My colleague Alan Moran, had an article published in Melbourne’s Herald Sun on the weekend. I was interested in his comment about the relative cost of different electricity sources in a Victorian context. He wrote:
“Extracting carbon dioxide from brown coal, even in the embryonic pilot schemes now on the drawing board, would double the cost of electricity generation. Not only would this have a direct on the consumer but it would, at a stroke, undermine the State’s commercial competitiveness.
If we were serious about reducing carbon emissions we would be embracing nuclear power.
At least we know this is only double the cost of coal power.
But even such a modicum of commonsense wilts in the hands of ministers who are prisoners of the green left.
Mr Thwaites released a paper shortly before Christmas calling for a doubling of the electricity derived from wind power.
We know wind power is expensive and unreliable but in making the proposal, he did not even try to estimate its cost to the ordinary consumer or to the State.”
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Does anyone have information on what would be involved if say 10% of Australia’s power came from wind turbines? How many turbines would be needed, where would they be sited, what sort of infrastructure is required?
Also what sort of emission reduction is likely with this sort of capacity.
In other words, what would the reality of large scale wind power look like.
Jennifer – the full cost of nuclear power has consistantly found to be higher than coal or even coal with IGCC as in this MIT paper
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-summary.pdf
It put nuclear at 6.7c/kWh.
Wind on the other hand has dropped dramtically in cost:
” The direct cost per kilowatt-hour of power generated by winds of at least 14 miles per hour is 2.9 to 3.9 cents, according to a 2001 article in Science by Jacobson and Gilbert Masters, an emeritus professor (teaching) of civil and environmental engineering. That cost competes with that of power produced at new plants utilizing coal (3.5 to 4 cents) or natural gas (3.3 to 3.6 cents). Mighty winds might breathe clean, renewable power into the grid, which in 1999 relied on coal (51 percent) and natural gas (15 percent) to generate 66 percent of U.S. electric power.”
If solar thermal plants and wind turbines are installed along with electric cars and plug in hybrids you can help the problems of Peak Oil and solve the ‘reliability’ problem as well.
Why are the government prisoners of the green left?
Wind energy is also only double the cost of coal – on par with nuclear. The difference is that wind energy’s costs have been demonstrated in Australia, while the cost estimate for nuclear could well be optimistic.
Also, wind energy is smaller, modular, and can be implemented quickly and easily in comparison to gargantuan nuclear power stations. An easy winner.
Also, Victoria has a natural advantage in wind power – its windier in victoria than it is in NSW or QLD, the other big national market states.
Why wouldn’t they go for wind power, which can be attracting investment to VIC now, instead of talking about nuclear which the coal industry is not going to let happen in Australia without a fight?
How’s that for a ‘modicum of common sense’? How can you regard foisting a 2,000 MW new nuclear power station on the Australia public when it will cost double the price of coal and take years to build, and is a less flexible technology than wind power as a ‘modicum of common sense’?
10% wind power – lets see:
In 2004-5, about 176,000 GWH was sent out in the national electricity market (www.nemmco.com.au annual report).
A good wind farm in Australia has a capacity factor of about 40%. So if we assume that an average wind farm has a capacity factor of 30% (which is very reasonable given the size of the Australian continent and excellence of its wind resource), then:
In 1 year, a 1.5 MW wind turbine produces
1.5 MegaWatt x 0.3 x 8760 hours = 3.942 GigaWatt-hours.
So you would need
176,000 x 0.1 / 3.942 = 4465 1.5 megawatt turbines to meet 10% of Australia’s electricty supply with wind power, or about 6,700 MegaWatts of wind power.
According to the Australian wind energy association (www.auswea.com.au – see projects map) there is already 572 MW of wind power installed in Australia, and 5,914 MW under development.
Mind you, most of that 5,914 megawatts won’t happen under current arrangements, because there is no govt driver for it – why would you put in wind power at double the cost of coal when you can just use coal? you wouldn’t, unless you had a renewable energy support program, or, better, an emissions trading scheme.
Paul – Australia has very roughly 25GW of installed generating capacity. So I guess that 2.5GW of wind would be required to be 10% of Australia’s needs. Not counting capacity factor here.
As modern wind turbines are getting bigger and bigger, especially off-shore ones, you could use 5MW variable speed wind turbines so you would need 2500/5 = 500 wind turbines. As you could put at least 50 or so in wind farms then this is 100 or so wind farms spread across Australia. Add in a few Solar Towers and solar thermal plants and this could easily be 20%.
And before anyone jumps in and asks why we got different answers take a closer look at mine. I assumed no capacity factor. This would make my answer assuming Steve’s cap factor of 30% at approx 1500 turbines. Also I use the newer larger turbines that are now coming into service. The ones I selected (5MW) are 3 times the size of Steves. This makes our answers remarkably similar given then 2 different approaches we used.
Enercon manufacture the very large ones http://www.enercon.de/en/_home.htm – the E112 of 4.5MW to 6MW capacity. BTW note the rotation speed of 8 to 13 rpm. These turbines are very quiet.
Steve. the Esperance wind farm, which cost $5.9M, supplies 8% of the power for a town of <10,000 population.
Wind farms need back up sources of energy, for when it is not blowing, you must add that to the calculation.
Also Esperance is the windiest place in Australia, how many wind farms do you need in a non windy spot?
Once you add the ∞ factor cost blow out, no pun intended.
rog – do you often see coal plants were there is no coal? You simply do not put wind turbines where there is no wind. The south west grid that Esperance is a part of ranges from 400MW to 1080MW demand. As the wind farms have an installed capacity of 2 MW and 3.6 MW you can see that why they can only generate 8% of Esperance’s power.
Coal plants need backup too as do nuclear plants when they are down for maintenance or failures – is that usually quoted as a downside for coal? Also most coal plants are sitting around idle for much of the time as peak demand is often 65% more than off-peak demand.
It is very rarely still and overcast. A mixture of solar/wind provides more reliability. It is even rarer to be still and overcast in 2 geographically seperated sites that are still connected to the same grid. Throw in storage in electric cars then most of the relability problems that critics of renewable power like to throw around disappear.
Solar cells lose 0.5% efficiency for every degree over 25 celsius. In direct sunlight (coz for some reason they dont work in the shade) it is easy to get +37 in summer. And as you say it is rarely overcast.
Most solar promoters avoid that statistic, they only give you “optimal” “theoretical” output.
On a hot day, or a cloudy day, you need back up.
As for the fallcious argument “do you often see coal plants were there is no coal?’
Why heck no Ender, I have never seen a coal plant were there was no coal. In fact, every coal plant that I have seen has had coal. Amazing!
Therefore a coal plant with no coal does not exist.
What bothers me with many comments on power alternatives is the ease by which they can be proposed and built by other armchair promoters like me. She’ll be right, can do attitude will not do; sorry.
First find an experienced nuclear technician, a tower rigger and a local council permit.
Lead times for any machinery orders will probably take longer than the latest Quantas jumbo.
Some power developments around Bass Strait that are joining the grid today were first considered back in the 60s. Back then Tasmania’s HEC was giving hydro energy away to keep that state up with industrial competition from cheap coal fired thermal generators. Through the 1970s we had a good handful of home grown practical experience in both energy development and control.
What’s changed?
Most have post war automation graduates and practitioners have retired. We start again from scratch.
Jennifer perhaps you can address the research (eg Ender’s post above) that indicates that the total cost of nuclear (cradle to grave lifecycle costs of mining and waste storage). Given the *long lead times* for advancing nuclear technology (new breed efficient reactors aren’t actually developed yet), planning and building a facility (18-23 yrs) and waste processing, plus the historical fact that nuclear plants always dramatically blow their budgets and prove impossibly difficult and risky to decommission, then there are very high future costs and risks to be accounted for today. Don’t overlook them or discount them too heavily
Wind and solar have an almost immediate payback period compared to nuclear, without the additional risks and high energy demands for mining. If we invested in energy-saving technologies and renewable generators…. nah stupid me, we have the powerful incumbents to keep happy, the type that financially support the current govt and the IPA to ensure that funds are reinvested in business-as-usual-with-a-slight-twist.
rog – first of all let me correct a mistake I made. I quoted the figures for the South Western WA grid which Esperence IS NOT a part of. Esperance is seperate and has just installed a new gas power station that will supply:
“The power station will supply Western Power’s 6,327 business and residential customers in and around Esperance – stretching west to Munglinup, east to beyond Condingup and north to Salmon Gums. BRWD will supply electricity to Western Power at a lower generation cost and at higher environmental standards than existing diesel generators.”
Actually I think that 8% figure on the Western Power site is an old one. With the new wind farm at Nine Mile Beach and the new gas turbine the figure is now:
“The wind farms generate about 22% of Esperance’s electricity. Maximum instantaneous penetration is just over 65%.”
This is from http://www.daws.com.au/Projects/Esperance.html.
As the new gas power station is very responsive to changes in supply it can:
“The current power system comprises two wind farms (5.6MW total capacity) operating in parallel with the 30MW Esperance gas turbine based power station owned and operated by the Esperance Power Station Pty Ltd (a subsidiary of Burns & Roe Worley). The majority of the electricity on this system comes from these gas turbines.
The wind farm includes a control system based on a Master Controller, which talks directly with the gas turbine control system to manage the wind farm output. Due to the distance of the wind farms from the power station, the system incorporates sophisticated high reliability communications equipment using digital radio modems and fibre optic within the wind farms.”
Going on these figures the total installed power is 35.6 MW of which the wind turbines comprise 15% of the total installed power. The fact that they contribute 22% of the total power generated seems to confirm Esperance as a prime wind power site.
rog – “Solar cells lose 0.5% efficiency for every degree over 25 celsius”
You said the last time you pulled this hoary old chestnut out that you did not want a technical answer yet here it is again.
Right – for the last time the 25 degrees is an international rating system not how the cells operate. They do not all lose 0.5% efficiency at all – this is just plain wrong. They have current curves that are quoted at different temperatures and they are all different. Thin film cells such as Unisolar or Kaneke do not derate much at all and work suprisinly well with diffuse light.
Please look at this web page and educate yourself about how solar cells work.
http://www.kyocerasolar.com/solar/modules.html
As you can see from the graph it is the operating voltage that is lowered which if the panel is not properly designed can lead to the load that it is connected to not charging properly. In all grid tie systems a Maximum Power Point tracker changes the voltage that the cells operate to compensate for this with very little loss of efficiency.
Solar PV is not the only type of solar power plant either. Solar thermal uses the suns heat to heat a working fluid to drive a turbine. This is not heat affected.
“And as you say it is rarely overcast.”
No I said that it is rarely overcast and still (no wind)
“Most solar promoters avoid that statistic, they only give you “optimal” “theoretical” output.
On a hot day, or a cloudy day, you need back up.”
Absolute and complete rubbish. A solar designer will install a system that will charge the batteries whatever the temperature or install a MPPT.
On a hot day a solar thermal plant works best and can still work on quite cloudy days. You have demonstrated here an astounding ignorance of solar technology – perhaps you should learn a bit about it.
“As for the fallcious argument “do you often see coal plants were there is no coal?'”
Perhaps I needed to make this a bit more obvious. Most large coal power stations, because of their voracious appetites and the fact coal is quite bulky, are built very near the source of their fuel. Gas power stations are built near pipelines or pipelines are built to them.
No-one builds a commercial wind farm where there is no wind. Is that clear enough?
Ender how successful is solar at White Cliffs, NSW – and do we have other national/international examples?
From the hoary old chestnut riddled Govt greenhouse site;
Solar modules come in two distinct categories – crystalline silicon and amorphous silicon thin film. Both amorphous and crystalline technologies are commonly used in efficient grid connected and stand alone installations.
Mono and poly crystalline modules usually have 36 solar cells in a 9 x 4 matrix connected in series to provide an output voltage suitable for battery charging.
A typical module will provide a peak power output voltage of 17V and output current of 4.7A under optimum conditions, giving a rating of 80 Watts peak (Wp). Modules can be connected in series or parallel to form an array to provide higher voltage and current outputs as required.
Crystalline solar modules are covered with tempered glass on top and a tough ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) material at
the back. The glass and backing material protect the solar cells from moisture.
Crystalline modules need to be cool. Output efficiency of crystalline PV arrays decreases by 0.5 percent per degree Celcius over the standard test temperature of 25°C. Good ventilation is required at the back of modules. Exposure to cool breezes when siting modules is an important consideration.
Amorphous silicon is one of a number of thin film technologies. This type of solar cell can be applied as a film to low cost substrates such as glass or plastic in a variety of module sizes.
Advantages of thin film cells include easier deposition and assembly, low cost of substrates or building materials, ease of production and suitability to large applications.
Efficiency of thin film modules is lower than that of crystalline modules but all the types of modules are price competitive. Those currently on the market degrade in output by up to 10 percent when first exposed to sunlight but quickly stabilise to their rated output.
Thin film modules have various (often flexible) coating and mounting systems. Some are less susceptible to damage from hail and other impacts than those covered in glass.
Solar modules can be supplied with a frame, usually constructed of anodised aluminium, or as an unframed laminate.
More solar modules are being fabricated as building materials so that they can be integrated into the building fabric. They include solar roof tiles, wall materials and semi-transparent roof material for atriums and skylights.
It is anticipated that further development of thin film technology will lead to a proliferation of cost effective, PV coated building materials that can be integrated with the building fabric to reduce costs.
All PV modules need to be cleaned periodically to maintain their efficiency.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/yourhome/technical/fs47.htm
Hey Ender, you need to get new glasses.
You said (re overcast days affecting performance): “Absolute and complete rubbish”
You also said; “look at this web page and educate yourself about how solar cells work.”
I did
1. PV modules are very sensitive to shading.
2. If a row of cells at the bottom of a module is fully shaded the power output may drop to zero.
3. A module which is rated at 17 volts will put out less than its rated power when used in a battery system.
4. If your solar array tilt is greater than 15° off the latitude angle, the reduction in your system’s annual energy production may fall by as much as 15% from its peak available value. During winter months at higher latitudes, the reduction will be greater.
Obviously there is more to it than just whacking it on a roof and walking away.
And more on loss of efficiency through heat and other variables, from the Solar Electric Power Association;
1. Bird droppings, pollution, and dust from traffic or farming activities accumulate rapidly, however, and can reduce output by as much as 20 percent over the course of a dry summer.
2. A general “rule of thumb” for crystalline silicon PV module (the most common type to date) is that the efficiency (and, therefore, the power output) is reduced about 0.5 percent for every degree C increase in temperature.
3. hot day of 100°F, the module will be 120°F or 50°C, so it will have its power reduced by 12.5 percent.
4. Heat fade shows up most severely in battery systems.
http://www.solarelectricpower.org/about/default.cfm
And in Brisbane you can sometimes go 3 days without power when the grid poops itself.
I have another problem with these discussions on alternative energy sources; we all expect governments and corporations to deliver our power on tap with out regard for the necessary infrastructure. I mentioned Bass Strait, for ages it divided coal from hydro.
In my current home base, our ACT which generates little energy there is a very significant NIMBY factor considering the potential for power politics and policy. Where does our “green energy” come from?
Unless we individually develop some concept of independence, perhaps go it alone with solar or what ever most of us will never realize what savings have to be made. For example I know from experience a coil of black plastic water tube laid out in the grass heats water nicely but put it on the roof and its all lost in the frost over night. However that roll of black tube is very affordable.
May be it worth noting here the spring at the far end of the water line on our abandoned hobby farm had insufficient flow to operate a hydraulic water ram. I had to pay for the installation of a new transformer and power pole. It beats bucketing every day and this raises another question; who wants to return to basics?
Back in the early nineties, Qld’s Dept Mines & Energy trialled standalone renewable systems and compared cost and perfomance between Boulia in the south-west and the Daintree in the wet tropics.
The costs per kilowatt hour were as much as twenty times higher in the Daintree, with over 200 rainy days per year, steep mountains and densely-packed rainforest canopy. For commercial businesses that relied solely on engine generators for their electricity needs, the costs increased to 30 times that at Boulia.
After approximately eight years of operation, battery banks become defunct. Replacement costs are around $6,330. Optimising battery life is achieved by sustaining 80 to 100% capacity. If there is low rainfall, hydropower inevitably fails and solar, good for probably eight hours a day when it is not overcast or raining, is inadequate for meeting modest household needs – so gensets are fired up to convert 240 volts AC to 24 V DC at a loss of some 50% efficiency for the conversion. Reconversion to 240 V AC has its own inefficiencies.
Overall, the cost of modelling standalone renewable electricity in the Daintree, to apparently conform with the smart state’s environmental policy, is prohibitively high. Concerted and reiterated efforts to remove the prohibitive costs by applying supposedly statedwide equalised tariffs have been unsuccessful.
Rog,
Its great that you are doing this research. If you keep reading you will see that the issues you are raising, re bird droppings, shading and heat etc, have been issues with solar power since the year dot, and they have been more than dealt with.
The main way they are dealt with is through an enormous amount of work that has gone on in australia and in every other country over the last two decades to
– develop official (Australian or international) standards for solar power
– develop official standards for the installation of solar power
– provide accreditation and training of solar designers and installers (Ender you have accreditation don’t you?)
– monitoring of installers work
– removal of accreditation for dodgy work (i think this needs more teeth, but it has improved over the last 5 years)
Installation standards and design standards mean that solar power systems are effectively designed for the loads of each customer, regardless of any temperature effects. A rule of thumb: 1kW of solar panels gives you about 1,400 kWh of electricity each year, including temp effects and all losses.
All of the issues you mention are not significant problems for solar power. The one issue that is significant for solar power remains its high cost.
Phil: you can purchase inverters and batteries that allow you to keep running if the grid goes down. However, most people in grid areas wouldn’t bother to do this because the grid rarely goes down, rarely for long, and it is not that much of an inconvenience.
How often do you go for 3 days without power in Brisbane?
I take great delight in retirement from working with industry and technology reminding our new age philosophers of the battles we had and will have again. Across the steep gully from our hobby farm is a high voltage pylon corridor. Our old council in their wisdom has recently poo pooed the idea of doubling that transmission line capacity unless some of it is put underground. The NIMBY factor is at work in the regions too.
Here is the rub; that high voltage line connects your green energy to the national grid and balances wind power from a large farm with a very significant hydro system in reserve on a good day.
As another post points out; only a natural gas fired station can compete in following the variables, wind and demand. In ability to follow either can destroy a grid as various cities find one after another with aging infrastructure
Perhaps the ACT can build such a complementary system one day with in its boarders.
*The one issue that is significant for solar power remains its high cost.*
I’m glad I didnt say that, it woulda been the ender me.
Another high cost are the Esperance wind farms
9 Mile = $10.6M = 3.6 MW ($2.94M per MW)
10 Mile = $5.96M = 2 MW ($2.98M per MW)
Gas Turbine = $45M = 30MW ($1.5M per MW)
Esperance needs
Re: Enders and others comments on costs/Kwr.
I am very suspcious of attempts to compare costs of the various sources of energy without any attempt being made by those arguing either way to establish the underlying assumptions used in each category. For example in comparing nuclear with coal, with wind, it needs to established that the same interest rates,depreciation rates and amortization periods are being used, and further they all need to have their various subsidies ( which they all have) normalised back to a common starting base. Unless that is done, any comparisons are just b-s.
An alternative? the solar tower?
http://www.eroei.com/articles/24_feb_05_solar_tower.html
rog – yet again you manage to misquote me “‘On a hot day, or a cloudy day, you need back up.”
Absolute and complete rubbish.”
That is what I said – in the context of solar PV you size it to the maximum temperature so that it will deliver the rated power in all conditions. If the system is stand-alone then you need batteries for totally overcast and and night. Try to get the quotes right in future.
“3. hot day of 100°F, the module will be 120°F or 50°C, so it will have its power reduced by 12.5 percent.”
and still giving 84.5%. IF the panels are properly mounted then the power loss can be minimised as the panels can be cooled.
So here is another dodgy calculation
“Another high cost are the Esperance wind farms
9 Mile = $10.6M = 3.6 MW ($2.94M per MW)
10 Mile = $5.96M = 2 MW ($2.98M per MW)
Gas Turbine = $45M = 30MW ($1.5M per MW)”
On the face of it this clearly shows wind to be more expensive HOWEVER what about the fuel cost for the gas station PLUS the amortised cost of the pipeline specially built to supply gas to the power station???????
Steve – No I do not have accreditation yet – I am studying for it.
Wind for 10% of Australias power needs. This is only about 5 years growth in electricity demand.
The NIMBY issue makes many places impossible to place wind farms especially given the sea change phenomena.
I suspect one of the big issues is up front capital costs for what ever technology is replaces coal, although the replacements may be cheaper to run in the long term.
If, as a society we can afford a very large number of very expensive and largely unnecessary 4WDs, this capital could be used to convert the residences of the owners to grid connected solar. Probably overall less economically efficient than gas fired co-generation but a big potential source of capital.
On power loss in Brissy. 3 days – not often – but only a couple of years ago we did in bad set of storms day after day. Then we had the heatwave day after day and strain on energy demand (taste of a climate to come??).
Anyway – showed a couple of things – people love air-con when it’s hot and the state govt had run the grid infrastructure down and milked excess profits. (sort of like right wing MBA types like to do not being monitored). Millions are now being spent in infrastructure renewal after all was exposed.
We’re now doing the same on Health. Currently closing emergency wards in Caboolture and Ipswich as doctors go south for more $$ and less b/s. Anyway I digress.. ..
Anyway storms still wreak havoc with grid and you can easily find yourself without power for a day in SE Qld.
On Daintree – power north of the river was one of those great environmental debates – but I hear that perhaps mains power would be better than generator noise and diesel and oil slopping around getting into creeks. Neil may have a comment and also why more people up there don’t do solar?
As we read on I reckon its time to ask? Who here has worked with large batteries or quantities of batteries and perhaps grids and associated switch gear over time. A focus on generators is hardly appropriate in considering our long term power needs.
Lets start with just running the tele after dark, that is everyone’s television late at night. In my alternative living experiment we dumped the tele and got the teenagers doing their high school homework in daylight. That was before mobile phones though.
In rolling out mobile phone networks I looked at the entire population distribution and quite a bit of the outback comms infrastructure. Much of that depended on solar energy and batteries. What replaced radio pedal power is hardly appropriate for a modern industrial city that works round the clock.
Think of hospitals, road traffic and emergencies. Large diesel generators were deployed all over as a last back up. They don’t always go on demand. Not all are phase locked to the grid either.
Energy storage and power distribution are still our biggest issues
A few years back I saw a TV program which described a system using pipes passing through saline pools, which get very hot in the sun, so heating the fresh water in the pipes. Does any body know anything about this? Did it fizz out due to cost, technical problems etc.?
Malcolm wants more evidence of costs. How’s this:
Wholesale electricity in Australia is about $35 per megawatt-hour.
Current legislation (mandatory renewable energy target) to increase renewable energy means that a renewable generator can make a premium of up to $40 per megawatt-hour for the green electricity they produce.
So, for investors to be willing to invest in a wind farm in Australia (as they have been doing for the past few years), then the price of wind energy must be less than about $75 per megawatt-hour for wind energy to be able to compete with wholesale electricity (ie coal) so that electricity retailers will purchase the electricity and investors can make a return.
This means that wind energy in Australia is currently about double the cost of coal (or better).
The expected cost of nuclear energy in australia is far more rubbery, i can’t help you with that. The cost to sequester emissions from coal power stations underground is even more rubbery.
Thanks Steve
I think all the figures are rubbery as hell. No one is comparing like with like… financially speaking.
The reference provided by Ender in a previous post on Nuclear Energy contains a reasonable asessment of the costs, so far as one can tell, but the Recommendations, if implemented, would mean that one would never be able to get a “true” cost. Full of subsidies and tax breaks.This doesnt make it wrong, just makes it more obvious just how difficult it is to draw any sensible comparisons at any time.
To add another dimension, perhaps a red herring to the green energy debate, our military power particularly naval power must be considered with appropriate technology development. As fuel oil becomes less viable in transport around our vast coastline it may force to develop our nuclear alternatives. Besides; who wants to be piloting a big gas tank anywhere in a real skirmish?
Last week I suggested to a personnel officer he should recruit some sailors who were prepared to do the Sydney Hobart in stiff competition in case we can’t keep up otherwise.
Now that’s using our green energy at its best.
Steve those wholesale figures don’t address Malcom’s important point: “it needs to established that the same interest rates,depreciation rates and amortization periods are being used, and further they all need to have their various subsidies ( which they all have) normalised back to a common starting base.”
They also need to include a risk assessment and the costs of the entire process, end to end and from production to delivery: eg obtaining the raw materials through to disposing of and managing the waste products, the eventual decommission of the plant; and costs of delivery to consumers (eg decentralised, grid connected generators nearer to consumers reduce the high losses (10% ?) from distribution from highly centralised generators).
Also, not all wholesale megawatt-hour prices support apples to apples comparisons as it can vary according to the precise point at which the power is taken from the generator.
Hi “Think”,
I think I do address Malcolm’s importants points. For investors to want to invest in wind energy it needs to offer a long run return. They are investing, therefore wind energy under current support programs is economically viable, or else investors like Babcock and Brown are stupid (not likely).
Current support programs give renewable energy a premium of up to $40/MWh. So, for wind energy to be a worthwhile prospect for investors, it needs to be able to produce electricty at no more than about $80/MWh. This number is determined over the life of the wind turbine, and takes into account, interest rates, depreciation, cost of removing the turbine at the end of its useful life (i’m assuming the landowner would be smart enough to negotiate this), payments to the land owner to lease the property etc.
I’m not comparing to a particular coal power station, i’m comparing to the current average wholesale electricity price, which is about $35/MWH, though it can spike at peak times etc.
My argument was that we can be quite confident about what the price of wind energy is through this on the ground demonstration, whereas the estimates of the cost of nuclear generation in Australia are rubbery, because they rely on all sorts of assumptions about what will happen to waste, how much development approvals will cost, how much PR and marketing will cost, what supporting infrastructure (eg transmission lines) will be newly needed to accomodate a nuclear reactor in the middle of nowhere (where it won’t be in anyone’s backyard) etc. Even though nuclear has been done overseas, its difficult to estimate these costs in australia, given it hasn’t been done here yet.
the costs are even more rubbery for geosequestration, since it is still on the drawing board and in the R&D phase.
I’ve been listening to optimistic solar pundits advise that rooftop solar power will be cost competitive with the grid ‘within 5 years’ for a long time now. Its always about 5 years away. They say that geosequestration might be available in 15+ years. I’m not holding my breath.
Steve, thanks for your reply. Yeah my points were largely directed at the costing of coal & nuclear which is more rubbery as you say. (Plus industry arguments often compare rotten apples to fresh oranges).
Do you have an insight into the subsidies/support structure for coal (mining & coal fired generators) or other indirect subsidies that support its wholesale price (against which wind is being compared)?
as an aside, I read that the current US govt received record foreign donations, in particular, European nuclear interests who want the US govt to push the nuclear agenda
Colleagues, neutrals and adversaries,
What do you seriously think about Australia using nuclear power.
Let me be provocative .. ..
How many hundred/thousand die from coal mining each year. China especially bad. Then there is the pollution and lung disease issues.
What is the nuclear accident record apart from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Sellafield cancer clusters may end up being power lines.
Are new reactor designs very very safe?
What of the record in France as a example of major use.
Are we better at using our own uranium than getting it back enriched in war-heads or dirty bombs. Are our export safety standards enough?
Could Australian nuclear power be sold to a fearful public.
Should it?
Are there any changes of heart in the environment movement.
Phil
“How many hundred/thousand die from coal mining each year. China especially bad. Then there is the pollution and lung disease issues.”
True many hundreds. Coal plants actually emit more radiation than some nuclear plants not to mention mercury etc.
“What is the nuclear accident record apart from Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. Sellafield cancer clusters may end up being power lines.”
Actually it is pretty good. However a lot of the small accidents we do not hear about.
“Are new reactor designs very very safe?”
The new pebble bed reactors are very safe however they produce larger volumes of waste that is harder to reprocess.
“What of the record in France as a example of major use.”
France is storing its waste above ground and waiting for someone to work out how to bury it properly preferably after the present people in charge are safely dead. The Swedes are far more responsible.
“Are we better at using our own uranium than getting it back enriched in war-heads or dirty bombs. Are our export safety standards enough?”
Anyone who exports uranium should be aware of the chance of getting it back as a bomb. The nuclear non proliferation treaty was not modified at the last meeting which broke up with no agreement. For an example if how it works look at Iran at the moment.
“Could Australian nuclear power be sold to a fearful public.”
No need to – we have the most renewable potential of any country in the world.
Phil – it’s interesting that you raise the question of a change of heart in the environment movement. I wonder whether you might be hinting at James Lovelock’s piece in The Independent today.
http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article338830.ece
Having read “The Ages of Gaia” years ago, I was surprised to hear of-late, of Lovelock’s pro-nuclear energy position. I must admit to having felt somewhat betrayed, but did not investigate his rationale. I now understand that it seems he sees the threat of planetary feedback mechanisms as so severe and beyond correction that the downsides of nuclear perhaps don’t look so bad. I am personally not (yet) convinced that nuclear (fusion) is sustainable given an objective and holistic outlook. Given Lovelock’s holistic view, I’ll be interested to read his new book “The Revenge of Gaia”.
Richard – wasn’r specifically referring to Lovelock.
I am talking about fission reactors in my comments above – I am assuming a sustainable practical fusion reactor still needs to be invented and is a long way off.
I’m definitely not pro-nuclear although I haven’t absolutely ruled it out yet (altho I’d like to). Coal’s health hazards may be as bad as nuclear. Re: dirty bombs & war-heads, add in the risk of nuclear waste storage sites being hit by increasingly popular bunker-buster (deep penetration) bombs. I rather expect long-term that energy generation will, like many technologies, become a decentralised (DIY/hack) commodity, tailored to specific local generator capabilities… (eg people modifying their hybrid cars) but that’s not here or now yet. I’m suspicious of pie-in-the-sky technology plans that don’t have operational prototypes yet: excuses for delaying action or potential money spinners for incumbent businesses to stay in the market or both. Pricing incentives and govt promoted energy saving efforts could do a lot in the meantime to alleviate our energy demands (possibly more cheaply than expanding output; & as a double dividend, it would also save water). Eg, the closer to generator/productive source you minimise losses or wastage (eg high losses (10% ?) over long-distance power lines) the more you save. On hand is the following (UK) that might be of interest:
New nuclear power stations would do little to combat climate change, according to a leading expert who has hit out at what he calls the “abysmal” standard of debate on the issue in the UK.
Dr Anderson said the separate demands of the transport and heating sectors meant that nuclear power supplied only about 3.6% of total UK energy used. Replacing nuclear reactors with gas and coal power stations by 2020 would raise carbon emissions by 4%-8%, he said. “We could very easily compensate for that with moderate increases in energy efficiency. If you’ve got money to spend on tackling climate change then you don’t spend it on supply. You spend it on reducing demand.”
Dr Anderson said wider use of energy efficiency measures such as house insulation and fuel-efficient cars could almost halve energy demand. His remarks come as the Tyndall Centre today releases the results of a survey of public attitudes to climate change and nuclear power, which show that 42% of people oppose building nuclear reactors and 34% support it. The results broadly mirror previous surveys: a Guardian/ICM poll last month showed 48% against new building and 45% for.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1688032,00.html
There is definitely a change of heart going on in the environmental movement, & not just over nuclear. It’s also over the use of markets, the importance of sustaining people as well as the environment, and the changing perspective of conservation (what & how). The right/left distinction that keeps rearing its tired old head on this site is weakening.
The proposed new-breed efficient nuclear reactors have only just been approved for trial (one in France?) so they’re years away and apparently there’s not enough high-grade plutonium for them to be a viable replacement.
So if there is a change of heart and the right/left thing is getting in the way – care to paint a view of away forwards.. ..
ummm, forward not left or right?!?
But, to debate myself online, forward denotes the concept of progress which leads us to a miserable philosphical debate about how there is no such thing as progress cos morals are unchanged and yet we have more malnourished, repressed people than ever before, and so then we revert to a left/right tussle don’t we? Ok back to business as usual then: you bleedin’ self-righteous righty tossers!!!
the quick point tho, is that the ‘leafy lefties’ are embracing liberal policy instruments, and many from the right are leading their businesses and churches to tackle (alleged) climate disruption and environmental degradation. Therefore we can’t pigeonhole very easily (plus it brings in prejudices which obscure the topic) so we should try not to, and instead just focus on the issues, the science, the evidence, and the ethics (as there’s no escaping principles however much people might like to maintain that they have no role in policy making).
Exit stage left: she jumps off pedestal & sprains an ankle
Think; these highbrow arguments are leading us nowhere, this blog likewise. Policy making is making nothing. We can’t pigeonhole because it never was a perfect world. Sustainability rhetoric is just rhetoric.
I bother only because I owe to those before me. I hope the young will do what won’t have time to do, learn to be humble again and learn some more about our opportunities.
On principles; they should come from within, those at the coal face and those on the edge. The rest, watch and hope. I believe only in a master apprenticeship relationship. That puts craft before science.
Gran here from the UK religiously reads the Guardian. I glance and throw it out. We need movers and shakers, not thinkers.
In practice Gaia and planetary feedback is a more subtle overview than any trusty models I know. We do not operate alone.
“We need movers and shakers, not thinkers”
hmmm. I like the sound of this, and it has had me thinking (*grin* a bit).
I think there are plenty of movers and shakers. perhaps what we need are movers and shakers who think. Taz, I don’t think you can avoid the enormous battles of ideas that happen in today’s world. If you strive out boldy to act and be a mover and shaker, without thinking through a good approach, (a la Mark Latham), look what happens.
Taz – “We need movers and shakers, not thinkers”
Everybody can be a mover and a shaker. Just do small things that help and help others to do small things as well.
Listen or read the transcript of what Jason Bradford has done:
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/434
or visit the website for ideas.
http://www.willitseconomiclocalization.org/
It is quite likely that the status-quo will be maintained for a long as possible. Change will come from the grass-roots not from the top.
This paper here:
http://www.isf.uts.edu.au/publications/CR_2003_paper.pdf
suggests that the Australian fossil fuel industries collective get about $9billion in subsidies per year.
I’m not willing to take this paper on face value yet – i would want to see more research done, and a counter argument. However, its interesting nonetheless.
Hi Steve, Ender
About “grass roots” and the big picture I mostly write from direct practical experience
See this extensive review for some of our links with local industry –
http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/tia/titlepage.html
Also I recently referred to an old association with benzene (Dow) and the ethylene stream between the others, the basis of all our plastics while suggesting we return to growing natural alternatives as we did for say glassine and greaseproof parchment. Why wood? After some years in pulp and paper I reckon we can do it again as oil runs down
http://www.chemlink.com.au/altona.htm
Following our Celtic heritage Downunder (6th gen.) I use these references in looking backwards for clues.
See m = mine & west coast in particular for early development with out roads – See a gravity metals concentration plant and early hydro development here –
http://images.statelibrary.tas.gov.au/Fullimage.asp?Letter=M&Subject=Mines+and+mineral+resources+%2D+Tasmania+%2D+Waratah+%2D+History+%2D+Photographs&ID=au-7-0016-125442525
Also this ‘raw’ picture where my folks recovered old rails for concrete reinforcing in the post war building boom. Some of us inherit the tradition of whole sale materials recycling from the depression.
For a contrast look here – there was a power point presentation some where in emails
http://mikeandkarrie.com/mnk/07/10/20/
Cheers
On movers and shakers; the Krups ref was not an arbitrary choice. I once had many casual hand tool clients who made their own machinery too. Some of it was exported to other mining operations.
“not much happens anywhere without the necessary engineering skills we had back in the post war boom. I started with pumps, electric motors, evaporators and conveyors. It quickly moved to furnaces, digesters and turbines, then recycling, emissions and process control. Energy and efficiency measurements become our second nature in the industrial environment, so does competitiveness” “Environment science follows industrial progress not the other way round”
The Krups ref was not an arbitary choice
Not much frightens me either; Dow had the largest benzene storage in the southern hemisphere then and this was one of three large scale chlorine gas plants I worked on in that era
See this flow chart
http://www.chemlink.com.au/images/altona1.gif
With extreme physics, reactors, radiation etc the same thing applies, skills must be handed on. With routines, a lot of this stuff on the edge was not covered by local or federal government policy.
We lived only by our wits.
Steve;
Subsidies on anything can be a curse in the long run, agriculture, education, energy, health; industry and so on will bite us in the end. Who recalls the great battle to undo wholesale public subsidy on building hydro and irrigation schemes?
The hidden costs of mining are a good example. We used to build public roads railways hospitals and schools in remote places on behalf of private empires. Many went bust and left us a legacy of unemployment across the field. Who picks up the pieces? Today smart governments expect companies to fly their workforce in on a rotation
With hydro in Tasmania it was the aluminum works that got the cheap hydro energy prize. On the Mainland it was the same with our vast deposits of coal. Corporate America has always been quick on the uptake here. However other countries could make a much worse mess of their environment in the same process. We gain only when we keep the darn things going long term, especially if we own them outright.
The fossil fuel industry here is massive and it will probably stay that way for a long time yet. Their subsidy in any form could inhibit group developments like Vestas and hydro from realizing their true potential. Vestas builds nacelles in my home town right on the jet port we had to have; that was another battle but preparation of authorities for wind power took decades.
It seems others wanted the blade factory.
Now there is a story.
I recomend reading “the solar energy fraud” by Prof. Howard Hayden (A retired electrical engineer). He explains in excruciating detail why piddle power sources such as Wind and solar cant compete with conventional generating capacity.
“rog – do you often see coal plants were there is no coal? You simply do not put wind turbines where there is no wind.”
Ender is forgetting that there is NOWHERE where the wind blows at optimum velocity all the time. And Wind is much more unpredictable than scheduling down time at the Coal-fired powerstation for maintenance.
The german experience with wind power has shown that “The more wind power capacity is in the grid, the lower the percentage of traditional generation it can replace” -thanks to its inherent unreliability.
Annabelle – you are correct there is no place that the wind blows all the time and I am not forgetting it. Here is a question for you – how often, in 2 different locations, is the wind not blowing? Also given that how often is overcast in 2 other locations. Compared to Australia Germany does not have the range of climates that we have. Also Germany despite being the solar power world leaders still have a very hidebound coal industry that refuses to change to a more flexible grid.
In the future electric cars and plug in hybrids can provide sufficient storage for renewables.
Annabelle – “He explains in excruciating detail why piddle power sources such as Wind and solar cant compete with conventional generating capacity.”
BTW here is some other predictions also backed up with impeccable credentials:
http://www.marketersportal.com/quotes.cfm?quoteCategoryID=2
my favourite is:
“”To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth–all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances. ”
Lee deForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, Feb 25, 1957.”
And yes before you all say it I realise the quote that “Global Warming will cause irreversable climate change” has every chance of being on the same list.
Ender-
How much is it going to cost, this massive outlay of infrastructure needed to gather wind power from disparate locations?
The fact is that if you generate energy in one spot it is easier to distribute energy than if you generate at multiple locations with multiple outputs.
And if its failed predictions you want Ender, how about these:
“Everything will be solar in 30 years” -Ralph Nader, 1978.
“The California Energy Commission projects a renewable share in the states electricity of 50 % to 60% by the year 2000” -John Blackburn, 1987.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Annabelle – how much is it going to cost for another solution? Also the grid is already in most of the good locations so the outlay would be minimal.
“The fact is that if you generate energy in one spot it is easier to distribute energy than if you generate at multiple locations with multiple outputs.”
The ‘fact’ USED to be …… Like in the 19th century this was a fact. Now with small generators such as microturbines, wind generators etc being as efficient as large ones this is no longer true. Up to 10% of the total electricity generated is wasted in transmission costs getting the power from a huge monolithic, Victorian coal power station to you. Also at night that same power station, that is now not needed, is idling, consuming almost as much coal as at full power because it cannot be economically shut down.
Smaller distributed gas turbines close to the demand point can be turned off and on as required saving fuel and transmission wastage, and work in concert with wind turbines something that coal plants cannot do. Australian companies are extremely good at making power controls for this as has been done at Esperance. Solar is naturally more available when it is needed at peak times.
Speaking of failed predictions Annabelle, don’t forget
“Our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter,”
– Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, in a Speech to the National Association of Science Writers, New York City, September 16th, 1954
Annabelle, I’m afraid your book is a fraud.
Nobody is proposing that solar or wind power satisfy 100% of our energy requirements in the near future.
However, both can immediately provide very useful contributions with little difficulty.
The german and danish experiences show that wind energy can supply over 10% of the electrical load before grid management issues begin increasing the cost.
A study done for australia last year by Prof. Hugh Outhred at the University of NSW for the Australian Greenhouse Office found that the Australian grid can accomodate 9000MW of wind energy (currently we got 450 odd MW).
On a residential level, solar energy is more than capable of technically meeting the energy requirements with only part of the roof area converted to solar panels – cost is the problem, not any technical hurdle). home solar power systems with batteries are very common in off-grid areas of the state (because it is too expensive to have the one big generator supplying everyone, as you suggested was best).
Its not actually easier to generate all the energy in one spot as you inferred. that’s because we don’t use the energy in one spot. its arguably better to distribute generation just as loads are distributed. a greater number of smaller generators means more redundancy and less chance of massive blackouts due to individual failures.
Steve, I seem to recall that the Danes pay some of the highest prices for electricity in the west in order to subsidise their wind generators. Their generators operate at optimum capacity only one or two days a month.
For the 9 GWH the Australian grid can theoretically accommodate, we’re going to need 9GWH of stand-by capacity. Will that come from coal, hydro or nuclear?
Home solar -nice and costly. If you can aford to do this to your home, by all means do so. Just dont force me to.
All of these things are tinkering at the edges, Steve. At the end of the day, we’re going to need a relibale source of electricity.
“Its not actually easier to generate all the energy in one spot as you inferred.”
Thats not what I said. The energy from a coal, nuclear or hydro plant can be modulated to meet demand and transmitted to where it is needed. There is no such control of windmills. Wind power must be transmitted from wherever it is being generated to where it is needed. This requires much greater transmition infrastructure.
“a greater number of smaller generators means more redundancy and less chance of massive blackouts due to individual failures.”
Except that we cant crank up the wind in the case that we need more electricity.
I disagree that wind and solar will make a “useful” contribution. It will make a minimal contribution at considerable cost.
Ender,
You have missed the point. The current grid system wont handle multiple generation points with eratic output. The microgeneration capacity that you alude to only makes sense for gas or other regulatable sources of electricity.
What you are suggesting is that the energy from very dilute wind sources can be piped from wherever they are to wherever the electricity is needed. This is not the way the grid was designed!
Annabelle, i don’t think you have thought enough about how the electricity grid and loads on it interract.
Your criticisms of wind energy imply that you think that we have x GW of installed coal power, and x GW of constant load.
This is not the case.
In nsw for example, there is 13 GW of installed capacity, the peak load is about 11 GW, and the average load is about 5-7GW. That means that for the majority of the year, much of the installed generation is gathering dust.
So you can add quite a bit of wind energy without needing to install additional generators to back it up.
In addition, up to a particular pentration of wind energy (i had heard at 10 % based on the european experience) you don’t need ‘spinning reserve’ either, because
a) the variations in wind poweroutput are not significant enough relative to the variations in load that occur over the day, so the grid doesn’t need to do anything more than it already does to accomodate the variable wind output
b) all the wind generators are not installed in the same spot. If they are spread around the country (esp with as much space as oz) then the aggregate variation in output is smooth.
c) wind can be and ismonitored and forecast to make grid management even easier.
So contrary to what you say, the current grid system can and does “handle multiple generation points with erratic output”.
You are speaking like a textbook naysayer, with little regard for how the grid actually works. I notice your use of the word ‘dilute’. That word also applies to electrical loads! If you think the grid can’t handle wind generators, how on earth do you think it manages to cope with millions of loads spread over thousands of square km!!!!?
You think that it is somehow a problem that wind energy needs to be transmitted from where it is generated. Unless you think that everyone digs coal out of their backyard, you’ll agree that coal and gas face the same difficulty. In NSW Sydney electricity comes from a range of locations in the hunter valley, the blue mts, and the snowy and further afield too (its a national grid). Our gas comes from a thousand km’s away in the cooper basin and in bass strait. wind energy is close enough to be comparable to coal, and a lot better than gas, and for many regional areas such as the southern tablelands, central tablelands and parts of the victorian coastline, wind is much closer.
The Danes do pay high prices. However, that is more to do with what they lack as far as fuel sources go, than what they use. They don’t have the huge reserves of cheap coal and gas like we do – they pay more because their supply is limited, plus they import a lot of electricity from other countries like sweden. We here in Australia pay close to the lowest electricity prices in the world.
Wind makes up <20% of Danish electricity. However, wind turbine manufacture is a huge industry in denmark, and adds oodles to their economy. By contrast our economy is built on coal.
There is little point in using wind energy =in australia= =for now= if you don’t concur that their needs to be any action on greenhouse. we have too much coal.
However, if you agree that there needs to be action on greenhouse (which, going by the positions of democratically elected world governments, IS close to unanimous), then wind energy is one of the cheapest and most effective and mature ways to get started.
Annabelle – “You have missed the point. The current grid system wont handle multiple generation points with eratic output. The microgeneration capacity that you alude to only makes sense for gas or other regulatable sources of electricity.”
As Steve said yes it can up to a point however it does need to be made smarter. Already in other countries the smart grids are being trialled.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003990.html
As Australian companies are so good at this we could be making large exports form redeveloping our grid to make it smarter.
“What you are suggesting is that the energy from very dilute wind sources can be piped from wherever they are to wherever the electricity is needed. This is not the way the grid was designed!”
What is dilute about wind? How dilute do you think a coal seam is? Power is routinely transported thousands of kilometers. Look at the power grid connection across the Tasman for instance. This is exactly how the grid was designed.
Ender, Steve, You are being textbook pollyannas.
http://wind-farm.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=37&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&MDPROSID=f43e6b87e6b288ed5969b0f50782a409
“Flere Vindmøller Skaber Kaos” by Niels Sandøe was published in the Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten, on 4th June 2003. Herewith is a short summary::-
Electrical power supplied must balance the power demand plus transmission losses at every second of the day. If this balance is not achieved, either there will be an automatic disconnection of either supply (to prevent physical damage to generating plant) or of loads (blackouts). Conventional plant has to be run in conjunction with the unpredictable wind generators and their output varied in order to provide a cushioning effect.
When large changes in wind power occur, beyond the capability of such conventional plant to compensate, then the assistance of neighboring systems has been called upon.
With excess wind power the surplus has to be dumped somehow. Help is secured from Germany, Sweden or Norway by offering zero-priced electrical energy. Unfortunately it appears that Germany has, at times, the same problem because of its own wind-turbine concentration in the same region. When the wind blows strongly, the problem is to dispose of the excess wind electricity. Hence the price drops — which is why Denmark has been known to export electricity at zero economic benefit.
What is very interesting in this article is the statement that because the turbines in Northern Germany and Denmark operate at much the same time and rate there is keen competition between these two countries to sell power to each other! Hence the frequent big drops in price. Both need to get rid of their uncontrollable excess of wind electricity at whatever price they can get!
As to pricing, Eltra is the Transmission System Operator, and is an entirely different company from Elsam, the main electricity generator. Both companies are trying to optimize their operations, so when the supply of electricity from wind, coal and gas generators is suddenly reduced by a deficiency of wind, the other (coal and gas fired) generator companies, such as Elsam, must be on-line to take up the demand and charge a premium for this service.
The whole system is crazy, and could only operate because Denmark has neighbors who are only too willing to receive cheap electricity, and the previous “green” government was willing to support the vast costs involved! The present Danish government is trying to sort out the mess!
Still waiting for an answer, how many wind farms needed for a place where it isnt windy?
OK you have added wind turbines to boost capacity, what happens when you get a surge in demand and the wind is not blowing?
I used to do a lot of off shore sailing, and you can go days with barely a whisper. And then it will blow a gale.
Victoria has calculated they will need a wind turbine every 500 metres along its entire coast to meet demand. That doesnt include back up for non windy times.
Ender asks: What is dilute about wind?
Wind farms generate about 1.2 W/m^2 at most sites and about 4W/m^2 on the rare sites where the is optimal.
Consequence: large areas covered by wind farms to gater tiny quantities of electricity.
Steve said:
“In nsw for example, there is 13 GW of installed capacity, the peak load is about 11 GW, and the average load is about 5-7GW. That means that for the majority of the year, much of the installed generation is gathering dust. So you can add quite a bit of wind energy without needing to install additional generators to back it up.”
No, because there will be times when demand is at peak and wind output is minimal or zero. This has been the German and Danish experience.
Annabelle – if you want to go by that how big is a coal mine?
What you have quoted is the energy in the wind. A 5 MW wind turbine will generate 5MW but it does use a huge swept area to do this. This is just a function of its blade diameter.
“No, because there will be times when demand is at peak and wind output is minimal or zero. This has been the German and Danish experience.”
Because they do not have the storage to cope with this or the smart grid to take best advantage. Couple this with a very unresponsive, mostly coal grid and you get these problems.
Tell me what happens when there is a failure at a coal plant at peak times, or a storm that takes out a sub-station?
A storm will take out a substation irrespective of the source of the power.
Failure at a coal plant? Do mean failure to meet demand – isnt that an energy provider issue?
All this conjecture…
rog – depends where the power source is. If the generator is local and the storm is distant then you have no problems. Now a distant storm can cut your supply as there is not local storage or generation.
Do you think coal plants never break down or need maintenance?
This type of woolly headed thinking that amuses Ender and fills in Steve’s day can derail a nation’s energy market; after pandering to all sorts of whacky half baked greenie feel good populist theories the UK is now looking at significant shortages of energy and a severely compromised national security by being held to ransom by global thugs.
“… Much of the increase in supply was to come from wind – both offshore and onshore. But there are major problems with wind power. The turbines do not generate any electricity when the wind does not blow and when wind speeds exceed 55mph they are, apparently, shut down for fear of damage. A world of gently and steadily spinning blades is one restricted to the world of the Teletubbies. They need, therefore, back up from other sources because electricity cannot be stored in bulk. Moreover, the unpredictability of electricity generation from wind can cause “supply and demand balancing” operating problems for the National Grid…..
….Even if the 20pc target for renewables is met in 2020, natural gas would still have to be the energy source for around 60pc of electricity generation. Moreover, because of the rapid depletion of the North Sea reserves, it is expected that about 80pc of the gas will have to be imported. In other words, about half of our electricity supply will rely on imported gas from countries including Russia and Algeria. This policy is not just complacent, it is downright reckless. The country’s economy could be held to ransom at any time by Mr Putin and his friends…”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2006/01/09/ccruth09.xml
I love it.
Some big issues are finally out on the table. We now know wind power is defeated by both energy storage and distribution considerations. Natural gas is trumps. The fact that the gas grids just about cover the population is a big plus in the short term. But like the power grid or the communications networks, can we depend on it?
We will soon have the policy gurus talking about lead and lag in regards to load. Next; phase shift?
On maintenance – back in the old days it used to take us a few days to bring a big boiler back on line after a major shut down. The thermal lag in a furnace is quite significant.
Super heated steam production was part and parcel in pulp and paper also a number of other manufacturing complexes. Electrical energy was only a byproduct in an industry that required direct heating. This heating and drying issue must not be forgotten in green energy discussions. For a time it was my bread and butter.
What is not yet on the table?
Pure DC electricity generation for anything not plugged into the AC grid. Energy conversion at the user end is also big business. Power supplies inside all domestic equipment use energy and are bread and butter for service organizations.
Scaling up; lightening strikes have affected most of my work in system control. Duplication and redundancy as a routine is essential in good design. It must apply to all parts of a network including power stations and switches.
Ender-
“What you have quoted is the energy in the wind. A 5 MW wind turbine will generate 5MW but it does use a huge swept area to do this. This is just a function of its blade diameter.”
My calculation takes into account the spacing neccessary between windmills. Do we agree that wind is inherently “dilute”?
“Tell me what happens when there is a failure at a coal plant at peak times, or a storm that takes out a sub-station?”
Well, we get blackouts! Im not saying that conventional genration is 100% reliable. But once again, the Danish/German experience shows that wind doesn’t compete in the reliability stakes!
“Because they do not have the storage to cope with this or the smart grid to take best advantage. Couple this with a very unresponsive, mostly coal grid and you get these problems.”
Agreed! So how much is it going to cost for the Danes & Germans to upgrade their grid to cope with the fluctuations of output from windmills? Do you think the Danes have been wise in their wind investments?
Rog, pipe down, you are out of your depth. Nobody is arguing to put wind in places where there is no wind, just as they don’t build coal power stations where there is no coal. do you understand? or can i explain it better?
That article is true rog, but irrelevant. Wind turbines are sited in the best possible locations, to optimise their output and economics. Yes they don’t produce energy when there is no wind, and yes they shut down in cyclonic conditions. That has no bearing on their viability. They are merely design considerations. By comparison, a design consideration for coal and nuclear must be located near large bodies of water to use for cooling. Doesn’t prevent them from being effective.
annabelle. Can you do better than quoting an article from an anti-wind energy site? Maybe a technical article from the Danish electricity distributors themselves? I’ve told you that a professor of electrical engineering has conducted a study for the Australian Govt showing that the Australian grid can accomodate 8,000MW (misquote, i said 9000 before, apologies) of wind. You’ll need to do better than a beat up from an anti-wind website. The link to the paper is here:
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/renewable/publications/pubs/wind-power.pdf
You raise the issue that the wind may not be blowing when there is a demand peak. That’s true, but is beside the point.
Coal generators are also not able to respond to demand peaks quickly enough. That’s why we need gas and hydro. That’s why coal is referred to as ‘base load’ and not ‘peak load’.
We are not talking about supplying peak demand with wind, we are talking about reducing GHG emissions by supply kWhs: energy, not power.
AS I stated, you can have up to a certain percentage (European experience suggests at least 10%) with no grid management or ancillary cost issues (8,000 MW in Oz).
Vast costs? Wind is double the cost of current australian power. Even without wind energy, power would be more expensive over there in Denmark than it is here.
So where are these vast costs associated by adding less than 20% wind energy that costs only perhaps 1.5 (guess) times more than the current Danish grid price?
In Australia, what are the vast costs of adding 10% wind energy at double the cost of coal.
That would make power overall about 10% more expensive. an increase in costs, but ‘vast’ is a bit overemotional i think.
By the way, appropriately windy sites in Australia are not rare. We have plenty of wind energy. NSW has windier conditions that most of germany, is larger in size, and germany already has over 14,000 MW of wind.
Taz, gas doesn’t ‘just about cover’ the population.
Finally, it is disingenuous to suggest that wind energy takes up large amounts of land. That’s because it coexists with other enterprises. You can farm all around the wind turbines. When this is taken into account, wind is probably the most land-use effective form of generation.
Steve-
The original article was not from an anti-wind site, (it was just posted there). In any event the fact that it appeared at an anti-wind site does not invalidate the claims made. What you are doing is engaging in an ad hominum attack. I think that this is a sign that you have lost the argument.
I see you are essentially admitting that wind is expensive and will add little to our capacity with the grid as it stands.
“Finally, it is disingenuous to suggest that wind energy takes up large amounts of land. ”
It is not disingenouous. The reason so many anti-wind groups have sprung up is that they dont like large areas covered with these noisy beasts. Do you agree that the inherent diluteness of wind energy means that large areas must be utilized?
More about costs: If you want a fairer comparison, how about Denmark vs the UK? The danes pay about twice the price as the British do for electricity, largely to subsidise wind. Most of their wind power is surplus to demand at the time of generation. Danes get about 4% of their total energy from wind.
“germany already has over 14,000 MW of wind”
Is that theoretical capacity or actual output? What about the avalability factor?
Finally, let me ask you this: Do you believe Australians should subsidise wind? If so, how?
Steve says “That article is true rog, but irrelevant.”
How relevant!
You can call it ad hominem if you like, as though that somehow makes it bad. But i think we all filter our information sources. a newspaper article via an anti-wind website is clearly not as authoritive a link as the link i provided that suggests that Australia can accomodate plenty of wind. Authority is very important when non-experts are discussing complex subjects. i can’t control whether or not you think you’ve “won” an argument, but i certainly don’t think you have proven yourself correct and me incorrect.
I admit that wind is more expensive than australian coal, and that – as our grid stands – wind will not be able to provide more than 8000 MW. However, if this level were acheived, that would imply about a 10% reduction in our greenhouse emissions. This is huge, not little.
Wind needs large areas, but no, it doesn’t take up lots of space. I agree that many people don’t like the appearance of wind farms. However, most surveys – certainly the ones in australia – show that just as many if not more people have no problem with them or like them. the farmers who can farm around the turbines while leasing their land certainly like it. and any form of big development will always have its opponents – as we will see when the next coal or gas plant gets built here, or a nuclear plant.
so yes, it is disengenuous.
Re Danes vs the UK: could you justify the ‘largely to subsidise wind’ comment? i don’t think that is at all obvious, given the fuel reserves that the Brits have access to.
Germany over 14,000 MW: I was talking about the rated capacity, not the actual output. the availability factor would be close to 99%, though the capacity factor would be < 30%.
My point is that that much installed capacity in the Australian wind regime would provide a very useful chunk of australia’s electricity. In NSW, that much wind would supply roughly half of our energy (kWh) and that is assuming a capacity factor of only 25%.
Finally: subsidies for wind energy. In the past i would have said yes, through the mandatory renewable energy target legislation. Now, i’m not so sure. I’m leaning towards having a 100% technology neutral emissions trading scheme. that way, you can be more sure that the cheapest reductions happen first. Wind energy would eventually find some value in such a scheme, after the cheaper forms of emissions reduction like efficiency improvements are done.
I reckon that wind would come in before nuclear, because its costs are coming down, and it is easier to implement a host of smaller wind projects than try and do one huge nuclear project, when the economics are marginal.
Steve: I threw the gas grid into the ring because it must take a significant load off the electrical grid for direct heating particularly at peak times in the domestic environment and since that gas use must remain part of the “greenhouse” debate in all future energy calculations.
Where would we be in Australia today without natural gas?
Note too I was involved with large scale industrial conversions, from coal, to oil then gas in the later stages of factory upgrades.
In another debate on Graham Young’s site we debated converting coal to oil the German way as transport oil runs down. I reckoned there we are handicapped only by our very small practical workforce in what we do in future. Any thought of someone here building a solar tower now is nonsense.
Moving a 60 ton nacelle on a truck is difficult enough. A nephew was a tower rigger for a while, originally contracted to Telstra and more recently all our costal wind farms. When he had enough heights he quit.
Finding Green energy for electrical power is just a piece in the action
Energy R&D. It seems to me that there needs to be an imposed R&D levey on all electricity sold to help develop things like low cost reliable energy storage systems, cheaper PV etc etc. The rural industries levey producers (still largely small operators who could not redily conduct their own research) then the government kicks in another 50% and a research fund is set up. As a percentage of income is our energy sector doing enough R&D?. Australia did have an energy research and development corporation but it was disbanded soon after we signed Kyoto, (says something about government planning).
I think gas at the moment is great. Under an emissions trading scheme, gas would get a huuuuuuuuge leg up – among the cheapest emission reductions around.
i think gas is among the true first steps to lowering greenhouse, certainly in oz.
Annabelle – “My calculation takes into account the spacing neccessary between windmills. Do we agree that wind is inherently “dilute”?”
No it doesn’t – you have simply stated the energy available in wind. Coal is a concentrated form of energy and yes is more concentrated that wind. As Steve points out wind turbines affect the land very little and the land can be dual use. Modern turbines without gearboxes are very quiet.
“Well, we get blackouts! Im not saying that conventional genration is 100% reliable. But once again, the Danish/German experience shows that wind doesn’t compete in the reliability stakes!”
And the correct answer is that the Danish wind grid is hampered by a rigid coal grid. None of the actions to make wind more reliable has been taken.
“Agreed! So how much is it going to cost for the Danes & Germans to upgrade their grid to cope with the fluctuations of output from windmills? Do you think the Danes have been wise in their wind investments?”
Yes I do because now they have a massive export industry that exports high value manufactured products whereas we export low value primary industry coal and use valuable foreign exchange buying manufactured goods from Europe instead of developing the industries here. Where do you think the best electrical generators and steam and gas turbines are made, that we buy for our fossil fuel generators – you guessed it Europe. Even the US, that has fallen behind because lack of innovation, buys electrical gear from Germany.
Reading this blog raises another question, how we ever built anything with out team work?
As a retired jack of all trades technical veteran, I can say the other limiting factor in any implementation of new technology will be a general reluctance to join up working on the hard yards as a team.
People who write policy need to understand something else; movers and shakers need something beyond OH&S, the right to make the next generation based on their own experience.
Working on the fringe has certain unique benefits including discovery.
However new design leads to us making a few white elephants. Worn out materials leads to holes in design.
Knowing when to knock off is also part of the battle for survival. A good team looks after its own affairs. The best example of trust is in underground mining where we depend most on our mates in the previous operation to do the right thing. Down there rocks are silent.
When asked to crawl out on a limb to control some of the elements I used to say ‘I will gladly follow you’ Mr. Clever Dick. But smart practice generally requires a more intimate personal knowledge of the hazards.
Who dares to write it all in a policy paper?
Costs are not everything.
Ender- I did take ito acount the spacing necessary between windmills.
Lets recap-
-Danes pay about twice the price for electricity as brits do.
-They get about 4% of their total energy from windmills.
-They get almost no economic benefit from exporting electricity because of the instantaneous nature of wind generation and the low price for intantanous supply (as opposed to preplanned supply).
-Large areas of their coast now suffer from visual pollution because of windmills.
-Despite windy conditions, only 20-24% of the potential annual output of West Danish wind turbines has actually been achieved over the last five years.
-It is interesting to note the experience of the German TSO, E.ON-Netz, that despite its export options “traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times”?. Once again, this may be a problem with the grid, but fixing it represents an additional financial burden. That makes wind less attractive. (And you didn’t answer my question, Ender. How much is it goint to cost to make the Danish grid compatible with wind generation?)
You say the Danes are doing well out of wind. I’d hate to see what would happen of the danes were doing poorly. Id also hate to see Australia go down the same path. Your economic argument is nuts. Those windmills represent malinvestments on the part of those who buy them. In other words, the Danes are profiting from the impoverishment of others, who are forced to buy them (through government mandate).
Steve admints that “capacity factor would be < 30%.” for German windmills. I would think that the real number would be close to 21-24%, which is the rough figure for most wind generators. Even so, that represents a very poor capital investment. This realistic figure is a lot lower that the one quoted.
Steve admits that “wind will not be able to provide more than 8000 MW. However, if this level were acheived, that would imply about a 10% reduction in our greenhouse emissions”
Does this assume that the 8GW could be produced continuously? Does this assume that the overcapacity is present to take idle capital (windmills with no wind) into account? I imagine that includes the assumption that Hydro (or some other rapidly adjustable) power source is available to make up for the instantanous fluctuations that will occurr with changes in wind patterns?
“turbines affect the land very little and the land can be dual use”
Except that you have to have road or trail access to the windmill, power line access to the windmill, and that many uses are ruled out by the presence of windmills. I’m willing to bet that greenies would oppose a windfarm being built in a national park.
My fingers are getting tired, but I seem to recall, Steve that in Victoria there is community resistance to planned windmills, regardless of what surveys might indicate.
It seems to me that Steve and Ender would be happy to lower the living standards of their fellow Australians. Certainly, if you guys want to invest your own money in widmills, feel free to. Just keep your hands out of my purse.
A low capacity factor doesn’t represent a ‘very poor capital investment’. that’s like saying owning a shower is a poor investment because you only use it 7mins a day!
What is important is the price of the electricty, amortised over the life of the turbine. That is about double the cost of australian coal, about $70/MWh for a very well sited australian wind farm.
And you’re figures on what capacity factors are real or not are incorrect for australia. At the moment, all wind farms in Australia (bar the first couple of experimental ones) would have capacity factors between about 30 and 45%. and australia is so large with so much wind that i’m optimistic we could get to that 8000MW with few wind farms having a capacity factor below 30%.
the 8000MW giving a 10% emissions reduction does not assume that they are running at rated output consistently. it assumes realistic capacity factors.
It doesn’t take into account idle capacity, becuase as i’ve been at pains to point out yet you don’t want to acknowledge it, for limited amounts of wind (in australia up to 8,000 MW) you don’t need idle capacity or special grid management arrangements beyond what already occurs. we have loads and loads of idle capacity because peaks in demand only occur for a couple of days every year.
Yes hydro and gas are there to make up for instantaneous fluctuations – they are already there to make up for instantaneous fluctuations in electrical LOAD, because coal generators are not agile enough to ramp up and down when people start turning kettles on etc.
You are right, there is community resistance to planned windmills in VIC. However, would you agree that if that resistance were a small minority, then such resistance doesn’t mean that wind energy is fatally flawed? would you agree that, if we needed more power and coal was the only way, then a small minority of greenies who objected would not mean that coal was fatally flawed?
>It seems to me that Steve and Ender would be happy to lower the living standards of their fellow Australians.
I’m operating on the assumption that we are trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. And I also indicated that i thought emissions trading – an approach that favours the cheapest forms of reduction – is a good approach.
If you don’t agree that we need to reduce greenhouse emissions, then this whole discussion is fairly pointless.
And if you need to resort to these emotive, lame, point scoring throwaways about living standards of fellow australians etc, then this thread is done.
Annabelle; the NIMBY factor is alive and well all over this country including right here in the capital.
But lets be curious now, what’s your prefered next stage of national electricity development? Also;
Where and how soon?
Annabelle – lets start with this:
“Danes pay about twice the price for electricity as brits do.”
You cannot say that is only because of wind power the Belgians also pay higher prices.
“The typical UK price for customers on a domestic standard tariff is 9.23 pence per kilowatt hour, against 15.01 pence for Belgium”
-They get about 4% of their total energy from windmills.
Where is the reference for this – or are you just copying stuff out of the book you mentioned
-They get almost no economic benefit from exporting electricity because of the instantaneous nature of wind generation and the low price for intantanous supply (as opposed to preplanned supply).
This just demonstrates your ignorance. Peaking power is often at a price premium of over twice normal tarrifs.
“The small number of suppliers of electricity during periods of high demand, such as during heat waves, exacerbates the problem. More companies are now moving into the lucrative area of peaking power stations. The absence of comparable increases in base-load capacity means that those with peaking power stations can still demand prices 100 to 200 times the normal.”
“-Large areas of their coast now suffer from visual pollution because of windmills.”
A matter of opinion – have you been to the Latrobe Valley?
“You say the Danes are doing well out of wind. I’d hate to see what would happen of the danes were doing poorly. Id also hate to see Australia go down the same path. Your economic argument is nuts. Those windmills represent malinvestments on the part of those who buy them. In other words, the Danes are profiting from the impoverishment of others, who are forced to buy them (through government mandate).”
So you are saying it is good economic sense to export low value primary goods rather than progress to export high value manufactured goods. Remember wind turbines use cutting edge carbon/glass composites, electrical generators and electrical controls. The industries that support this do not exclusively make components for wind turbines as these technologies are universal and highly sought after.
If you think Australia’s long term future is to just live of the sheeps back (or coal miners back) then you are guilty of the same cultural cringe that has helped hold up progress in this country. If you want living standards to fall just keep going this way and turn off investment in cutting edge technologies and keep the 19th century technology you seem to treasure.
So, not accepting wind farms carte blanche is a symptom of “cultural cringe”.
In Enders World culture is measured in microns.
rog – as opposed to rog’s world were it is always 1890.
Guys – stop press – I’ve just invented cold fusion in the laundry. You need two car batteries, some household bleach, two packets of New Omo and some fencing wire.
That combination would fuse your eyebrows!
considering landscapes and population distribution, wind and solar energy in Aust might deserve comparison with california and tex as more so than with northern europe. It was announced late 2005 that xcel Energy Colorado wind power was now cheaper than natural gas and coal power sources (and Oklahoma and Tex as wind power was becoming competitve with gas and coal). I suspect it was due to local factors such as hurricanes increasing gas prices. however, the lower prices were announced as a permanent offer starting january 2006.
almost useless abstract only now unless yo pay:) http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/911646041.html?dids=911646041:911646041&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Oct+15%2C+2005&author=Nicholas+Riccardi&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=A.18&desc=Windfall%3F+No%2C+but+Savings+Ahead
t e x a s is considered ‘questionable content’!
L A Times…California Think?
Try cost of compliance with batty scenarios.
Its no secret Cal is going down the financial gurgler, no forward planning for energy, plenty of wacky schemes with no tangible result except high bills that has meant business is leaving Cal in truckloads.
For an extensive wind farm impact analysis see this Heemskirk development proposal in Tasmania. It depended in 2003 somewhat on the Bass Link and relies on existing hydro development. This is probably our green energy at its best but what a sensitive environment.
http://www.dpiwe.tas.gov.au/inter/nsf/Attachments/SSKA-
5J3397/$FILE/Heemskirk_proj_summ.pdf
Note the sand flies around there will surely warm you on a bad day.