Story from the BBC website:
Australia in giant wind farm plan
Plans to build Australia’s largest wind farm have been announced by the German company Conergy.
The project would involve installing about 500 turbines near the outback town of Broken Hill in New South Wales
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Windpower is currently (and certainly for a long time yet) a very inefficient and expensive alternative. Not going to detail the issues – nicely explained here (J.A. Halkema – 1.3MB pdf)
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/halkema-windenergyfactfiction.pdf
Wind is not inefficient. Coal power stations only obtain about 30-40% of the energy content of the coal for electricity, the rest is heat up the chimney. and of the electricity generated, a portion is lost as heat (resistance) in the wires getting to your house. Who cares about the efficiency of gathering a renewable resource anyway?
The real question is cost.
Wind is double coal. But rather than being a long way away economically, wind, being one of the cheapest, most advanced, and most reliable (from an investment point of view) alternative energy technologies, wind will certainly be economic sooner than most. Sooner than clean coal for example.
In the EU coal futures are up, Merril Lynch forecast record $/coal in 2008.
Even so, this development is viable only thru govt legislation.
In the UK, for example, wind farms struggle to produce even a third of their claimed capacity.
That said, I guess putting 500 turbines in the outback is acceptable? Where are the 400,000 homes that it is claimed the turbines could supply?
Paul Biggs – “In the UK, for example, wind farms struggle to produce even a third of their claimed capacity.”
Why do you demonstrate your ignorance in such an obvious fashion. Wind turbines have a capacity factor of about 33% not struggle to produce a third of their rated capacity. Coal fired power stations struggle to release a third of the energy contained in the fuel that they use all the while releasing 100% of the CO2 from the combustion.
Coal fired power stations also struggle to produce 4/5ths of their rated capacity as they need maintenance, they do fail and need to be shut down on hot days because of lack of cooling water. You see how ridiculous your opening statement was?
“Where are the 400,000 homes that it is claimed the turbines could supply?”
In Sydney – if you took even a moment to look it up there is a feeder from the South West Integrated System. If this is upgraded it could even have storage along the way making the wind more despatchable.
http://stevegloor.typepad.com/sgloor/renewable_energy/index.html
A new HVDC link from the SWIS to Broken Hill with superconducting storage could be a shining light engineering project that would put Australia at the forefront of world energy. The areas that such a link would pass through are also very sunny and ideal for David Mills’ gigawatt solar thermal plants. Extend it a bit to South Australia and you are smack bang in the middle of the best hot dry rocks in the world.
This could cost a LOT less than a nuclear power plant, nuclear fuel plant and waste disposal facility and/or clean coal and not leave a poisonous legacy for our descendants.
Wind developers need some way to meaningfully rate and compare the output of turbines, independent of the wind speed where they might end up being installed, that’s why the agreed rated capacity is used.
This is analogous to being interested in the max acceleration of a particular car (time 0-60km/h), even though you would only rarely accelerate that rapidly.
Paul, there is no such thing as ‘claimed capacity’.
There is only rated capacity, which is used to compare the tech specs of turbines. It is extremely well understood by people who invest in windfarms that a nameplate rating of 1,000 MW does not imply a yearly output equal to 1000MW x 8760 hours of the year.
Going on about the efficiency, capacity factor, or made up concepts like ‘claimed capacity’ does not say anything about the viability of wind power. Sorry for targeting you in particular, but this kind of attitude is endemic in the passionate anti-wind movement, and i feel like having a go.
All that matters in the immediate term is cost on a $ per Megawatt-hour basis, and how that compares to other energy sources.
In the longer term, the factors that affect the viability of wind are =site specific=:
community opposition, wind speed, environmnetal impacts. Grid access is also an issue, but it can be distilled to a cost consideration.
I can perfectly appreciate people hating wind farms – they are certainly controversial. However, just say why you don’t like them (e.g. they symbolise green politics which you don’t like, you think they look ugly, or you don’t believe in the need for them on environmental grounds).
Don’t try and make up pseudo-technical arguments about efficiency that make no sense. Efficiency is not relevant when you are harvesting renewable resources. Its only important as it relates to cost.
Steve,
“The real question is cost” that is the second criteria the other is reliability, to match supply to demand that is why the ACF or Production factor as Arnost’s article calls it is critical.
There doesn’t seem to be any detail yet but the 400,000 households quote is back.
“Investment point of view” while great for investors but its due to government backing i.e. guarantee of purchase or offset of price not on the energy market contract or spot market price.
Does anyone know if renewable energy plant especially wind farms contract their power and the conditions placed on the availability.
In the U.S., Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy successfully fought a plan to build a wind farm offshore from his family beach house in Massachusetts. The windmills would be so far from shore that they could not be seen, but they were going to be placed where the Senator and his buddies liked to sail. There are more obstacles to this energy source than just technological.
Probably the only useful thing Ted Kennedy has done in his life.
That is incorrect Peter. Not every generator needs to worry about balancing supply and demand. That is the job (in Australia) of NEMMCO, the network management company. They do that by forecasting demand, and by scheduling some generators. Not all generators are classed as scheduled though, and not all generators are flexible enough to respond quickly to changes in demand. That’s why there are peak generators as well as baseload generators.
Under your definition of ‘reliable’, a coal fired power station can’t quickly and reliable track ever changing demand, and is unreliable.
Capacity factor of individual windfarms is only important in as far as it impacts economics.
Over a whole power grid, a sufficiently large contribution from wind energy could cause problems for NEMMCO in balancing supply and demand. This will limit the maximum contribution that could come from wind to (probably) less than 15%, unless storage is used. We are a looooooooooooong way from having 15% wind in Australia. Thousands of MW to go.
Australia is a large country, and the wind doesn’t blow at the same speed in every location. So one strategy to maximise the contribution of wind energy without causing forecasting issues is to spread wind farms out across large areas (e.g. from western australia to eastern australia). The average power of wind farms across this area is less variable than the output of a particular turbine on a particular hill.
So again, the real question is cost. And crapping on about capacity factor or efficiency is uninformed.
You make a good point about govt backing to make the technology attractive to investors. However, what you are missing is that out of all the low greenhouse energy technologies, wind is one of the most commercially advanced and cheapest, which is why it is having such success.
Windmills are ugly.
Davey – “Windmills are ugly.”
And coal mines are places of beauty. Blowing off the top of mountains and filling the valleys really makes for picture postcard views as well.
Peter, NEMMCO can use wind forecasting to predict when wind will come online. They can then dispatch gas generators to make up any shortfall as required.
Anyone that follows the market will know the price of baseload went through $75MWh early this year because of drought. Thats about the same as wind. For those struggling with this – existing coal and hydro are very sensitive to drought.
Plated/rated/claimed – who cares? Wind power is intermittent and has to be backed up by a 24/7 source of electricity. Wind power can contribute to our energy needs, but it’s not as viable as some would have us believe.
Paul Biggs – “Wind power is intermittent and has to be backed up by a 24/7 source of electricity.”
Coal Power is intermittent and inflexible and has to be backed up with peaking plants and others that can operate in really hot weather. Whats your point?
Coal Power can contribute to our energy needs however to slow global warming it needs to be vastly scaled back.
Davey – “Windmills are ugly.”
Yeah, they said that in Holland too, I think.
Paul, wind is emission free at $75-80MWh, is predictable but not dispatchable. It needs to be coupled with either quick response generation or storage. It needs no more or less back than any other form of generation. Who is this mysterious somebody who is trying to say it is something it is not?
Can we get over the implicit spin and insinuations and get on with solutions to the very real climate issues we are faced with?
Anthony,
The mysterious person would be people who are in love with windmills and doesn’t realise that most wind farms can not store their power IE battery or capacitor.
The cost as far as I know (please correct me and provide link) is after at least in Victoria a $40 a megawatt payment is made, add a storage system and it the price is well over $120 a megawatt.
As far as prediction they would be relying on the BoM which have only down to 50% confidence in their predictions such as the Sydney to Hobart yacht race where they lost 6 boats and some lives?? because in part the race governors relied on the forecasts.
If the predictions are so good why aren’t they calculated as a reserve by Nemmco probably because it is not that predictable unlike hydro’ biomass, even solar is more predictable.
Why aren’t the wind farms including storage. Obviously cost as stated but also the technology is not mature enough. So the mature and cheap wind technology is not reliable, is not that cheap if other costs that need to be included. It just doesn’t need a lot of water to operate but relies on fluctuations of the wind.
Peter – “The cost as far as I know (please correct me and provide link) is after at least in Victoria a $40 a megawatt payment is made, add a storage system and it the price is well over $120 a megawatt.”
If you have a look at this document:
http://www.vrbpower.com/docs/casestudies/VRB-ESS%20-%20Case%20Study%20Wind.pdf
and goto page 9 you can see how to size storage for a wind turbine. In the example a 2.5MW turbine needed storage of 483kW for 3.6hrs to give 38% firm capacity. From the FAQ on the site you have this:
“As an approximate cost, systems are priced between $350-$600 per kWh, sizes ranging from a few hundred kW’s to MW size systems.”
The system for one turbine is 483 * 3.6 kWhr = 1800kWhr. Cost is $400 * 1800 = $720 000.
So for $720 000 per turbine you can have storage that enables the wind farm to bid at 38% firm which vastly decreases the discount rate. The cost for a 2.5MW wind turbine is:
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/econ/index.htm
“The average price for large, modern wind farms is around 1 000 USD per kilowatt electrical power installed. ”
which equals 2500 * 1000 = $2.5 million plus storage = 2 500 000 + 720 000 = 3.2 million. Storage adds 28% to the price of the turbine however that is not taking into consideration that variable speed wind turbines will use the storage electronics for interfacing with the grid and will have a lower installed cost.
Don’t know where you got the $120 per megawatt perhaps you should provide a reference.
“As far as prediction they would be relying on the BoM which have only down to 50% confidence in their predictions such as the Sydney to Hobart yacht race where they lost 6 boats and some lives?? because in part the race governors relied on the forecasts.”
Now this is a straw man of savage proportions. Actually the BOM DID predict the storms. What they failed to do was convey the severity properly and the final decision to proceed is always with the skipper of the boat.
See this forecast:
“Issued at 4:30 am WST on Thursday 11 October 2007
Valid until midnight Saturday
Please Be Aware
Wind gusts can be 40 percent stronger than the averages given here, and maximum wave may be up to twice the height.”
This text has been added since the Sydney to Hobart and is because the BOM failed to convey the real severity of the forecast is issued on that fateful day.
“Why aren’t the wind farms including storage. Obviously cost as stated but also the technology is not mature enough.”
It is because windfarms are hard enough to get financed enough. However as more operators realise the payback from being able to deliver firm power and grid regulation storage will become more and more competitive especially when coal operators have to pay real costs for their emissions. The technology is there, what is shameful is that we have to buy Australian technology from Canada simply because some people are wedded to the Victorian era of power generation.
Peter – That wind turbine over its 20 year life will generate on average 2500kW * .38 * 8760 * 20 = 166 440 000 kWh which is a simple installed cost without depreciation etc of 1.9c per kWh. The actual cost will depend on discount rates, the revenue and interest rates etc.
Davey has the most compelling and most honest argument against wind presented so far.
Steve, Ender,
Wind energy is unreliable to the extent that NEMMCO regards wind energy as a drop in demand/load i.e they don’t consider the farms as generators in the forecasting of generation capability.
If energy storage is an economic and technological viability (wind being a mature technology)why aren’t most wind farms constructed with large storage systems as a matter of course.
Wind farms do get a approx $40 per megawatt from government at least those constructed in the last 15 years or so . 40 + 80 equals 120 but storage costs.
Wind if it is less than 15% Steve it won’t effect the system, great but what happens when it does get bigger. Of the so called renewable/low CO2 systems available the biggest seems to be gas turbines(less efficient than coal fired plant note I am not talking about combined cycle) and wind farms. The technology is not matured, its just cheaper to build than some other technology.
The storage will make wind farms more reliable, more predictive, and to be counted upon as a generation source and until they do so they will be little more than “indulgence” for the citizen who wishes to feel good about themselves.
By the way I don’t think windfarms are ugly but I don’t live near them and I suspect a lot of the bloggers live next to one either.
Peter – “Wind energy is unreliable to the extent that NEMMCO regards wind energy as a drop in demand/load i.e they don’t consider the farms as generators in the forecasting of generation capability.”
I would like to see the reference for that. You need to read this working paper entitled “Intermittent Generation in the National Electricity Market”
http://www.nemmco.com.au/dispatchandpricing/260-0001.pdf
Nowhere in this document is regarded in a drop in demand.
Also you have to be careful about what type of turbines you are talking about. Vesta’s turbines, for instance, are constant speed units that spin at such a speed using gearboxs to generate the required frequency (50hz) which is why this document goes on so much about frequency and voltage control. The huge advantage of constant speed turbines is that they do not need electronics to produce grid voltage as they directly produce it. This is a lot cheaper and before IGBTs became common and cheap this was the only way of generating grid voltage economically.
Newer turbines are called variable speed units. They produce electricity at whatever voltage and frequency that is happening at the time and feed this into power electronics that produce the grid quality electricity. Up until quite recently this has been much more expensive and is why constant speed units were so popular. As variable speed units can produce electricity at an absolutely constant voltage and frequency no matter what the wind is doing they are much more stable than constant speed units. Also the addition of a small ultracapacitor bank ensures that the wind farm can signal the NEMMCO before they drop out. The cappy bank also smooths the output.
Adding more storage to this can make the wind farm able to stabilise the grid however even the tiny amount that is currently in the normal power converters of variable speed turbines can make a dramatic difference to the output of a wind farm.
Only because coal plants cannot vary their output quickly are wind farms an “indulgence”. In Esperance where a fast acting gas turbine with advanced Australian designed power controls that interact with the 2 wind farms there, the renewable energy contributes approx 22% of Esperance’s yearly demand despite the wind farms being only 15% of the installed capacity. This gives an idea of what can be done once power generation moves beyond 1890.
Thanks Ender
the thing that annoys me is that renewable is actively hindered, when we could advance a lot more quickly with real, active government backing.
We started WWII with bi-planes still in some air forces, and finished with ballistic missile, the jet fighter and the atomic bomb, in only a few short years.
Ender,
Typically I could not find that reference but I had viewed it when talking about the Ausra so;ar plant.
Your own articles talk about “intermittent” supply and being unable to schedule the plant. Non-scheduled plant has a maximum limit of 30Mw and exception such as wind farms.
The Nemmco handbook under Alternative energy refers to wind energy plant having up to 50% variability in a 5 minute dispatch. http://www.nemmco.com.au/nemgeneral/000-0187.pdf
The Esperance plant is interesting. You have 2 wind farms but still use inefficient quick response gas turbines(ICCG are efficient because they combine gas turbine, boiler and steam turbine). The figures given 5.6 Mw for wind farm and 30 Mw for gas turbines but no Esperance demand is shown except 22% with a maximum of 65% penetration(if I am reading the wind farm brochure correctly). If it is 65% of load supplied by the wind farm (not including the gas plant???) that shows Esparences load is approx 9 Mw(if I am reading the windfarm brochure correctly).
So wind farms are still intermittent, still require fossil fuel back up and cannot be classed as a reliable power source. Indeed you cannot even rely on it to be peaking plant because they on the whole do not store the power in low cost periods/wind blows when other sources would be used by the market (as it exists today).
I definitely prefer an Ausra type plant (more predictable) to wind farms and at this stage I don’t see that changing.
Peter – “Your own articles talk about “intermittent” supply and being unable to schedule the plant”
Yes but remember this document is written by ‘normal’ power people that view wind power in much the same way as you do.
“You have 2 wind farms but still use inefficient quick response gas turbines(ICCG are efficient because they combine gas turbine, boiler and steam turbine)”
A normal gas turbine is not inefficient. It is still about 35% or 40% efficient running in natural gas like they do in Esperance. Adding a combined cycle steam plant to use the waste heat from the turbine boosts the efficiency to 55% however CCGT are still considered intermediate power and can still respond more quickly than baseload. What the 65% figure is that at different times of the day up to 65% of the current demand can be met by the wind.
“So wind farms are still intermittent, still require fossil fuel back up and cannot be classed as a reliable power source.”
Why pick on wind? ALL power generation systems require backup, all systems are intermittant it is just the degree that varies. Geographically spaced wind farms do not have the same problems as isolated ones. The overall system has a much higher capacity factor particularly with weather forecasts getting better all the time. Right now control centers like the NEMMCO are getting real time forecasts of predicted wind so they can match demand. With forecasts and storage wind will be become at least as predictable as say the maintenance schedule for a large coal plant.
“I definitely prefer an Ausra type plant (more predictable) to wind farms and at this stage I don’t see that changing.”
I don’t prefer any type. The future power generation system will be made of all types of power generation. We cannot afford to ignore the Gigawatts of energy that blow in the wind simply because you do not like it. Wind farms will address the issues with more storage that will make them more despatchable. 1890s technology like thermal coal will be consigned to the museums where they belong.
Ender,
I doubt that the people who are busy building wind farms care about storage in Australia otherwise they would have some systems already.
They hope that wind and price will match long enough to make a profit. Sigh I am just getting to cynical these days.
I think that the 1890s statement is bit rich like everything thermal power stations have developed significantly since that period and still moving forward. Now when were the Dutch using windmills as a source of energy to pump, grind etc.
I am glad to hear that you agree that the wind farms are not effective enough without storage facilities “Wind farms will address the issues with more storage that will make them more despatchable” but it is not despatchable but to be able to be scheduled, that is requirement.
“What the 65% figure is that at different times of the day up to 65% of the current demand can be met by the wind.” that could be taken as good winds and low demand. You cannot compare percentage of demand supplied with percentage of maximum capability of energy suppliers. They are not the same animal.
Why pick on wind? To show people that wind is not the salvation of the human race in any mix of generation plant (yet). Nemmco is obviously worried about number of wind farms hence all these reports which will only make (possibly) wind farms a little more predictable but still not scheduled.
Bring on the “Flow Battery”.
When the wind doesn’t blow, power doesn’t flow even in Denmark
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22538464-14743,00.html
Paul Biggs – Terry McCrann strikes again with more crap. Did he report on this one:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=13818689
” France gets 80 percent of its electricity from nuclear power. Once a nuclear plant is built and running, the power station doesn’t emit greenhouse gases. But as summers in Europe get hotter, an unexpected hitch has emerged. Many French reactors have had trouble operating during hot spells.”
So what happens when it gets hot and the reactors have to shut down Paul? I guess their neighbours will have to supply the power as they do anyway for the peaking power that has to back up the baseload only nuclear power that comes from Swedish pumped hydro.
So perhaps you can also say:
“When the weather gets hot, power doesn’t flow even in France”
However that does not fit with your agenda does it? Also have a look at the size of Denmark and the fact one weather system can cover the entire country.