natural reservoirs upstream to smooth the flow in the
> river.
Yep. A few years of low snow fall and the GLake levels are down several
feet. And for reservoirs as big as the Glakes, that's a *lot* of water.
Then all the different factions that depend on the GLakes for water start
screaming to the Corp of Eng. and St Lawrence authorities to 'do something'
about it ;-)
daestrom
|
|
|
|
|