HOUSTON (Reuters) – A drop in wind generation late on Tuesday, coupled with colder weather, triggered an electric emergency that caused the Texas grid operator to cut service to some large customers, the grid agency said on Wednesday.
Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) said a decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time evening electric demand was building as colder temperatures moved into the state.
Reuters, 27th February 2008: ‘Loss of wind causes Texas power grid emergency’
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
This is a very good example of the failure to take into account that wind power is a very unreliable energy source. The experience from Denmark and Germany show that you need back up power from other power plants, coal fired plants or hydro- or nuclear plants.
The only way wind power can be a reliable source for electric power supply is to build a parallell grid system that can store the energy by gravity (systems build like the Ffestionog Power Plant) or pressure systems in caves (see the latest discussion on theoildrum.com).
Our societies demand reliable power supply with no failure. Wind power can not prove this reliability when it is a part of the general grid system and the back up system is underpowered for the peak demand.
I think this issue has to establish itself as a reality of the governing systems around the world that think wind power can be a relief of the carbon depletion reality. And, it will cost – money!
Kind Regards
Dag Tessem, Norway
Houston to Ender, I think we got a problem…
Where’s Ender when you need him? He assured us that Paul was tilting at windmills when Paul last posted reports from the UK that blow power was unreliable back in June.
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003198.html#comments
Ender claimed that lots and lots of “… batteries, dispersing the wind farms connection by HVDC, interfacing electric transport with V2G, using advanced weather prediction to schedule wind, interfacing gas turbines with advanced power controls etc…”
…would take us to a new era of reliable, cheap Wind power, terminating the need for coal fired plants and thus Save The Planet from the looming AGW apocalypse.
Ender, perhaps you should memo your posts to Houston (and send a roll of DuckTape.) They don’t seem to grok your paradigm.
Though, I still wonder how one schedules the wind? I suppose if you think an international mob of bureaucrats can control the climate, scheduling the wind must seem like a piece of cake. But don’t bet your wind farm on it.
Gidday from WA … gas crisis anyone? Any technology can fail. You guys are like children, honestly.
G’day from QLD…
Patrick B – care to provide reliability stats of Gas Vs Wind Power to see who really is being childish here?
The large German wind power company E.on reports that even if Germany achieves its target of 48000 MW of wind power capacity by 2020, it will result in the shutting down of only 2000 MW of backup coal and gas plants. The other 46000 MW will have to stay online to make up shortfall when the wind doesn’t blow.
wes – “Ender claimed that lots and lots of “… batteries, dispersing the wind farms connection by HVDC, interfacing electric transport with V2G, using advanced weather prediction to schedule wind, interfacing gas turbines with advanced power controls etc…””
And Texas has done all these things?
BTW
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010153648
“Miami, FL (AHN) – There has been a major power outage across Florida, cutting the lights in places stretching from Miami in the east, Tampa in the west and up to Jacksonville in the north. Florida Power & Light (FPL) says at least 8 power plants failed, setting off a cascade effect that has cut power to about 4.4 million people.
FPL confirms that the outages have effected the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station in Homestead, southwest of Miami. Turkey Point has two nuclear power units, the oldest began operations in 1972. The generators produce about 1,400 million watts of electricity according to FPL, which is enough to supply over 450,000 homes. ”
Nothing to do with wind power here.
And if anyone actually read what happened:
“System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave 1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers are generally large industrial customers who are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur.
No other customers lost power during the emergency, ERCOT said. Interruptible customers were restored in about 90 minutes and the emergency was over in three hours.”
Interruptible customers pay lower electicity tarriffs if they agree to be interruptible. This was in place well before wind power. No other customers were affected.
You people will leap on anything!
Wait, wasn’t everyone’s electric cars plugged in so they could be used as backup power??
Ender,
“System operators curtailed power to interruptible customers to shave 1,100 megawatts of demand within 10 minutes, ERCOT said.”
And how much will they have to curtail when 50% of the power is wind instead of such a small amount?
“Interruptible customers pay lower electicity tarriffs if they agree to be interruptible. This was in place well before wind power. No other customers were affected.”
I don’t want to pay less, BUT, with the increase in price for renewable power I will be FORCED to. Thanks BUD! I guess poor people don’t deserve consistent power. You know, just like ANY third world country!!
By the way, did you notice that our oil drillin’ buddy who says he will do the wind power on the companies dime is lobbying for:
1) about 6 BILLION DOLLARS of transmission lines to be paid for by the Texas PUC, which will add to their power bill making MORE people sign up for that discounted, interruptible power that will cost much more than it does now!! (but, I thought wind power was cheap??)
2) an extension on the 2 cents per kilowatt tax break going away in January that we are ALSO paying for, probably because the project isn’t particularly lucrative otherwise.
Also, while he tells us we can’t drill our way out of this he expects us to buy vehicles that can run on Natural Gas FOR WHICH HE IS DRILLING!!
Snake oil salesmen have been common in Texas, and the rest of the world since before history!!
Yup, ain’t going to cost us a cent more than everything us PO people got!!
Ender,
one more thing, where are the PRODUCTION PLANS for those advanced power controls, weather prediction systems, and electric car batteries that can be built for less than triple our GNP?
You AGWers are forcing people to implement these KLUGES NOW, not 10 or 20 years from now when the technology MIGHT be tested and available for less than exorbitant prices!!
KuhnHat – “one more thing, where are the PRODUCTION PLANS for those advanced power controls, weather prediction systems, and electric car batteries that can be built for less than triple our GNP?”
I see you are quite happy for approx one trillion dollars to be spent invading Iraq and also quite happy for the US to have a defense budget greater that the other G7 nations put together however when spending on infrastructure that you need anyway is mentioned suddenly it is a lefty plot.
I do not agree with all of Boone Pickens policies. I cannot get over that he was one of the promoters of the swift boating of Kerry.
I guess you guys in the USA could actually create some jobs for Americans rather then inventing the stuff and having other people use it and then sell it back to you creating jobs for their people and debt for you.
Ebder,
That’s politics not an argument!
Having to cut supply to customers when the wind doesn’t blow isn’t acceptable.
This story gets a mention in this week’s Nature:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v454/n7204/full/454551b.html
The greener grid
Governments need to back an overhaul to get the electricity grid ready for renewable energy.
….Unfortunately, the strongest and most reliable wind is often found far from customers. That is why the Texas wind farms cluster in the gusty Panhandle region, hundreds of kilometres from the centres of population farther east. So earlier this month, Texas approved a nearly $5-billion plan to build new transmission lines linking wind farms to customers. Wind-energy proponents say this will greatly ease the bottleneck limiting the development of wind resources in the state, and might even allow Texas’s installed wind-power capacity to overtake Germany’s — currently the world leader at more than 22,300 megawatts. Yet this triumph for renewable energy will be a bitter pill for many environmentalists, as it will mean large transmission lines cutting through once-natural landscapes.
Wind, like the sun, is also fickle. In February, for example, a sudden lull idled the Panhandle’s wind farms and forced managers of the Texas grid to cut power to some large customers for an hour and a half. So another sour note for environmentalists is that renewable power sources may have to be backed up by generators that are more reliable, such as natural gas and cogeneration plants.
Yet these not-so-green side effects are not the end of the story. Giant wind farms are something of an exception in the renewable-energy picture, as they resemble the traditional model of big, centralized coal, gas or nuclear power plants feeding bulk-distribution networks. Looked at more broadly, renewables point to a future in which the power grid could be far less centralized than it is today, with a much greater reliance on local power sources such as rooftop solar panels. This could make the electricity grid more efficient, as less power would be lost in long-distance transmission.
Such a grid would benefit from better electricity storage — in the form of large-scale batteries, say — to smooth out drops in wind or cloudy days. And it would certainly have to be smarter than it is today. To manage this decentralized proliferation of sources and users, the grid would have to be liberally studded with microprocessors that can take actions on their own, without humans pressing any buttons or picking up any phones (see page 570)………
G’day, Wes from NSW here…
Ender, you got no answer for Kuhnkat? So do your usual thing and change the topic–this time to an ill informed rant on American politics and a pre-information age account of economic theory….
You lose.
In case you hadn’t notice, the Yanks have done pretty well inventing stuff then licensing it for off shore manufacture. For instance, the labour required to build a car is 1/30th of the cost in China compared to Australia. Maybe, we should teach our kids how to think independent from the group and invent, rather than work in factories? Maybe we should arrange our economy to favour invention, design, value-added innovation strategies and risk capital formation, rather than toad to centrally managed ETS guilt.
Let’s face facts. Wind power is not up to base-load support…yet. Keep beating the drum, Ender. Someday in the future, you’ll be right. But today, you’re just wrong.
Paul – “Having to cut supply to customers when the wind doesn’t blow isn’t acceptable.”
Yes it is because they get a lower tariff. This is already in place, and has been for many years, to cope with peaking demand.
And Texas also has great solar resources – couple that with the wind farms and the capacity factor of the system will be greater.
wes – “Ender, you got no answer for Kuhnkat?”
Yes – for the the money spent on war the US could have had a smart grid in place with storage. Now they are bleating that there is not enough money to build new transmission lines.
“Let’s face facts. Wind power is not up to base-load support…yet. Keep beating the drum, Ender. Someday in the future, you’ll be right”
No of course it isn’t. One form of power generation is not able to be used without others. You can equally say that thermal coal is not up to peaking as they cannot do this.
The future is EXACTLY what I am going on about where different forms of renewables are coupled together, along with fossil fuel generators, by storage and HVDC links.
Paul: Before reading your post on the “Greener Grid” article I was going to suggest that for every gloomy setback in obtaining cleaner energy we easily find several articles on the positives of getting out of old fashioned “black” power plants. My first post was going to be on the actual cost of microprocessors used in modern co-gen technology that phase locks scattered systems however I’ll eave that to others now.
Any discussion on grid design must include some understanding on the role of gas turbines as we leap forward, also an appreciation of “thermal lag” in power generators and end user utilities such as arc furnaces. Switching big appliances on and off is the easy bit in terms of energy demand and wastage.
Patrick B: A modern power grid can have distributed LNG storages and turbines to cover plant failures (IMO).
This 2004 article at “Distributed Energy” opens a lot of issues when considering pros and cons in industry. ACT readers can see SOLAR gas turbine photos.
http://www.forester.net/de_0411_need.html
Note the other articles up to April 2008.
Ender – there is no excuse or need for intermittent electricity in the modern age, given the availability of 24/7 energy sources – wind power can’t be relied upon, but there is at least the possibility of working towards a solution – as described in the Nature article.
“The future is EXACTLY what I am going on about where different forms of renewables are coupled together, along with fossil fuel generators, by storage and HVDC links.”
Ah, now we are modifying our position, are we? Fine. Suddenly there is a starring role for evil fossil fuel which produce “carbon pollution” is there?
It’s nice to see that you are capable of admitting when you are wrong, if only obliquely.
Obviously, wind is energy, but its not free. Fact is, in the next decade or three, wind isn’t gonna replace the base load suppliers, it’s a supplement.
Glad, we can agree on something. A first.
Paul – “there is no excuse or need for intermittent electricity in the modern age”
Absolute rubbish. If conventional power was 100% reliable why do ALL critical power users like bamks and data centers etc have UPS? There are plenty of excuses, all it takes is one tree falling or one person digging where they shouldn’t.
“wind power can’t be relied upon, but there is at least the possibility of working towards a solution – as described in the Nature article.”
Not by itself it can’t and nobody expects it to be. You cant rely on a coal plant 100% – they break down too. The point is that we will need all forms of generating systems however renewables always need to be considered first.
wes – “Ah, now we are modifying our position, are we? Fine. Suddenly there is a starring role for evil fossil fuel which produce “carbon pollution” is there?”
If you are sufficiently interested you could go back and look at all my comments. Nowhere in them have I said that there should be 100% renewables. We need to get fossil fuels below 30%. Also we need to change thermal coal to gasified coal. That way the same gasifiers can use waste biomass as well as coal and be partly carbon neutral. With fossil fuels below 30% then we can perhaps capture some if it and sequester it. Also coal/biomass gasifiers produce syngas which is burnt in a gas turbine that CAN interact with renewables a thing thermal coal cannot do.
For the last time base load is a type of power generating plant not a form of electricity. Anything can generate the base load of demand however base load generators get their name because this it the ONLY thing that they can do economically. Gas turbines are intermediate or peaking plants and can interact automatically with renewables and storage.
Finally the newer types of solar thermal plants can store heat for a week or more and deliver the 24X7 power that we need. With storage nodes closer the demand the grid will be more reliable as the failure of a long distance feeder will not take out everything as local sources can take over.
Perhaps we need a microprocessor system checking “voltage angles” from Wes’s generator.
Some key words for those searching “distributed generation” –
Islanding detection; fault currents; anti islanding; grounded neutral etc. all leading to conferences around fresh standards for grid connections.
Don’t you just love the way Ender’s brain can allocate zero opportunity cost from not spending money on the war? As if all you need to do is just pack up and go home and there will be no adverse consequences.
And with no adverse consequences there will be all that money just sitting about waiting for some spaced out eco-bogans to dream up another way to piss wealth against a wall. Good one, mate.
OK, Ender. You have argued a fair, um, argument. Someday, in the next 20 to 60 years we will get fossil fuels below 30%. No doubt.
Come visit us in 2038. See ya!
Gavin, name dropping isn’t an argument, but an appeal to vanity. Personally, I doubt you’re on first name basis with voltage angles, fault currents, anti islanding, grounded neutral, or even the notorious, etc.
Argue fairly..
Wes; unfortunately the truth is I’ve forgotten most of the electrical power theory they once had aimed at technical staff supporting communications and grid networks but it’s sure fun seeing where we should be now after such widespread study & practical training has been virtually dropped across the country.
Btw At various times I either worked directly for electrical engineers or liaised with them through infrastructure upgrading programs including some at the national level. Raising the bar in terms of standards across all engineering has been a major issue at many technical workshops.
My point is all institutions depended on a mass of practically trained entering the higher levels of education and hopefully a few remaining as the next layer of tutors for the whole thing to continue working.
Remote sensing and system automation is not something that just happens. Generally it’s a team effort that begins with acquiring the right people before and after the design phase. In my early days it was all about analogue techniques. Yes we could compare grid loads by phase angles on a gauge in the power house. The ac current lag was a big thing that had to be constantly watched like the drum levels in boilers. Detecting fault currents came later.
Go ahead build lots of windmills. I’ve worked in the electrical maintenance field for nearly 30 years and I have first hand experience with the reliability of electro-mechanical generating systems. I’m looking forward to the increased job security that repairing all those windmills will provide when they start falling apart after a few years of operation. For an example a 600KW wind generator in Toronto sat idle for nearly a year waiting for a part and it hasn’t been in operation that long. Trying to store energy to bridge low wind periods isn’t viable either. Battery manufacturing and disposal are environmental disasters waiting to happen if attempted on a scale needed for distribution grid stabilization.
Ender – you seem unable to recognise the difference between a technical failure and policy failure driven by global warming alarmism that delberately implements an intermittent power source in preference to a more reliable source!
Well, we already seen what an unmitigated disaster biofuels has turned out to be:
1. Destroying rain forest
2. Turning over land used for food growing
3. Creating more CO2
4. Inflicting starvation of millions (the poorest)
Can’t wait for the renewables disaster that’ll be caused by the AGW lobby
And all based on a predications cooked up by grant supported computer modellers.
And the climate is not doing what the models said they would do!
You couldn’t make it up – could you?
Just in case anyone gets confused: SOLAR is the name of the company that is making gas turbines a.k.a. jet engines. They are powered by hydrocarbon fuels, not the sun.
http://junkscience.com/ByTheJunkman/20080724.html
Matt – “For an example a 600KW wind generator in Toronto sat idle for nearly a year waiting for a part and it hasn’t been in operation that long. Trying to store energy to bridge low wind periods isn’t viable either. Battery manufacturing and disposal are environmental disasters waiting to happen if attempted on a scale needed for distribution grid stabilization.”
So you keep saying however there is more than one wind turbine in the world and they seem to be doing OK. The new wind turbines do not have gearboxes. Variable speed wind turbines have a piece of iron or a magnet spinning a stationary coil and let the wind generate whatever frequency and voltage it likes. The exact 50Hz 240V (or 33Kv etc) is produced by electronics that has not moving parts except electrons.
“Trying to store energy to bridge low wind periods isn’t viable either. Battery manufacturing and disposal are environmental disasters waiting to happen if attempted on a scale needed for distribution grid stabilization.”
Sorry you are just plain wrong. Utilities already deploying storage even without renewables. They are using sodium sulphur batteries:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2007-07-04-sodium-battery_N.htm
Neither sodium or sulphur is an environmental disaster waiting to happen and can be recycled.
Vanadium flow batteries use vandium salts hundreds of thousands of times which also can be recycled.
http://www.zulenet.com/electriceco/sustainable_electricity.html
and they are not vapourware they are already being used.
Matt: “Battery manufacturing and disposal are environmental disasters waiting to happen if attempted on a scale needed for distribution grid stabilization”
There are other well proven ways of storing potential energy, hydro dams and LNG for instance. Besides the world is full of batteries as anyone working in communications will know. I must mention capacitors too…
There is a more general issue with distributed solar cells connected to the electricity supply on the low voltage end and what the major generators see via the transmission grid as a result. Dare I say load factor control becomes more complex regardless of old base load considerations?
I don’t know where Matt is coming from but I reckon it’s harder to find a qualified rigger near a wind farm downunder than a nacelle part and I say that knowing Vestas has moved their manufacturing off shore in the absence of local demand.
“I see you are quite happy for approx one trillion dollars to be spent invading Iraq and also quite happy for the US to have a defense budget greater that the other G7 nations put together however when spending on infrastructure that you need anyway is mentioned suddenly it is a lefty plot.”
Not that anybody said that here. I doubt anyone is “happy” about the one trillion or the US defense budget but this sort of thing can be regarded as an insurance policy, Ender. A brutal lunatic got taken out and the US defense budget is very bad but stops even worse things happening.
The relevance to this blog is that this “insurance” is what people like you are demanding we take out against the “threat” of AGW with very expensive CO2 mitigation policies on grounds lots more tenuous than Saddam’s WMD’s and without dealing with human malevolence.
This will make Iraq and the US defense budget seem like cheap bargains.
Eyrie: Regards for checking through my link on cogen issues. ACTEW has proposed gas turbines for Canberra and I’m saying we also need LNG storage nearby.
I’d rather live next door to a nuclear reactor/fuel reprocessing facility than a LNG storage facility, Gavin.
Bender: “Sorry you are just plain wrong. Utilities already deploying storage even without renewables. They are using sodium sulphur batteries:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/environment/2007-07-04-sodium-battery_N.htm
Neither sodium or sulphur is an environmental disaster waiting to happen and can be recycled.
Vanadium flow batteries use vandium salts hundreds of thousands of times which also can be recycled.
http://www.zulenet.com/electriceco/sustainable_electricity.html
and they are not vapourware they are already being used.
Alright smarty pants, tell us what the total backup capacity is as a percentage of total world generating capacity over say a 6 hr window (and the wind can stop blowing for a lot longer than that).
The fact is that these are very expensive technologies and are only used for niche applications. Typical use of sodium batteries by utilities is to cover off on limited peak transmission capacity into high growth, underserviced locales. Once they get greater transmission capacity installed, they rip the batteries out and reuse them in another problem area. They are not used for large scale backup on a grid level scale. Any storage used by power companies is based on the economics of balancing supply against load, not for backing up unreliable renewables.
Remember to keep inhaling so you can keep all this good stuff coming at us! Oh, and don’t forget to mention that renewable power based on wind/solar is still AT LEAST 3 times as expensive as generating electricity in coal-firec plants.
I find the Vanadium flow battery interesting, I’ve been watching it for some time – when it first appeared I was living on solar, I emailed them and they assured me there would be a domestic version available, still waiting.
One aspect that impressed me was that, as I understood it, to recharge a valadium battery you only need to replace the discharged electrolyte with charged electrolyte. So a vanadium battery car could pull up to a service station, connect and replace the electrolyte and drive off again.
I see wind power as an offshore setup – Thousands of them beyond the horizon, built on the continental shelf with current generators (like the one developed at McLean) anchored to their supports drawing on the constant current Nemo travelled.
Ender said
So you keep saying however there is more than one wind turbine in the world and they seem to be doing OK. The new wind turbines do not have gearboxes. Variable speed wind turbines have a piece of iron or a magnet spinning a stationary coil and let the wind generate whatever frequency and voltage it likes. The exact 50Hz 240V (or 33Kv etc) is produced by electronics that has not moving parts except electrons.
You forgot about gears for the variable pitch blades and rotating the nacelle, the braking system, lubrication system and the bearings supporting the rotor. These will wear out. Coils and connections will fail from moisture and vibration. As for solid state electronics replacing these devices has become a major part of my job as our mills have converted to static and variable frequency drives. Trust me solid state components fail too.
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t those sodium/sulfur batteries run at somewhere near 400 degrees C. I remember Ford was going to put them in automobiles until someone pointed out what could happen if the batteries were damaged in an accident and the fire department started spraying water on the resultant fire. Anytime you have that much power stored in one place there is a chance something bad will happen. Batteries are the most dangerous part of my job because they can not be turned off, one slip of a wrench or a short between some wiring and you have an explosion. Look at the injuries caused by a little lithium ion lap top battery.
Mark – “Alright smarty pants, tell us what the total backup capacity is as a percentage of total world generating capacity over say a 6 hr window (and the wind can stop blowing for a lot longer than that).”
Very small at the moment and these niche applications are exactly what they are presently designed to do. What do you expect?
“They are not used for large scale backup on a grid level scale. Any storage used by power companies is based on the economics of balancing supply against load, not for backing up unreliable renewables.”
The are used for all sorts of different things, ancillary services being one of them them. So you are trying to say because they are not being used for this now they never will be used?
Matt – “You forgot about gears for the variable pitch blades and rotating the nacelle, the braking system, lubrication system and the bearings supporting the rotor. These will wear out.”
No I didn’t actually. The main gearbox of a constant speed turbine is the high stress area that is most likely to fail. Removing this eliminates one of the most likely failure points. The other gearboxes are much lower stress ancillary units and less likely to fail. VFD drives do fail however their MTBF is far greater that the mechanical systems that they replace.
“Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t those sodium/sulfur batteries run at somewhere near 400 degrees C. ”
So what? Thermal coal plants have steam at 900deg and 900psi. Do you think that this is any safer than sodium sulphur batteries. This Think electric car uses Zebra batteries which are now in daily use all over the world and have been for many years with no reported incidents.
“Batteries are the most dangerous part of my job because they can not be turned off, one slip of a wrench or a short between some wiring and you have an explosion. Look at the injuries caused by a little lithium ion lap top battery.”
Absolutely and this is why you get paid the big bucks (-:. Flow batteries are the exception as the fluid must flow between the electrodes for current to flow so these are inherently safer than other types. Also if VRB are really smart they will start marketing the power conditioners that variable speed turbines need. As the power conversion technology that their flow batteries need can easily be adapted to do the dual functions of storage controller and power converter this should reduce the capital cost of VS wind with storage.
“Batteries are the most dangerous part of my job because they can not be turned off, one slip of a wrench or a short between some wiring and you have an explosion”
Matt raises a big point with batteries that extends to all high powered DC bus systems. DC is very dangerous above a few tens of volts. I used to put it in the same bag with the emf used to produce x-rays in that you can’t touch either (except with a long stick). Another issue is transients in switched DC.
Eyrie is also correct in saying LNG is another industrial hazard of the first order. From experience, we can’t dismiss DC, LNG or nuclear radiation with the stroke of a pen.
“The are used for all sorts of different things, ancillary services being one of them them. So you are trying to say because they are not being used for this now they never will be used?”
Not with the current economics which is something you repeatedly fail to acknowledge! Adoption of technology isn’t just about the technology!. More often than not it’s about the economics! To foster adoption of a technology, typically the technology is improved with the big impact being on the economics of its implementation. In some cases a technology will become economic not on its own accord but because the alternatives become more expensive. No doubt this may ultimately play some role in fostering the adoption of alternate energy sources but we’re not there yet particularly when you have to take into account the cost of backup capacity for wind and solar. You may blow the horn about “thermal solar” but current estimates indicate that will cost 14 cent per kwh to produce and again we see that magical 3 to 4 times as expensive factor over coal generated electricity.
And as for sulphur batteries, what technology breakthroughs affecting the economics of their usage are on the horizon? If there is to be a breakthrough in the economics of power storage, it will have to come from a brand new paradigm (such as ultracapacitors).
Mark – “Not with the current economics which is something you repeatedly fail to acknowledge!”
And that is only because coal get a free ride to pollute as much as it wants too. We get cheap power however the true costs may be much higher.
I do realise that you do not accept the true cost however people that do would like to force coal to pay a price that will help to factor in the true cost of coal.
The Zebra batteries that are being installed currently have nothing to do with renewable power. They are there soley to help with stabilisation of the fossil fuel grid. With extremely high priced ancillary services they are cost effective. If they weren’t no-one would install them.
“And as for sulphur batteries, what technology breakthroughs affecting the economics of their usage are on the horizon?”
Mainly economics of scale. The price will drop as there is more demand and more are made. There does not need to be a technological breakthrough. Same with flow batteries – when they are combined with both HVDC power converters and VS wind turbine converters then this will be far cheaper as we will not be duplicating electronics.
BTW in a study done by David Mills he modelled Texas and California with real weather data. To supply 63% of both states demand the levelised cost would be 10c per kWh. With wind and others filling in the blanks and existing peaking plants kept on line this is very encouraging.
As solar thermal has thermal storage and does not need batteries only the wind farms would need them vastly reducing the storage problem.
You can read the study here:
http://ausra.com/pdfs/T_1_1_David_Mills_2049.pdf
By comparison Australia would be far easier as we have much lower demand.
And for the economists:
“The current cost of a CLFR system is approximately US$3000 per kW; we believe it will drop rapidly to US$1500 per kW within a few years as a result of a numerous technical improvements already identified. At a future estimated cost of $1500 per peak kilowatt, this is ($672 – $1456 billion)/0.93 (the 0.93 because we only supplied 93% of power in the case calculated), or about $723 – $1566 billion in capital investment to provide a grid which supplies the great majority of static and vehicular loads. The current cost of imported oil to the USA at $100 per barrel at an import rate (in 2005/6) of $13.2 million barrels a day is $482 billion per year. The simple payback time in balance of payments by substitution of solar for oil is approximately 1.5 – 3 years. Even at the current cost of the CLFR system, it would remain an attractive investment. This simple economic argument neglects very large benefits to the local environment, which, in addition to global environmental benefits, would include a much cleaner atmosphere in urban areas and the avoidance of associated health costs.”
In this report he models substituting electric car for some of the IC car fleet.
http://ausra.com/pdfs/ausra_usgridsupply.pdf
ender; your forte seems to be alternative power sources, but your expertise doesn’t address this aspect;
http://www.wojack.net/California/WIND%20FARM%20CA%200732.JPG
Not to mention noise, destruction of wildlife.
“The simple payback time in balance of payments by substitution of solar for oil is approximately 1.5 – 3 years.”
Solar for oil – that’s the rub isn’t it? We’re not talking about that are we? We’re talking about solar for coal! Oil is hardly used for power generation these days mainly being limited to remote generator type facilities!
What a red herring!
Like they say, I’ll see it when I believe it! And I’ll believe it when I start seeing privately funded, non-subsidized and non-legislated large scale power plants being built instead of coal based alternatives!
“By comparison Australia would be far easier as we have much lower demand.”
Huh? What’s that going to do to the price per kwh? If anything it will be higher!
Like I said before, you have no grasp of economic concepts: “Hey everybody, let’s spend 2 or 3 times the money to get our electricity!”
Yeh right!
Mark – “Oil is hardly used for power generation these days mainly being limited to remote generator type facilities!”
David Mills is talking about replacing oil based transport with electric transport. Therefore oil will be displaced and he calculates the amount of extra electricity that would have to generated.
“Like they say, I’ll see it when I believe it! And I’ll believe it when I start seeing privately funded, non-subsidized and non-legislated large scale power plants being built instead of coal based alternatives!”
Well that rules out nuclear then.
“Like I said before, you have no grasp of economic concepts: “Hey everybody, let’s spend 2 or 3 times the money to get our electricity!””
It depends on whether you accept AGW or not. I guess as you don’t this does not make sense. However people who do see perfect sense in moving to renewables. Also wind is now comparable to coal and Ausra solar thermal is not far off.
“David Mills is talking about replacing oil based transport with electric transport. Therefore oil will be displaced and he calculates the amount of extra electricity that would have to generated.”
That doesn’t change the argument. Generate that electricity with coal – it’s cheaper! Oh and by the way, we’re still many years away from having anywhere near a meaningful number of EVs on the road!
“Also wind is now comparable to coal”
Bull$hit!!! Not when you include the cost of the alternate generating capacity from alternate to back it up when the wind doesn’t blow, or the cost of the additional transmission capacity required to harvest the power from the associated remote, distributed sites.
Sure there MAY be a case on the margins where wind power can piggyback on EXISTING transmission and generating capacity. Even so, why then are government utilities in Canada paying double the tariff to suppliers for wind produced power? Notwithstanding , anything above 10% of the overall generating base and any economic justification hasn’t a hope in hell!
And yes, AGW is a crock of $hite.
Some interesting points from Paul Driessen re. the ballyhoo about wind power:
Wind power is expensive (even with subsidies), intermittent and unreliable. Many turbines are 400 feet tall and carry 130-foot, 7-ton, bird-slicing blades. They operate at only 20-30% of rated capacity – compared to 85% for coal, gas and nuclear plants – and provide little power during summer daytime hours, when air-conditioning demand is highest, but winds are at low ebb.
Using wind to replace all gas-fired power plants would require over 300,000 1.5-MW turbines, covering Midwestern “wind belt” agricultural and wildlife acreage equivalent to South Carolina.
Building and installing these turbines requires 5 to 10 times more steel and concrete than is needed to build far more reliable nuclear plants to generate the same amount of electricity, says Berkeley engineer Per Peterson. Add in steel and cement needed to build transmission lines from distant wind farms to urban consumers, and the costs multiply.
It also means many more quarries, mines, cement plants and steel mills to supply those materials. But radical greens oppose such facilities. So the Pickens proposal could mean importing steel and cement,instead of oil. Since adequate wind is available only 3-8 hours a day, we would also need expensive gas-fired generating plants that mostly run at idle, kicking in whenever the wind dies down. That means still more money, cement and steel – and still higher electricity prices.
A single 1000-MW nuclear power plant would reliably generate more electricity than 2,800 1.5-MW intermittent wind turbines on 175,000 acres.
here’s a new idea from MIT for storing solar/wind/alternate energy.
“In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, MIT researchers have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn’t shine.”
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html
the video is here
http://newsoffice.techtv.mit.edu/file/1243/
Mark – “Bull$hit!!! Not when you include the cost of the alternate generating capacity from alternate to back it up when the wind doesn’t blow, or the cost of the additional transmission capacity required to harvest the power from the associated remote, distributed sites.”
Do coal plants have to include the cost of peaking power that they need to back them up because they cannot supply peaking power? Does coal have to include any environmental cost at all? Did the coal plants built in the Latrobe valley have to pay for the distribution lines to Melbourne?
So lets apply the same standards before deciding that coal is cheap. It is only cheap because there are hidden subsidies there that we take for granted that for some reason renewables are bad for needing.
“Some interesting points from Paul Driessen re. the ballyhoo about wind power:”
Obviously a neutral observer here. Most of these arguments are the same debunked crap nuclear people bring up and ignore the many factors that lead to wind power installed in job lots and nuclear still waiting for handouts.
“Do coal plants have to include the cost of peaking power that they need to back them up because they cannot supply peaking power?”
What a moronic statement! Back up has nothing to do with peaking power! God you’re a dolt! Backup is when a facility can’t provide its PLANNED contribution to the grid, not a peak requirement. That is provided by an appropriate technology for that purpose like gas turbines and storage facilites (where cost effective) like pumped storage in some locales. The nice thing about coal is that you can plan it into base load and non-immediate peak requirements and it will deliver! The same thing can’t be said about wind! If we tried to rely on wind the same way we rely on coal fired power we’d be truly f*cked when the wind didn’t blow!
And yes, coal fired plants if situated remotely need transmission lines too but nothing like those required for the equivalent capacity supplied by wind power which would by its very nature be scattered over a vast area.
The only reason wind is being installed in job lots is because ecofreaks have managed to block the construction of proven generating capabilities like coal and nuclear while at the same time convincing spineless and very stupid politicians to subsidize and mandate the construction of all these giant bird choppers!
Mark – “What a moronic statement! Back up has nothing to do with peaking power! God you’re a dolt! Backup is when a facility can’t provide its PLANNED contribution to the grid, not a peak requirement.”
So how does a base load power station do peaking power other than requiring a backup for tasks that it cannot do?
Of course peaking power is a backup. What about spinning reserve that is required to back up fossil fuel generators that fail?
The problem is that you take the present infrastructure for granted and then expect wind to build an entirely new one. Peaking power can just as easily backup up wind as it does not with base load.
Ender you still have no idea what you are talking about!
Peaking power is the general trend where overall power usage increases and then decreases through the hours of the day. Coal plants can work very well within that framework – they just ramp up and ramp down boilers as required. Since this process does take some time, that’s where other technologies are used to bridge the shorter term timeframes and to deal with smaller levels of ongoing variability. This is where gas turbines, stored hydro, other storage technologies and spinning reserves come into play. It’s all about matching the supply of power with demand which has to happen on an immediate basis. And yes, part of the readily deployable capapcity has to be there in case a source of power is disrupted. However, the likelihood of such events with current generation technologies is not that great.
This is where the Achilles heel of “renewables” like wind and solar come into play. When the wind drops or the sun goes behind a cloud, the impact on supply is immediate and widespread. That is why it is so difficult to integrate such supply into the overall power grid. At best, Denmark can leverage wind for 20% of its power base but this is misleading because the Danish grid is heavily integrated into a broader European grid which can absorb fluctuations in the wind supply base. Oh, and don’t forget that there are enough thermal coal plants in Denmark to supply 100% of their power needs if be.
The much ballyhooed German wind power capacity only represents 2-3% of their overall generating capacity with coal representing on the order of 80%.
So Ender, yours is a dream world where wind plays a major role in power supply and coal can be shunted to the sidelines!
Mark – “This is where the Achilles heel of “renewables” like wind and solar come into play. When the wind drops or the sun goes behind a cloud, the impact on supply is immediate and widespread.”
Only if the systems are isolated. It does not get cloudy and still everywhere at once. The point the Mark Diesendorf has been trying to make all along is that distributed renewables connected together have a far greater capacity factor that isolated systems.
Also the solar thermal plants that are being built now, with Australian technology in the USA, include thermal storage allowing them to continue supplying power when there is cloud or at night. Also wind farms are now deploying storage, the first large scale on in Ireland, to allow them to be more despatchable.
So while what you are saying is true now it will not be true in the future. Wind will play its role along with other renewables and coal will be shunted to the side unlike in your dream world where we can continue to pump out CO2 with no effects on the climate. In many ways your dream world is more distant from reality than my dream world as at least I do not have to ignore a lot of science.
Ender: “at least I do not have to ignore a lot of science.”
No, you just make it up as you go along!
The only reason we’re seeing growth in wind generation is that it is heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly through its reliance on existing generating capabilities as backup or because it is mandated by government fiat!. Take that away and it goes nowhere! Solar has more promise in the appropriate climes (certainly not Canada!) but we’re still some years off from where it can legitimately stand on its own two feet from an economic perspective.
Mark – “No, you just make it up as you go along!”
Right and all the climate scientists are just making it up then? If you believe this then I guess you can believe anything.
“The only reason we’re seeing growth in wind generation is that it is heavily subsidized both directly and indirectly through its reliance on existing generating capabilities as backup or because it is mandated by government fiat!”
No it is growing because it is cheap and quick to deploy and offsets carbon emissions now rather than later. The subsidies are less that what are being demanded by the nuclear industry even while new nuclear power is stalled while they wait for the said handouts.
I am sure that Boone Pickens is responding to government fiat.
“Solar has more promise in the appropriate climes (certainly not Canada!) but we’re still some years off from where it can legitimately stand on its own two feet from an economic perspective.”
Why cannot you get your power from appropriate climate? There is a proposal in Europe for solar power stations in North Africa to be connected to Europe by HVDC links. Is North America a bit afraid of innovation and big engineering now?
“Right and all the climate scientists are just making it up then?”
Nope, just the alarmist ones that are driven by politics and idealogy as opposed to the legitimate scientific method!.
“No it is growing because it is cheap and quick to deploy”
Bzzzzz! There goes the bullshit meter again! Tell me then, why do governments here in Canada have to provide double the going tariff for wind power if it’s so fucking cheap and easy to deploy!
“I am sure that Boone Pickens is responding to government fiat.”
Nope, he’s responding to those government subsidies!
“Why cannot you get your power from appropriate climate? There is a proposal in Europe for solar power stations in North Africa to be connected to Europe by HVDC links. Is North America a bit afraid of innovation and big engineering now?”
No, we’re just afraid of doubling or trebling the cost and the unreliability of our electical supply! There’s a vast difference between a “proposal” and actually delivering cheap, reliable power to those that need it!
Our inept provincial government here in Ontario promised 2 elections ago to get rid of the coal generating stations that generate 30% of the electricity here by 2010! They’ve since backed that off to 2014 and guess what? They’re going to fail to meet that date too because there are no legitimate alternatives! But I guess they’ve yet to hear of the mighty all knowing Ender, who with a wave of his hand will magically ensure clean, cheap and reliable power for all!
Mark – “Tell me then, why do governments here in Canada have to provide double the going tariff for wind power if it’s so fucking cheap and easy to deploy!”
Its called a feed in tariff and it is designed to encourage NEW forms of electricity generation. So you would support dropping all subsidies then even the ones for coal, oil and nuclear?
“Nope, just the alarmist ones that are driven by politics and idealogy as opposed to the legitimate scientific method!.”
“No, we’re just afraid of doubling or trebling the cost and the unreliability of our electical supply!”
So you, as the non alarmist person, as soon as renewable power is mentioned out comes the renewable energy alarmism of “it will cost treble” and “it will be unreliable” etc. How about you take a look at your own alarmist crap before writing off the scientists behind AGW as “driven by politics and idealogy”. Legitimate scientists publish in the peer reviewed system something that almost none of the contrarians supporting your dreamland do.
“Its called a feed in tariff and it is designed to encourage NEW forms of electricity generation. So you would support dropping all subsidies then even the ones for coal, oil and nuclear?”
So how NEW is wind generated power and how many more decades to they keep up such a subsidy? Seems to be a well established industry already! And yes, I support dropping all subsidies and letting the market decide the most economic form of power generation. By the way, where exactly are these subsidies to coal generated power? And don’t give me the “cost to the environment” crap! Modern coal plants outfitted with proper anti-pollution gear (and I fully support that), produce very little pollution.
“How about you take a look at your own alarmist crap before writing off the scientists behind AGW as “driven by politics and idealogy”.
Sorry Ender, my worries are reality based. Not so the climate alarmist crapola you espouse. And shut up about this peer review nonsense. Despite the censorship by the editors of many of the science journals who have consumed the global warming kool-aid, there are still many papers that refute the climate alarmist nonsense. Oh, and my favourite peer reviewed alarmist paragon of truth? Michael Mann of course!
Tell you what! Why don’t we continue this discussion when wind and solar have surplanted coal and nuclear as the primary sources of electricity generation in any major industrial country? But you’ll be dead by then won’t you (and probably your children too)? C’est la vie! Give it up buddy!
Evidence of the wind power economic madness:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article4449528.ece
Mark – “And yes, I support dropping all subsidies and letting the market decide the most economic form of power generation.”
Lets see how much nuclear gets built then. We can drop the Price Anderson Act in the US and everything – that should make it easier. Also we have to fairly price CO2 emissions for the rational people in the world that accept the science of AGW. The only reason that coal plants are fitted with anti pollution gear is because the eco-freaks you despise forced them to after acid raid destroyed enough to make them listen.
“Sorry Ender, my worries are reality based.”
Oh yes reality. A sunny 1950s reality where everyone is happy and CO2 makes plants grow better. Ever seen the Stepford Wives? Of course you have to denigrate peer review because none of your denialist bullshit can make it through because it is just plain wrong. This is reality?
“But you’ll be dead by then won’t you (and probably your children too)? C’est la vie! Give it up buddy! ”
However they will be still dealing with your stinking nuclear waste. I am sure they will be real happy about having to dispose of it however as you point out we will be safely dead. Which is the point of your reality – a problem that is able to be ignored until you after you die is not really a problem. You will have your cheap energy no matter what with no thought to your childrens well being.
You reality is that of the Lotus Eaters.
In the immortal words of Jamie Savage:
“I reject your reality and substitute my own”
“The only reason that coal plants are fitted with anti pollution gear is because the eco-freaks you despise forced them to after acid raid destroyed enough to make them listen.”
I don’t despise those who put forward legitimate environmental issues. Just the ones who are pushing the big AGW lie.
“Of course you have to denigrate peer review because none of your denialist bullshit can make it through because it is just plain wrong. This is reality?”
This is reality:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html
“However they will be still dealing with your stinking nuclear waste. I am sure they will be real happy about having to dispose of it however as you point out we will be safely dead. Which is the point of your reality – a problem that is able to be ignored until you after you die is not really a problem. You will have your cheap energy no matter what with no thought to your childrens well being.”
Another crock of shit. My brother is a geotechnical engineer who has been working in this field for years. The only barriers to implementing safe long-term nuclear waste disposal are political. The sooner dolts like you get out of the way the better off we’ll all be!
Ender, I think I hear your commune calling for you. You’d better head back now you hippie freak!
Mark – “This is reality:”
Oh yes the one heavily processed short term record that happens to show less warming than all the others. Really conclusive.
“Another crock of shit. My brother is a geotechnical engineer who has been working in this field for years.”
I’m sorry obviously since your brother the geotechnical engineer says it’s true then it must be! Ask him about radionucleides leaching out of supposedly impermeable containment rock and ending up in the water table. I guess the 20 billion or so spent on Yucca mountain was all wasted. They should have just asked your brother he could have fixed it up.
“Ender, I think I hear your commune calling for you. You’d better head back now you hippie freak!”
Now I know I am at the end of your knowledge as the insults now fly. Cheap insult are really the height of your ability aren’t they?
“Oh yes the one heavily processed short term record that happens to show less warming than all the others. Really conclusive.”
There you go! You’re caught in a lie again!
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/MSUvsRSS.html
“Ask him about radionucleides leaching out of supposedly impermeable containment rock and ending up in the water table. I guess the 20 billion or so spent on Yucca mountain was all wasted. They should have just asked your brother he could have fixed it up.”
Sure Ender, just keep making shit up! His work had nothing to do with Yucca mountain. It involved a test site thousands of feet down in the Canadian shield, a stable rock formation that has been around for billions of years. Their tests long ago concluded that burial in that environment was completely safe.
“Now I know I am at the end of your knowledge as the insults now fly. Cheap insult are really the height of your ability aren’t they?”
It’s what you deserve for making stuff up out of thin air and lying to people. You are a typical AGW alarmist zealot!
Mark – “There you go! You’re caught in a lie again!”
So you have so littlt knowledge that you post a comparison of the MSU data?? Please tell me how I am lying.
“Sure Ender, just keep making shit up! His work had nothing to do with Yucca mountain.”
Never said it was mate! I said that your brother could have saved the US government billions of dollars if only they had just asked him.
“Their tests long ago concluded that burial in that environment was completely safe.”
So how do you bury 30 or 40 thousand tons of material there, how do you tranport it there and how do you monitor it to make sure that your brother actually is correct, how do you make sure that the site is safe for the next 10 thousand years. Obviously these are trivial political questions that your brother can answer in an instant.
“It’s what you deserve for making stuff up out of thin air and lying to people. You are a typical AGW alarmist zealot!”
Never made anything up. Accusing people of making stuff up when you don’t fully understand the science and have no science of your own to fall back on is typical of the denier alarmist zealot that you are.
“So how do you bury 30 or 40 thousand tons of material there, how do you tranport it there and how do you monitor it to make sure that your brother actually is correct, how do you make sure that the site is safe for the next 10 thousand years. Obviously these are trivial political questions that your brother can answer in an instant.”
First you vitrify it (if you even know what that means). The you place it reinforced conerete containers. Then you can safely tranport it. Did you see any of the tests Bender? You know the ones where they ran the containers into solid rock at 80 mph? Well apparently you didn’t. You then place it in concrete storage chambers deep underground sealed with bentonite. Then you monitor the surrounding underground environment with sensor equipment to ensure no leakage. The sensor instrumentation was in fact my brothers specialty.
What’s yours Ender? Making crap up and repeated lying to people because you have no training in science, engineering or economics? Like, did you even graduate from high school?
And yes you lied. You said “”Oh yes the one heavily processed short term record that happens to show less warming than all the others. Really conclusive.” Well there are 2 different analyses of the MSU data so your statement of “all the others” is in fact a lie. Also are the other datasets not “heavily processed” too? With no disclosure of their methods and no verification by a separate party! The nice thing about the 2 MSU datasets is that act as a check and balance against each other. HADCRUT3’s not bad. Would be nice to have that disclosure and independent assessment and verification though! Pretty good correlation between the MSU sets and HADCRUT3 too! HADCRUT’s been running a bit warm for the last couple of month’s but that would be entirely due to its known flaw of limited spatial coverage which currently has it excluding large areas of the planet which have been unusually cool lately.
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Common/HadCRUT3vsMSU.html
Mark – “The you place it reinforced conerete containers. Then you can safely tranport it. Did you see any of the tests Bender? You know the ones where they ran the containers into solid rock at 80 mph? Well apparently you didn’t. You then place it in concrete storage chambers deep underground sealed with bentonite.”
And then underground water that you have not allowed for can still leach it out as proved at Yucca Mountain where they turned up in totally unexpected locations. Also our sort of concrete only lasts a couple of hundred years -what then? And what does all this cost and who pays for it? If nuclear actually paid the full cost of proper disposal how can it possibly be cheaper than even the most expensive renewables. Also vitrifing it uses vast amounts of energy and only works on certain types of waste. What about the decommissioned reactor cores?
Also the transport issue is not only crashes. With thousands of tons of high level waste travelling all over the country the exists a greater possibility that some will fall into the wrong hands.
“Making crap up and repeated lying to people because you have no training in science, engineering or economics”
So far you are the only one demonstrating this so keep it up and you will look even more foolish.
“Well there are 2 different analyses of the MSU data so your statement of “all the others” is in fact a lie.”
Do you actually know what the MSU data is? Or are you just reading off the script. All data is processed and thinking that one is the best because it agrees with you is wrong. My position is that the MSU data is part of the 5 or 6 datasets that exist. A multi data set analysis shows warming. You can cherry pick whichever you choose however AGW advocates will usually choose more datasets than less and usually look at the long term trend not the year by year figures.
How about you lay off the crap insults and concentrate on the science if you can.
Bender: “AGW advocates will usually choose more datasets than less and usually look at the long term trend not the year by year figures.”
That’s because if they looked at the quality data from last 25 years after properly taking volcanic impacts into account, their alarmist theory gets shot all to hell.
Now why don’t you go away and try and finish that high school diploma?