THE Australian government didn’t get its carbon trading legislation through the Senate last week and has now decided, at least for the moment, to just push ahead with that part of the legislation relating to renewable energy targets.
It seems this legislation is likely to be passed sometime this week and according to many pundits the big winner will be wind farms.
Wind is available now, is relatively cheap, and could snap up all the relevant concessions under the new legislation before emerging technologies like geothermal and solar thermal are ready for rolling out.
Is this good news?
According to the following article… wind farms in South East Australia are unlikely to supply any significant power output that system operators can rely upon, rather they will load the distribution system with sudden variations in power that are not predictable and are of a size that is ten times larger than the random variations of user demand.
Wind Farming in South East Australia
By Andrew Miskelly and Tom Quirk
IT is often claimed by their advocates that wind farms can be a reliable source of electrical power if they are dispersed over a sufficiently wide area. The wind will be blowing somewhere, it is claimed. There is now a sufficient number of wind farms in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania for an assessment of the value of wind farms as a source of reliable electricity generation..
This analysis is based on the performance of 11 wind farms listed in the table below for June 2009. The data was sourced from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO formerly NEMMCO) website. The power output is recorded in 5 minute intervals and this allows the performance of the wind farms to be examined in detail. An example of the behaviour of two South Australian wind farms and the summed behaviour of all six South Australian wind farms is shown in the above chart.
These curves show that, for example, 80 percent of the time, all SA windfarms provided more than 8 percent of rated output, and that 8 percent of the time they provided just 80 percent or more of their rated output.
These power curves are representative of the general behaviour of wind farms. The performance of all the wind farms is given in the following table. 
The capacity factor, the average output relative to the installed capacity shows an overall average of 30 per cent for a total installed capacity of 833 Mw. The capacity factor varies from month to month throughout the year and varies from year to year. But these values are indicative of the performance to be expected from new wind farms as they are brought on line. A modest decline in the capacity factor for new farms might be expected if the best sites have already been taken.
The 90 per cent reliability figure represents the amount of energy that can be relied on for 90 per cent of the time. It is given as a percentage of the installed capacity so that comparative performance can be assessed. 90 per cent reliability for conventional coal fired power stations or gas turbine generators is greater than 90 per cent of the rated output. It is clear that the one benefit of grouping wind farms is that the 90 per cent reliability point is increased from 6 per cent for SA, 5 per cent for Victoria, to 10 per cent overall. Again this figure should be expected to vary from month to month and from year to year.
One of the most important details of this analysis is the geographical separation of the wind farms. This is shown in the map below. In fact the windfarms extend over 900 km North-South and East-West. This separation can be used to investigate if any significant benefit is gained by such a spread of wind farms. 
The next three figures show the June 2009 performance of the wind farms in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania compared to that of South Australia. South Australian wind power generation has been used as the standard as it is the largest sample and despite having 6 wind farms added together performs as if it were one farm despite a spread of some 500 km. 
It is clear that the responses in each area are correlated. The correlation of South Australia with Victoria is the clearest example. This has been refined in the next three figures that show a measure of this correlation. This is a running correlation with a sliding 24 hour window that shows the extensive variations over time.
These figures show the strong positive correlation of South Australia with Victoria. However it is important to note that the other two states do not provide any significant comfort from their geographical separation: that is they show no significant inverse of the South Australian-Victorian correlation.
Another demonstration of this general wind correlation is to look at the total wind power profile and compare that to a profile assuming equal installed capacity in all four states.
The figure below shows that no great change occurs and the geographical spread does not enhance performance. 
The conclusion is that the only benefit from a large geographical spread is an increase in the 90 per cent reliability point from typically 5 per cent to 10 per cent
The other issue that can be examined is the short term fluctuations in the outputs of wind generators. These fluctuations add to the difficulties of maintaining voltage and frequency in the power system. Sudden changes in the demand for power raise similar problems but long experience with the daily load curve enables system operators to prepare for these changes. Fluctuations in output from the wind generators are, contrariwise, completely unpredictable.
The variations have been assessed by looking at the difference of wind farm output from one 5 minute interval to the next. By sampling over some 8,000 5 minute intervals it is possible to build up a measure of the performance of all wind farms and their aggregate output, rather like calculating a standard deviation(1) . This can be extended to looking at differences 10 minutes apart and so with increasing separation it is possible to see the time development of wind variations. A complete picture, extending over seven days, is shown below. It has been standardised to the installed capacity of the wind farms as it a measure of the wind’s behaviour, not the behaviour of the wind farm.
The conclusion from this is that the wind has some consistency for up to about 48 hours but with increasing fluctuations. Beyond that time the fluctuations are some 25 per cent of the installed capacity. This does not imply that the wind varies smoothly. On the contrary, this is the average performance of a generator with greatly varying output.
The general conclusion from this analysis is that wind farms in South East Australia are not likely to supply any significant power that can be relied upon, and thus system operators will have to schedule generators as if there were no wind power at all. Wind farms will load the distribution system with variations in power that are not predictable and are ten times larger than the random variations of user demand.
*****************
1. 
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
To sum it up, wind sucks because it blows badly.
10-20 years from now, educated folks all over the planet will be shaking their heads, saying, “how the hell could those people be so gullible and stupid as to waste all that energy on this form of energy?”
10-20 years from now
20 years from now alternative energy like wind will produce over 20% of energy in nearly every country.
the article written by Tom Quirk is another attempt to confuse the uneducated.
a capacity factor of 30% is pretty exactly what is expected from wind power. those wind farms are producing exactly what they were planned to produce.
the comparison with southern australia is an attempt to mislead. to produce reliable energy all the time, you need to spread wind farms over a region that has different wind conditions.
The conclusion is that the only benefit from a large geographical spread is an increase in the 90 per cent reliability point from typically 5 per cent to 10 per cent
this makes doubling sound like a small achievement. wow.
I think it is sod who is uneducated. He doesn’t understand the difference between capacity factor and reliability. Does he really understand what a reliability of 10% means?
People want electricity on demand. If the generators aren’t reliable, then one has to build excess capacity into the system to get that. What this data indicates is that if one wants a wind based system, then it needs to be 10 times bigger than demand. That would make power prohibitively expensive. And don’t go on about pumped storage or batteries. As well as adding to the cost, they will have to last up to 4 days, just on the data shown.
Have a look at:-
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/20/mackay_on_carbon_free_uk/
from WUWT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/#more-8964
Jack Hughes (23:46:26) :
This puts numbers on an avowed “green’s” estimate of the energy needs of the UK from “carbon free” sources.
Paints an interesting picture!
Denmark has 20% of wind. power there is neither unreliable, nor prohibitively expensive.
you are trying to use a scare tactic.
Yet again sod is speaking from Greenpeace publicity brochures. Doesn’t he live in the real world?
How many thermal stations has Denmark shut down? – none. How much has their carbon footprint gone down – it has gone up. Who has the most expensive power in Europe? Denmark Why? Wind!
Their wind generation is unreliable. They use it to feed into the grid but need either the north european nukes or the fast start hydros in Norway to give them reliability – and that is with the world’ strongest grid supporting them. Even then, they had big outages taking out half the country caused by lack of voltage support from wind farms one December.
Find the technical reports from the grid companies in either Denmark, or Ireland which is having similar problems. Even NZ had problems in the Manawatu from just two windfarms.
Yes, pointing out the limitations of wind is scary, but it still the truth.
sod from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
Denmark has relatively modest average wind speeds in the range of 4.9–5.6 metres a second measured at 10 m height. Onshore wind resources are highest in the Western part of the country, and on the Eastern islands with coastlines facing South or West. The country has very large offshore wind resources, and large areas of sea territory with a shallow water depth of 5–15 m, where siting is most feasible. These sites offer higher wind speeds, in the range of roughly 8.5–9.0 m/s at 50 m height.[6] There have been no major problems from wind variability, although there is a temporary problem resulting from the connection of a large bloc of wind power from offshore wind farms to a single point on a weak section of the transmission network.[7]
Denmark is connected by transmission line to other European countries and therefore it does not need to install additional peak-load plant to balance its wind power. Instead, it purchases additional power from its neighbours when necessary. With some strengthening of the grid, Denmark plans to increase wind’s share even further.[8]
One can’t compare the Tom Quirk post with Denmark without providing the maximum peak off loading and variance, the size of the EU grid they dump to, the maximum daily peak power purchase and variance, and the size of the EU peak-load capabilities.
However, your comment “”you are trying to use a scare tactic”” is baseless without these numbers. The numbers show that wind farms in Australia do have problems. The wiki shows that Denmark solved their problems in manner that may not be available to Australia. Further, if you do not know how much discount Denmark had to pay for the EU grid to accept their offload variance, nor how much money, especially penalty peak demand costs in their purchases, then you cannot say how reliable nor how expensive the Dansih 20% actually is, because of the hidden costs. Raw energy costs will not have the penalties nor discounts included.
If you want 20% windpower you have to pay for it:
“ln 2007, the highest electricity prices were found in Denmark, with 25.79 cents per kWh.”
http://www.energia.fi/fi/tilastot/muuttilastot/sahkonkansainvalisiahintatilastoja-electricitypricesineurope.html
This is almost 70% higher than average EU prices (same source) and double what I pay in USA. You can keep your wind power.
Wind energy is just that: energy. It can displace the consumption of fossil fuels, but it provides very little value in terms of reliable capacity. For every 100 MW of wind capacity, you still need 90+ MW of other capacity to back it up. It’s still possible to obtain 20% of your total energy needs from wind; just make sure you have the capacity to back it up and provide stability to the grid. Energy storage would be ideal but costly, so a fossil energy source such as natural gas fired units that only operate at peak demand periods can be used as an inexpensive backup.
“natural gas fired units that only operate at peak demand periods can be used as an inexpensive backup.”
The question that should be asked in this case is: Why invest billions to obtain 20% of the energy when we do not replace one single existing power station, or build quick response new stations to augment?
If and when there is a “reliable” alternative energy, then we are talking turkey, until then it’s just pissing money up the wall.
And don’t tell me, we have to build full scale plants to find out if they work, that is just BS!
Looks like wind has a healthy future here in Australia. I gather that the Govt. is backing it strongly. Oh hang on a few motley dissenters are having a cry, that’s it, pack up, go home, can’t argue with that.
I don’t think anyone thinks that wind will be the sole source of power in the future. What the deniers have trouble with is moving away from the monolithic generation model to a diverse one. Their faith is strong but they are small in number.
Why is sod quoting Wikipedia when he could use the grid operators? Is it because the latter know what they are talking about and give a contrary story.
As for Patrick B, his ad hominem arguments are seen as a concession that he can’t argue on facts. Wind is a viable option for quite a number of sites. The issue is whether it can replace thermal generation, as per government policy. This work shows it can’t without major investment in backup generation that will make the power a lot more expensive.
Sod,
you might want to do a little more research before deciding wind is so wonderful:
http://www.washingtontimesglobal.com/content/story/denmark/780/renewable-energy-recharging-american-dream
http://www.aweo.org/ProblemWithWind.html
” Once allies now standing on the barricades against each other” – One birdpeole’s statement on Greenpeace and windpower.
I see that other quite deep green people have joined the birdpeople against windpower in Sweden.
They say that commercial interests are involved in windpower, so the hydrogen power must as well increase to supply windpower. This means that the rivers no longer will be untouched.
In Sweden large commercial interests are involved in windpower and now they want to erect turbines as well in nature reserves and old growth forest have to be cut down ( this is a case in northern Sweden).
What is all this rubbish about MegaWatts and percentages? Don’t need to know. Carbon dioxide is life: it fertilises crops. Burning coal is a public good and ought to be tax-free.
A safe addendum to many scientific conclusions is this: Further research is needed. It may be possible to ratchet up the performance of wind rotors by tweaking their design. I’d like to see more research on the Mamikon Spinner.
“Hi-Q Products has been awarded a grant from the California Energy Commission to develop “cutting-edge‿ advanced wind rotor system. The Mamikon Spinner, based on single strip geometry, is stronger and more stable than 3 blade designs. Able to spin in the slightest breeze, it is designed for sites with a high percentage of low wind days.” Source
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Wind
If you want to see a small picture of a Mamikon Spinner, scroll 70% of the way down. You can make your own small-scale version with tin snips, a used soda pop can, super-glue, and a few other household items.
A small advantage not mentioned in the short paragraph is that Mamikon Spinners are more visible to birds than conventional wind rotors. Mamikon has shown me toy versions of his Spinner, and they really do respond to faint breezes.
Earlier this year, Mamikon was involved in litigation with Hi-Q. The fate of his Spinner is uncertain.
Having studied wind turbines in the UK and Europe, and having been an expert witness at wind farm public inquiries, it is evident that wind power is a complete waste of money and resource; basically it is a money-making scam for wind farm developers. In Europe the profits are made from the huge subsidies that are provided. The question of intermittency is no different in Europe than it is in Australia. Denmark is a case in point. It has to give away its excess wind production to Norway and Sweden when the wind blows strongly and then it has to import expensive electricity and burn coal when the wind fails to blow. Denmark has never managed to shut down coal-fired power stations despite having the greatest per capita wind power. In essence, by building wind farms, you are developing two electricity systems; one that is used when the wind blows and one that is used for the rest of the time. That’s an expensive route to go down, especially when it has never been demonstrated that there are any CO2 emissions savings from wind turbines.
How many thermal stations has Denmark shut down? – none.
you are repeating a false claim by Trebilcock, without naming him. here is a balanced look at that article:
http://knowledgeproblem.com/2009/05/15/claims-about-wind-power/
and here are some results:
In “Wind Chill,” Lodge said, “not a single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.” (p. 6) Unfortunately, the claim is not backed up with any sort of reference. Examining the Danish Energy Agency’s report, Energy Statistics 2007, it is clear that Denmark had very little wind power in 1980, but significant wind power in 2007 (output of 38 terajoules in 1980 and 25,823 terajoules in 2007). On the other hand, consumption of oil for electric power production has fallen (from over 47,000 TJ in 1980 to just over 11,000 TJ in 2007); as has consumption of coal (from near 214,000 TJ in 1980 to almost 167,000 TJ in 2007). If you’d rather think in gigawatt-hours rather than terajoules, you can divide the TJ numbers by 3.6 to get GWh.
I don’t find reports on numbers of powerplants, or plants retired, but it is hard to believe that “not a single conventional power plant has been closed” since 1980, given the reduction in output. Or else all of those oil-fired plants are operating with a poorer capacity factor than wind power in Denmark.
denmark has significantly reduced its consumption of oil and coal.
How much has their carbon footprint gone down – it has gone up.
your claim includes a massive logic error.
the carbon footprint is going up nearly everywhere. wind energy helps reducing that increase over time, and in the long term might even reverse the process.
nearly the full carbon foot print of a wind field is caused right at the start of the project. so building wind fields can actually INCREASE the carbon foot print at the moment. but in the LONG TERM, it will REDUCE it.
Who has the most expensive power in Europe? Denmark Why? Wind!
you are ignoring general price levels in Denmark. it had the highest price level of all europe (141%)
http://www.finfacts.com/irishfinancenews/article_1017194.shtml
you surely had that factored in your “mono-causal” explanation, did you???
Even then, they had big outages taking out half the country caused by lack of voltage support from wind farms one December.
the failure of the German nuclear reactor Krümmel again took out Hamburg last month. pretty close to taking out half of Denmark. what was your point again?
Find the technical reports from the grid companies in either Denmark, or Ireland which is having similar problems. Even NZ had problems in the Manawatu from just two windfarms.
there is no principal technical problem in a wind penetration of 20-30%. this is a fact.
http://books.google.com/books?id=q3IAkdbntiwC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=David+Milborrow&source=bl&ots=f7b7Ke5nwJ&sig=5eOGka5gR2or3oHatx8TAXwulcU&hl=en&ei=fGUlSqPtB4KItgfY1_DtBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5#v=onepage&q=David%20Milborrow&f=false
the cost for such an expansion is actually rather small. (10-15% for about 15% of wind)
http://www.uwig.org/IEA_Report_on_variability.pdf
In Europe the profits are made from the huge subsidies that are provided.
the subsidies are there, to help develop alternative energy against established technologies.
in total, the subsidies for alternative energy are smaller than for fossil ones!!!
Denmark is a case in point. It has to give away its excess wind production to Norway and Sweden when the wind blows strongly and then it has to import expensive electricity and burn coal when the wind fails to blow.
somebody is buying that extra wind energy. somebody has the capacity to provide the “missing” energy. all the time, those wind is saving CO2. hard fact.
Denmark has never managed to shut down coal-fired power stations despite having the greatest per capita wind power.
you can surely provide a source for that claim? and numbers?
In essence, by building wind farms, you are developing two electricity systems; one that is used when the wind blows and one that is used for the rest of the time.
this is false. you are holding back small reserves in a large enough grid.
That’s an expensive route to go down, especially when it has never been demonstrated that there are any CO2 emissions savings from wind turbines.
multiple lifetime analysis are available. are you just ignoring them?
http://www.stormingmedia.us/86/8625/A862514.html
Denmark is around 200km x 300km – Sydney to Orange west, and north to Port Macquarie, .56% of our footprint.
now if only we could be in the northern hemisphere we could kick arse with wind.
http://users.tpg.com.au/johnsay1/Stuff/aussieworld.gif
When looking at where the electricity that keeps the greeners of Europe going, I’m told that you’ll find a lot comes from French nuclear generation.
Also apparently the French solution to the UK’s looming electricity crisis is “So you can’t build nuclear stations and you’re running out of power? So how about we build another 5 or 6 and sell you the power?”
To borrow fron Herschel Smith – “Politics and ideology lead to strange things in pre-(WW2) France”. Seems like they might be on the realistic side this time
When looking at where the electricity that keeps the greeners of Europe going, I’m told that you’ll find a lot comes from French nuclear generation.
do NOT believe everything that you are told. try to be a sceptic occasionally….
how do you think those 20% wind power in Denmark gets transformed into nuclear electricity?
The only reason the venal pollies are pushing windmills is because they have committed to CO2 reduction targets and don’t have any other eco-power solution that actually remotely works at all. Not that the windmills actually work, apart from creating a mess of the power grid. I cringe when I hear phrases like ‘diverse sources of energy”, “mix of technologies” etc etc. This is actually code for ‘a diverse collection of shit’.
Once wind power becomes a major portion of the total power generation, it becomes hard to manage.
Denmark has neighbors that cann supply it.
US northwest areas have nowhere to turn to. I guess Australia doesn’t either.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=balance-of-power-wind-fluctuations-2009-08-03
Another question regarding Denmark: is the 20% a comparison of peak power or average power (for conventional power, peak and average is approx. the same, but NOT SO FOR WIND).
If sod wants to play with the big boys, please don’t come into the battle unarmed.
If you go the the Danish Grid operator:
http://www.energinet.dk/en/menu/Climate+and+the+environment/Climate/The+Danish+wind+case/The+Danish+wind+case.htm
you will notice they say:
“Today, with a 20% wind-power share, shortage of capacity is not a problem as renewable energy has not yet displaced large power stations.”
The also talk about negative prices, that means they have had to pay others to take their power.
Denmark has neighbors that cann supply it.
US northwest areas have nowhere to turn to. I guess Australia doesn’t either.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=balance-of-power-wind-fluctuations-2009-08-03
the north west has neighbours, that might actually be much easier accessable than the denmark neighbours are. (did you ever take a look at a map of denmark?)
the article you linked to names the problems and names the solutions.
ps: you are using a report about record heat waves to argue against wind power. i don t think that this is a strong argument.
Another question regarding Denmark: is the 20% a comparison of peak power or average power (for conventional power, peak and average is approx. the same, but NOT SO FOR WIND).
i think that it is 20% of total electricity produced by wind against total electricity produced over a year.
that average and “peak” are approx. the same for conventional power is false, btw. (unless you consider 70% to be about the same as 100%…)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
If sod wants to play with the big boys, please don’t come into the battle unarmed.
i am really scared now.
“Today, with a 20% wind-power share, shortage of capacity is not a problem as renewable energy has not yet displaced large power stations.”
can you spot the diference between that statement and the claim
How many thermal stations has Denmark shut down? – none.
or do you need my help to figure it out?
The also talk about negative prices, that means they have had to pay others to take their power.
and they talk about that in the context of an increase to a 50% wind power share
fifty percent wind power!!!
sod said “the article you linked to names the problems and names the solutions.” No it doesn’t 1. “The BPA estimates the system will no longer have enough flexibility to adjust for wind variability by 2011.” They cannot use the present system past 2011 at present growth/expected conditions.
2. “Scientists are currently looking into options to help mitigate the issues that arise with what should be a very good thing—a growth in clean, renewable energy. One strategy getting a lot of attention is better wind forecasting” This is to mitigate the problem and there is no claim that it will solve the problem.
Also, note that it says it is a strategy. Note that using hydro as the BPA is a tactic. What the better wind forcasting is, is a strategy to reduce the problems outlined in the article and by posters here of wind’s problems. They “hope” to make the problems less, not get rid of them. They stand as stated. Using hydro is a tactical solution. No solutions are offered. They just hope to make it less burdensome. Unfortunately, the hysteresis in a system that has more variance increases the inability to control voltage. Modern systems have little tolerence for voltage change. THis change results in expensive replacement of motors, system capabilities, and system downtime. Many industries becuase of such constraints as thermal loss cannot have an undependable source. You don’t repair a major portion of the manufacturing plant, you deconstruct then reconstruct.
Sod,
you claim that Wind Energy has displaced coal and oil burning in Denmark. If you had bothered to read my earlier links you would know that it is from BIOMASS burning. Try this link:
http://ens.dk/en-US/supply/Renewable-energy/Bioenergy/Sider/Forside.aspx
That 70% number means that Wind is less than 30% OF RENEWABLES, NOT TOTAL!!!
Here is an interesting quote from the same site:
“In 2007, wind-power production accounted for 19.7% of domestic electricity supply against 16.8% the previous year, this is due to better wind conditions.”
Notice the wording “domestic electricity supply.” Says NOTHING about how much is actually consumed in Denmark.
Here is a more meaningful quote:
” In 2006 Wind turbines produced 22 PJ of electricity, which amounts to 2.6% of corrected gross energy-consumption.”
http://ens.dk/en-US/supply/Renewable-energy/WindPower/Facts-about-Wind-Power/Key-figures-statistics/Sider/Forside.aspx
This is from a Danish OFFICIAL site. Please repeat after me:
” In 2006 Wind turbines produced 22 PJ of electricity, which amounts to 2.6% of corrected gross energy-consumption.”
GET THAT???? TWO POINT SIX PERCENT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Since you did not read my previous links you also missed a click through that explains an interesting FACT about Wind Turbine usage. Rather than trying to explain it I will provide the link. Please pull your head out long enough to actually read it!!
http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html
This is another reason why the NET or CORRECTED numbers for Wind are so low!!!
And if they are so successful, why are the Danes INCREASING their subsidies for Wind???
http://ens.dk/en-US/supply/Renewable-energy/WindPower/Facts-about-Wind-Power/Subsidies-for-wind-power/Sider/Forside.aspx
So, the Danish miracle is actually cleaned up Banana Republic Technology, BURNING STUFF!! Is this your vision of the future??
Since the Bonneville power Administration has been mentioned. Here is a link to several datasets and graphs they have on the web where they compare load and wind generation at 5 minute intervals.
http://www.transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/Wind/
They had a period of 11.5 days back in January where they never exceeded 50 MW from wind when their capacity at the time was 1500 MW. Today their seven day graph indicates for the last three days they never generated at more than 6% of wind capacity.
23% of the time they average between 0% and 25% of capacity.
Wind power is an enormous money pit. Unless you’re connected. In which case you tout how great it is while laughing all the way to the bank.
When you do some reading, particularly on a few blogs, its amazing how many people who claim to be involved in the wind industry, actually agree its a con and a money pit in terms of actually reducing emissions and energy at a reasonable price. For starters they ar edesigned to only last around 20 years…that an awful lot of new windmills to build.
Kuhnat, very interesting that they use energy from the grid for periods. Even if its nothing like 50% of their energy production, it is certainly an interesting point that this is not accounted for in their stats…and that they don t have to pay for it? could this be true? surely not!
Environmentalists are planning to introduce 125 metre (410 feet) wind turbines in to the high country of the magnificent Snowy Mountains alongside Kosciuszko National Park, our premier national park which is also next to a state wildlife area.
The “environmentalists”believe that it makes sense to visually and environmentally degrade and pollute this beautiful eco sensitive mountain landscape, while also causing a very heavy impact on wildlife mortality for a supposed “big benefit to the community” for power that will be more expensive and will not shut down a single gas or coal fired plant. Yes these environmentalists are determined to destroy one of the most beautiful landscapes in Australia in the cause of “renewable” energy, while it divides the community, turns brother against brother, and father against son, and disadvantages neighboring properties by turning these mountain areas into industrial and commercial developments, even after the shire had promised to ensure environmental sensitivity.
Will wind farms save on CO2 emissions? It would require about 833 square kilometers (300 square miles or 192,000 acres ) of wind turbines to equal one conventional 1,000 MW gas fired plant That’s the area, of a mile-wide swath of land extending from Sydney to Mount Kosciusko via Cooma, plus another 50 k’s. These wind farm would require around 16 million tons of steel reinforced concrete (a major source of CO2) plus around 2,640,000, tons of steel just for the turbine towers. (Talk about environmental disasters) And at the end of their lifespan, (usually only 20 years) who would pay for the removal of 2,640,000 tons of steel and 16 million tons of concrete plus thousands of kilometers of cable? By clearing trees and plants for wind farm sites and access roads, sub stations etc. (On mountain ridges and many other locations, it would be necessary to blast into the bedrock, possibly disrupting the water sources for wells downhill. ) we have just eliminated the major cleanser of carbon dioxide from our atmosphere. So we clear out our life giving plants and trees to build wind farms which will have disastrous effects on our landscapes, to save on CO2 emissions which the trees do far better, and the trees even throw in oxygen to boot. How stupid is that, especially when a modern gas fired plant could be built on an existing industrial site of around 12-15 acres with little impact on the surrounding environment.
The much touted UK Whinash wind farm project, will reduce carbon dioxide emission by 178,000 tonnes a year. This is impressive, until you discover that a single jumbo jet, flying from Sydney to Perth and back every day, releases the climate-change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. One daily connection between Sydney and Perth costs three giant wind farms.
E.ON Netz, ( Powergen) is one of Germany’s largest electric grid operators. E.ON Netz’s conclusion is that wind energy cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree. , E.ON’s experience shows conclusively that those who expect wind power to prevent a nuclear build up, or to reduce the need for gas and coal stations, have been seriously misled.
A SINGLE 555-MEGAWATT GAS FIRED PLANT IN CALIFORNIA GENERATES MORE ELECTRICITY IN A YEAR THAN DO ALL 14,000 OF THE STATES WIND TURBINES.
Wind power can never close a power station of any sort; the fallibility of the “wind supply” necessitates full capacity (plus contingency reserve) back up from a power station if there is not to be a power cut, or risk thereof. The small amount of power derived from them is more expensive than any other method and even this is subsidized by the government. ‘For electricity, evidence from the Department of Trade and Industry shows that UK wind farms deliver less than one quarter of their full capacity – just 24.1% in 2003. So, for every 100 turbines erected you get the electricity equivalent of just 25 of them. To add insult to injury, the power produced is not available on demand, is unreliable and is unpredictable’. The situation is little better with regard to reducing CO2 emissions. And Denmark has reported a 40% fall in tourist numbers where wind power stations have been established.
The environmentalists want to resort to wind, to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, and therefore to protect the environment in the long run from damage by climate change. But if that is the objective, what sense does it make to destroy the environment in the process?
Wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy, according to a study from Germany, the world’s leading producer of wind energy. Critics said it would be cheaper and more environmentally efficient to insulate old houses or to renew existing power stations. Danish Government ministers claim that “ wind energy has been an expensive disaster for Denmark”. They caused the cost of electricity to double in Denmark, but failed to reduce the level of CO2 emitted and they ruin the tourism potential of vast areas.” Flemming Nissen head of development at west Danish generating company ELSAM agrees “Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish CO2 emissions.”
The residents of the Snowy Mountains rely on tourists from all over the world visiting these beautiful mountains for the natural untouched scenery, but these monster alien structures with blades larger than a 747 will soon be rearing skyward and destroying the view and ambience for all. Surely you can see the absurdity of envireonmentalists destroying this pristine iconic high country environment in their naive misguided cause of saving the planet.
Its interesting how much corporate interests have grabbed hold of wind power.
BTW, can anybody here give me the figures for how efficienct the average coal fired station is in Australia i.e. how many kilowatts of coal do you have to shovel into the boiler to get one kilowatt dribbling out the other end in your home, etc?
This is to mitigate the problem and there is no claim that it will solve the problem.
again: denmark can handle 20% wind electricity. there are solutions to the problem in the northwest and the article is naming some of them.
you claim that Wind Energy has displaced coal and oil burning in Denmark. If you had bothered to read my earlier links you would know that it is from BIOMASS burning. Try this link:
i challenged you to support your claims, that not a single fossil plant was closed. i don t really know how Biomass comes into this.
” In 2006 Wind turbines produced 22 PJ of electricity, which amounts to 2.6% of corrected gross energy-consumption.”
we were talking explicitly about ELECTRICITY production here.
http://193.88.185.141/Graphics/Publikationer/Statistik_UK/energy_statistics_2007/html/kap06.htm
pretty few cars are powered by wind at the moment. or by coal, btw. here your biomass turns up again: it can fuel cars and heat homes.
you are seriously confused about the basics of this subject. please do some reading, before making more comments!
Since you did not read my previous links you also missed a click through that explains an interesting FACT about Wind Turbine usage. Rather than trying to explain it I will provide the link. Please pull your head out long enough to actually read it!!
this is a conspiracy theory. (although your link denies it)
a wind farm, like any other electricity producer and user is linked to the net via a electricity meter. if they use electricity, they either have to get it from the net (and pay for it and register it) or store and use the energy they produce (then they can t sell and register the electricity they used). either way, no energy “disappears” to make the wind mill look like producing more.
you fell for a myth.
And if they are so successful, why are the Danes INCREASING their subsidies for Wind???
because the conservative government that took over Denmark in 2001 removed nearly all subsidies for wind power. it took them 8 years to realise, that this removed them from their dominant position in the wind power industry.
So, the Danish miracle is actually cleaned up Banana Republic Technology, BURNING STUFF!! Is this your vision of the future??
you look confused again. burning BIOMASS is not all that different from burning coal or oil. please take my advice and try to do some reading.
As the great majority of ‘greenie/warmer believers as well as the corporate captains of companies who see a quick buck in these whirly-gigs live in the swanker suburbs of our cities, that is where some of these monstrosities should be sited.
The coastal escarpment in Sydney is a good wind area. Maybe these wind turbines could be sited along the escarpment from Bronte up to South Head and continue on from North Head, on up to Terry Hills and Tumble-Down Dick. Royal Sydney and Elenora Golf Clubs could feature them on their fairways and they could even site one on Lion Island!
If you are curious as to why they paint the windmills white, the following statement is from the Waubra WindFarm webpage. (The Waubra Wind Farm is a particularly gigantic and hideous wind farm north of Ballarat in Victoria)
“Visual impact can be reduced somewhat by turbines being off white in colour (research shows meteorological conditions produce mostly cloudy days) and with carefully chosen plantings to screen local views.”
So that’s the reason, its to camouflage them amongst the clouds! Who would have guessed?
Everyone, including me, seems to have been going OT.
To try and get it all back again:
In Australia, the government wants 20% of the stationary energy provided by wind. From their wind resources maps, they intend most of that will be in the SE corner. What this means is that for every 500MW coaler taken out, 1200-1500MW of wind needs to be built. That will cost about $2500-3500/kW. The best sites have already been taken so new sites will be less productive and more expensive.
When the wind is blowing strongly, the farms could produce about 60-70% of the generation, especially at times like 4am on a Monday morning. If we disregard all the frequency, voltage control and waveform correction, all of which need addressing but just complicate the picture, then the generation may be 10,000MW from wind. Then an event like what happens on Day 20 occurs, generation drops to 2500MW in five hours. Where does the elewctricity come from? One can’t fire up a steamer in that time. They also can’t take the rapid cycling. There needs to be about 7000MW of open cycle GTs built running on gas. These will cost about $1500/kW plus 5c/unit to run, assuming the gas pipelines and capacity is there.
So that means to replace a 500MW steamer, we optimistically only need to have 450MW of GT (remember the 10% reliability) and 1200MW of wind farm. Capital cost $4.3B for a less reliable system and this is only replacement, not new growth. Multiply that by all the coal fired stations and that is a lot of 2MW wind towers. What will be the cost of electricity out of the system? Who knows, but it will be one hell of a lot more than it is now. The full life cycle carbon emmisions will still be high so it isn’t a “green” solution.
I note that at 7:45 local time, the load in NZ is about 4500MW and their 450MW of wind farms are only producing 37MW – and their average wind speed is a lot stronger than here.
Ireland has also had a similar problem to what has been found in this paper. Their way around it was to build another cable to take more power from UK. What will be the Victoria / NSW solution?
http://www.energinet.dk/en/menu/Climate+and+the+environment/Climate/The+Danish+wind+case/The+Danish+wind+case.htm
The article:
1.) “”Power grid:
The challenge here is to reinforce and expand the power grid so that power can be transmitted from new wind farms to where it is in demand in the interconnected international power market.”” The translation: the demand off load and variance introduced by wind will be
spread to other nations. We will have to discont extra generation, and pay premiums when the wind doesn’t blow. It will be up to the other nations to develp the technology and continue with CO2 or nuclear so we don’t crash the grid.
2.) “”Power system:
As electricity cannot be stored efficiently today, the power system must always balance between production and consumption. A 50% wind-power share markedly increases the need to handle shortages of capacity when there is no wind and oversupply when there are strong winds.”” The translation: we have not solved these problems with wind, but we got here first see 1.) above. We REFUSE to talk about hysterisis problems caused by our wind causing generation surges or drops.
3.) “Power system balancing
Today, with a 20% wind-power share, shortage of capacity is not a problem as renewable energy has not yet displaced large power stations. Oversupply is a problem for nearly 100 hours a year. The problem is expected to become 3-5 times worse in a few years unless other means are introduced.”” Translation: This statement contrdicts almost all our wind generation claims claims, but how many AGWer’s actually read the fine print. Besides see 1.) above.
4.)””
A 50% wind-power share in the power system – how?
Energinet.dk focuses on integrated planning of the energy systems within electricity, heat and transmission to enable the market to use wind power in a flexible manner. New types of electricity consumption (eg heat pumps, electric vehicles, etc.) must be organised in such a way that the consumption pattern can be adapted to the wind power production.”” Translation the new types of consumption don’t exixt yet. See 1.) above.
sod, the other article linked to stated “The BPA estimates the system will no longer have enough flexibility to adjust for wind variability by 2011.” They cannot use the present system past 2011 at present growth/expected conditions.
Just where do you get your “”again: denmark can handle 20% wind electricity. there are solutions to the problem in the northwest and the article is naming some of them.”” ?!?? They are not providing a solution. The grid and reserve are large enough to handle the wind by the Danes selling discount overage, and paying on demand penalty. This is not a solution. This is why their electricity costs so much while using “free” wind eneregy. Others are handling the problem with nuclear, perhaps some hydro, and CO2 belchers; and this will not be feasible in 2011 if current trends continue. This is what is stated, not that they have solutions. You keep stating a falsehood or are misreading. State by quoting, linking, and discussing; otherwise, it appears you have no argument to offer, but simple misstatements or falsehoods.
here is my quote:
A 50% wind-power share in the power system – how?
the problems on that link are with a 50% wind power share.
how much is the northwest? 5%? not even?
coal power plants have to sell discount prices at certain times. it is called night time tariffs.
sod
Yet again, as others have pointed out, you are either misreading or misquoting. The problems in Denmark are now, even with their strong interconnectors -which they are having to boost. Austrailia wants to go to 20% wind power share. What happens here will be a lot worse than Denmark.
Night time tarriffs are significantly different to having to pay people to take your power, then paying premiums during the day to get the energy back.
sod The 50% is the goal. The problems that have not solved with 20% were the 1). and 2). and increasing a small amount about 3% is 3.) It is 2). about what we can’t do yet with 50% as a goal and 4). that is 50% can be done by new types of electricity consumption (i.e. they don’t exist today 2).).
So where it stands at present with 20% Denmark is discounting the generation when “” As electricity cannot be stored efficiently today, the power system must always balance between production and consumption.””
How do they balance this “”Denmark is connected by transmission line to other European countries and therefore it does not need to install additional peak-load plant to balance its wind power. Instead, it purchases additional power from its neighbours when necessary. With some strengthening of the grid, Denmark plans to increase wind’s share even further.””
It also uses the system by discounting via “”Oversupply is a problem for nearly 100 hours a year.”” If it is in balance how can you oversupply? The load has to be reduced by other generation sourced on the grid. Electric generators charge a premium or a penalty for this. And they state another 3% for a total of 23%, based on the numbers given, will mean that these problems that they DO NOT HAVE SOLVED will make the problem 3 to 5 times worse. Based on this, a linear approximation is that it will be 150 times worse, that is a 15000% increase in problems if they cannot develop new technologoies and/or the grid cannot accept the variance.
They admit they do not have the solutions for 20%. They are disrupting the grid and paying a premium for doing so. This is not a description of a good solution. It is a probelm waiting for a solution by their OWN words.
you are seriously confused. the page that you linked to does NOT support what you say.
http://www.energinet.dk/en/menu/Climate+and+the+environment/Climate/The+Danish+wind+case/The+Danish+wind+case.htm
The problems that have not solved with 20% were the 1). and 2). and increasing a small amount about 3% is 3.) It is 2). about what we can’t do yet with 50% as a goal and 4). that is 50% can be done by new types of electricity consumption (i.e. they don’t exist today 2).).
the claim that Denmark has not solved the 20% problems is simply false. the system is working NOW!
So where it stands at present with 20% Denmark is discounting the generation
that is not a real problem.
How do they balance this “”Denmark is connected by transmission line to other European countries and therefore it does not need to install additional peak-load plant to balance its wind power.
and this is a very good thing. Denmark is using a lot of nordic water energy. in teh future it will use a lot of spanish solar energy. all of this is GOOD, not bad!
“”Oversupply is a problem for nearly 100 hours a year.”
wow, 100 hours a year? theat is just a little more than 4 days?!?
will mean that these problems that they DO NOT HAVE SOLVED will make the problem 3 to 5 times worse. Based on this, a linear approximation is that it will be 150 times worse, that is a 15000% increase in problems if they cannot develop new technologoies and/or the grid cannot accept the variance.
they HAVE solved this problem for 20%. they are exporting that energy at a very cheap price. (actually overproduction in Denmark has a massive impact on spot electricity prices in europe..)
they have solutions for the problem at 50%. (simply stop many wind turbines. all new ones must be remote control and will do this automatically) the negative price is a good tool: it gives the supplier options: stop the turbine, install remote control to make this possible, look for demand that will take his electricity. the 50% goal will benefit a lot from electric cars and will speed up their introduction as well.
your mathematics are another irrational attempt of a scare tactic. that “15000% increase” transfers into 12 days of overproduction during a year! please keep your feet on the ground, occasionally…
Even if 20% of Australia’s electricity were produced, however problematically, by windmills, reducing Australia’s carbon footprint will have no effect on world temperature. Can any of the resident green geniuses explain how windmills will prevent the coming climate catastrophe?
After all you are the ones saying the catastrophe is coming. Please explain what you are going to do about it.
Windmills are not a sustainable energy solution. It requires a 500MW coal fired power station to be replaced roughly by 1500MW wind farm plus 500MW backup gas turbine power station. Thus, you are saving coal but burning gas. What happens when the gas runs out? Windmills are a classic short-term junk solution whose only purpose is political expediency.
Even if 20% of Australia’s electricity were produced, however problematically, by windmills, reducing Australia’s carbon footprint will have no effect on world temperature. Can any of the resident green geniuses explain how windmills will prevent the coming climate catastrophe?
every drop counts. any other questions?
Windmills are not a sustainable energy solution. It requires a 500MW coal fired power station to be replaced roughly by 1500MW wind farm plus 500MW backup gas turbine power station. Thus, you are saving coal but burning gas. What happens when the gas runs out? Windmills are a classic short-term junk solution whose only purpose is political expediency.
this is complete nonsense. Denmark for example is backing up its wind with norwegian water power. you don t need the full back up, if you spread out the wind fields.
and the gas turbine is NOT using gas all the time. it is much less likely, that we run out of back up gas, than of coal!
windmills are a classic LONGTERM solution.
I’m a deep greenie , but I don’t really know if wind power is such a good idea in Scandinavia?
Recently greenies have been opposed to wind power since corporate interests are involved as well it means that our untouched river must supply back up to the windturbines and dams must be built etc.
In Norway it is mentioned that their windturbines are worst situated in the entire world, lots of golden eagles have been killed by windturbines etc…..
sod
1. Denmark did not solve their problem.The problem is not solved; instead it is minor enough at current percentages that OTHER nations can handle the variance as long as they are paid. This is not a solution, it is a cost.
sod, your contention that started this discussion was “”Denmark has 20% of wind. power there is neither unreliable, nor prohibitively expensive. you are trying to use a scare tactic.””
You also stated that “”the article you linked to names the problems and names the solutions.””
I and several posters have pointed out:
1.) The 20% wind was unreliable, this is in the statements several have posted about how the variance is spread through the net to other countries. It is unreliable and that is why they pay a discount to have others take that energy. Your point is “”the claim that Denmark has not solved the 20% problems is simply false. the system is working NOW!”” OUR point is the true point. Denmark did not solve the problem. They pay generators who have sources that can ramp up and down to ramp up and down to control this problem. They did not solve it; it still exists.
2.)Having excess capacity costs money and is ineffeicient. Denmark is paying for this inefficiency. You do not understand that we have pointed out that at a 30% utilitization rate, 2/3 of your investment is wasted, but the investment has to be paid for. Next we point out that when they produce more than demand , they have to sell at a discount. This discount is so big that you point out in “”they HAVE solved this problem for 20%. they are exporting that energy at a very cheap price. (actually overproduction in Denmark has a massive impact on spot electricity prices in europe..)”” which once again shows you do not understand that Denmark did not solve the problem; Denmark is paying others not to produce electricity, but the others still get the profit. AND you think that having 70% non-utilization which had to be paid for, that the upkeep and replacement which has to be paid for, that the gauge of the wire that has to be at 100% of capacity rather than 30% which increases cost, that Denmark sells it so cheap, they set the spot market because if they don’t, the wind generators will either take down the net resulting in monetary losses through contracts, or take the wind generators down, when they could be runnning, changing the 30% utility to 20% utility which increases the number of windmills necessary to supply a given MW which again increases costs, and then having to pay others for electricity when the wind does not blow which costs; AND YOUR CLAIM IS THAT IT IS INEXPENSIVE!!!
You state “”So where it stands at present with 20% Denmark is discounting the generation that is not a real problem.”” We did not say discounting was a problem, we said it was an expense. We said the variance was the problem. Your inability to understand what the articles or the posts state is not our inability.
My point of “”will mean that these problems that they DO NOT HAVE SOLVED will make the problem 3 to 5 times worse. Based on this, a linear approximation is that it will be 150 times worse, that is a 15000% increase in problems if they cannot develop new technologoies and/or the grid cannot accept the variance.”” does come from the link posted, but contains a math error. It is 5000% not 15000%. Here it is. Their claim is 30% by 2030, and 50% by 2050. It states “”Today, with a 20% wind-power share, shortage of capacity is not a problem as renewable energy has not yet displaced large power stations. Oversupply is a problem for nearly 100 hours a year. The problem is expected to become 3-5 times worse in a few years unless other means are introduced.”” THUS to get to 30% by 2030, they need to do about 1% per year. They are at 20% and say in a few years the problem is expected to become 3-5 times worse. So, if you go to 50%, that is 30%. As stated, as little as 3% (a few) increase can be as much as 5 times worse. Using a linearization that is 30%/3% =10 x 5 times worse x 100%=5000%. Thus at current known technology in 2050 if they reach their goal, they will be paying 50 times more discounts that already set the spot market, as you stated. And you think it will not cost even more?!? How cheapwill Denmark have to make it. The answer was in the article. See below.
Your claim of “”windmills are a classic LONGTERM solution.”” can only become true when the real problem of energy storage is solved. All present technologies are expensive, often dangerous, or environmentally unfriendly. You state they have solutions; they state “”Extensive research and development is being conducted in means of handling the increasing amounts of wind power in the power system. Some of the means are:”” and start listing items of 2 types. The 1st is energy efficiency or offloading such as heat pumps or electric cars. The second is to develop energy storage which is not a solution to be counted because it does not exit at present. The “extensive research and development” means it is not yet real. Your windmills can only become a “classic” if solutions can be found. This also underlines and agrees with our contention that Denmark did not solve the problem.
In fact if you look at the list, it contains an item of interest. The article says “”Downward regulation of production through negative prices on the power exchange. This means that generators must pay for the disposal of their excess power”” WTF, you think if a generator must pay for disposal of excess power will not increase price to the consumer or that wind is reliable??? Oh YEAH, all these generators just love to pay for the disposal of excess power. This is one of Denmark’s proposed solutions to the problem of a reliable(?!??) source, fine the producer when the wind blows and call it a “negative price”. ROTFLMAO. This is how low they think the spot price will go; generators will have to pay somebody for their excess production.
And you think this is an inexpensive and relaible option. The facts presented in the links conclusively indicate the opposite conclusion is correct: Wind is expensive and unrelaible, as stated.
JeremyC wrote:
Not exact figures, sorry. However, except for a few experimental add-ons such as MHD generators on the “cold side” steam at some stations, it’s likely the thermal efficiency is under 50%. That is, burn coal and the heat generated is, say, 1000MW, you’ll get less than 500MW out of the power station – the rest is “waste” heat and is dumped either into a convenient body of water (lake etc) or into the atmosphere by cooling towers (the wide towers you see in MSM video of power stations and which have a large amount of “smoke” coming from them – it’s actually water vapour). By the time you figure in transmission losses (imperfect conductors, transformers etc), substation ancilleries, and power factor issues (keeping the phase angle between voltage and current as close to zero as possible – required not only to keep the system stable, but also for billing purposes), it’s probably closer to 40%. It likely varies depending on time of year etc – for example, the power lines that transfer power from the Snowy Mountains Scheme to the rest of the NSW grid are usually deliberately overloaded in winter time in order to heat them sufficiently to prevent ice forming on the actual conductors – I’m sure I don’t need to explain why!
dribble (August 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm) wrote:
“Windmills are not a sustainable energy solution. It requires a 500MW coal fired power station to be replaced roughly by 1500MW wind farm plus 500MW backup gas turbine power station.”
I don’t think that that’s accurate. My understanding is that gas turbines can be brought online quickly for the relatively predictable peak power periods of the day, but that they aren’t particularly tunable.
Steam-generated power from coal, nuclear, etc is supposed to be much more dispatchable for dealing with the less predictable fluctuations in output from wind farms, when the latter are a relatively minor ingredient in the whole enchilada.
Hydro is also dispatchable, but it’s probably not a major wind-power back-up option for the Southern half of Australia.
Neil,
I’ve been told by other electrical engineers that the average efficiency of a coal fired station in Australia is closer to 25% when all factors are taken into account e.g. transmission (your example of the snowy mountains power lines has its inverse in summer in Australia when the high ambient temps increase the resistance of power lines dropping efficiency even further). The newer ones are better while the old ones are appalling. Now gas fired peaking plants, wind, geothermal, nuclear etc are all going to be subject to the same distribution limitations as coal. The other thing with coal in Australia is that due to siting etc we throw away all that perfectly good waste heat which if captured could up the efficiency dramatically of even the worst coal fired plants.
I’m suprised that the denialists here ignore the limitations of coal while concentrating their ire on just one form of generation, wind (which has been taken over by the corporates anyway) and offer no sort of systems analysis on wind and associated developments as well as other forms of renewables such as marine, geothermal, bio mass and systems such as distributed etc. They also ignore the vigorous debate on taking nuclear forward amongst the greenies.
But then its my contention that denialists don’t care about high technology or actaullay what makes a good power system or what we actually use power for as for them its all about ideology.
BTW An engineer I know once did a calculation on how long the brown coal in Victoria was likely to last. This was around the time that Mcfarlane was resources minister in Canberra and who declared that there was 800 years of brown coal left.
My colleague reckoned that no one had included growth in useage rates for that 800 year figure so he recalculated it and came up with a figure of between 60 and 80 years using 2.5% growth in extraction per year. He may or may not have been correct but he just didn’t believe the assumptions put out by the power industry.
Jeremy C said “”I’m suprised that the denialists here ignore the limitations of coal while concentrating their ire on just one form of generation, wind (which has been taken over by the corporates anyway) and offer no sort of systems analysis on wind and associated developments as well as other forms of renewables such as marine, geothermal, bio mass and systems such as distributed etc. They also ignore the vigorous debate on taking nuclear forward amongst the greenies.””
Several of us have posted on taking nuclear forward. What we see of the greenie nuke debate is “inaction in action.” As an engineer in power supply, let me point out that some of the limitations of wind that apply to coal still apply to wind; and that I don’t see either camp addressing certain problems with their technology. This includes both “greenies” and “deniers”. Both are trying to sell something, and are putting the best light as possible on their choice.
The main problem, that we do not yet have a solution for, for most, if not all of, the alternative energies is that they are not “on demand” capable. Our modern civilization, from computers to home light bulbs, and our infrastructure is set up and made with the assumption of “on demand” capability. It is not something that can simply wished away as sod tries to do. The cost of variance is severe, and the cost of changing the infrastructure (motors, computers, etc.) is monumental. Ignoring this, simply allows those who work in the field or are knowledgable to “pile on” with the facts.
An honest discussion would at least convince people that the problems, and oppurtunities were worht discussing. And of course, for MGW or GHG’s, nuclear has to be put on the table, or most will simply believe this is just another conspiracy by “greenies” to punish the modern world for not wanting to be in the stone age.
John,
WRT to nuclear its the ‘greenies’ who are advocating IFR (and other forms), go look at bravenewclimate.com.
As to ‘on demand’ it comes back to what you want to do with energy and why energy is used in a particular form to complete a particular task, thats a question the energy efficiency experts ask. As to your monumental costs of changing infrastructure (whether the lap top, a motor, power lines) all infrastructure is changed, renewed etc. E.g. computers will be renewed in a shorter time than motors which will be renewd in a shorter time than power lines and so on. The point is, this monumental cost goes on all the time.
Its seems to me as an engineer that ‘on demand’ is tied into a centralised energy system and that as a concept a distributed energy system may offer different ways of energy availability than the brute force of on demand. For example, the CSIRO’s development of smart agents allowing loads and generators to actively interact with each other is a step toward changing the paradigm behind on demand.
Is it also that being actively despatchable is more a case of not being able to turn coal fired generators on and off like a light switch and Australia, up to the noughties, had, according to the IEA, a generation led energy system rather than a user led energy system. This perhaps makes it very difficult for people to grasp that we can do things differentley and as evidence I point to how the arguments always centre on whether one piece of kit (wind or coal) is better than another piece of kit (coal or wind) rather than questioning the way energy is used across society and what are the best ways to accomplish this.
BTW “let me point out that some of the limitations of wind that apply to coal still apply to wind” lovely phrase but very silly logic.
You said “”BTW “let me point out that some of the limitations of wind that apply to coal still apply to wind” lovely phrase but very silly logic.”” Yep. Strike the “of wind”. Comes from posting while engaging wife in conversation. It was for those who mention transmission losses and other losses as though wind does not suffer the same through the grid.
Yes, on demand is tied to a central system. One can decentralize, but note that such reduces the utility percentage, if it is not put on the grid, and has to be wasted. If it is put on the grid, the on demand system has to regulate the power and voltage to keep the grid from failing. So the question is, will it be cost effective? Note that the wind solutions sod and others are pointing to are centralized manifestations. That is probably why they are talked about as another piece of kit.
As an engineer you should know it is one thing to wear a computer or motor out versus blowing many on the grid at once. The other part that is missing, that should be known to you as an engineer, is that whether it is a computer or a motor, its underlying infrastructure of utility (software, driving a fan) and the human/societal interface are based assuming on demand energy. Workers, software, fans etc, may not work with less than an on demand system.
Take your CSIRO’s smart agents. “” The technology is expected to lead to more efficient energy management and reduce the incidence of costly blackouts caused by excessive demand at peak.”” This may help with reducing costly balckouts caused by excessive demand, it may help with offlaoding over production on the grid. However it addresses the problem, I was examining which was excessive generation when not needed, by changing the timing of consumption. The interface where humans use the system is on demand. The infrastructure is on demand. They do not necessarily match this proposed changing. There will definetly be some matching and some increase in efficiency. The question is how much? It will make renewable energy sources, better utilised and more economically attractive. However, it does not solve the problem of industry, commerce, healthcare, etc, that will still be on demand, and cannot tolerate random blackouts, downtime or overvoltage.Trying to apply this smart agent to industry will net little gain. Same is true for commerce. The last time I checked, about 70% of on demand was by industry and commerce. There may be some gain by having some commerce and industry to change hours. However, large commercial and industrial units have acheived economy of scale with 24 hour solutions for over 100 years now.
Further in talking about infrastructure, perhaps I was unclear. It is not that it is a motor but, say, an on demand blower. The whole manufacturing chain will be composed of on demand. Though a motor may die, one does not ever replace the real unit which is the system that manufactures. So,one cannot assume that a motor can somehow wear out and we can change the basic infrastructure problem without replacing the whole or most of the whole manufacturing system. This poses a problem for any solution, no matter how smart it is, that most of our commerce and industry is set up for on demand and changing it will require far greater sums of money than even the worst cost projections for AGW.
You state “”A generation led energy system rather than a user led energy system.”” I would need to read what you are talking about. I saw the IEA site. I am not familar with the point you are making, since generation is typically developed in anticipation of user demand. So I am unfamiliar with “user led energy system.” The IEA appear to be a think tank group concerned with environmentally friendly energy. Could you point to me the article that has this explained so I can read it. Thanks.
bravenewclimate.com I will read. The first article article I read made good points.
John,
The IEA report I was referring to is: http://iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2005/australia2005.pdf. Pages 48 and 49 in particular point out how energy in Australia is weighted towards the supply side rather than the demand side i.e. end user which is the clumsy term I was using. I IEA is the central body for the OECD on energy policy, stats and related areas such as technolody.
I see you looked at smart agents but I still don’t agree with what you said about about on-demand. On-demand is a response to something we want to do. What I am saying is that an on-demand system constructed with coal fired stations in a centralised system is not the only approach and smart agents are one pointer to technology and/or approaches that we are not slaves to coal fired on-demand, that other approaches can be done. I also stick with my statement that infrastructure gets renewed constantly.
I also thought your reference to black outs etc is a side issue as organisations with critical functions e.g. hospitals and operating theatres have had power back up for years seperate from a centralised on-demand coal fired system.
So as Australia moves away from a supply led energy system then I would say that both the concept of on demand will change and how it is met will also change and will be decoupled from base load coal fired stations.
Sod: “every drop counts. any other questions?”
A few drops in the ocean aren’t going to do anything, so does every drop count? Nope they dont. If you look at the green shopping bag of delusional energy solutions, there is not a lot left after you get past the windmills. My question was, and is, ‘What are you going to do about a real solution to the CO2 catastrophe that you allege exists?’ The answer of course, is nothing that is actually going to work on any large scale. Try as I might, I cannot see the industrial power requirements of the world being met by windmills and solar panels. But if these energy requirements are not met, the CO2 will keep pouring out and the catastrophe will allegedly arrive. You had better stock up on boating equipment while it is still relatively cheap.
Thanks for the link. Now your comment makes sense. I would note from the pages you highlighted “”The White Paper’s observation that undue government involvement that overrides market forces will rarely improve security in the long term is consistent with the experiences of many IEA countries. Instead of viewing energy security as being a trade-off with market competition, the Australian government wisely establishes ways in which market efficiency and motivations can be used to enhance energy security…In contrast to its impressive economic efficiency and sound energy security, environmental sustainability is Australia’s single biggest energy policy challenge. The issues related to environmental sustainability have not garnered as much attention in Australia as they have in other IEA countries. This is explained by a number of factors, namely Australia’s large supply of domestic fuels; the economic and employment benefits related to exploitation of high carbon-content fuels; the boost to economic competitiveness from inexpensive energy; and a large land mass and dispersed population which mitigates local pollution.
The supply side is economic criteria not utilization criteria from the grid as we were discussing. The on demand point was simplification of the US version the Energy Information Administration. I believe that we will disagree about smart agents. I see their problem as they are passive in nature, i.e. they are an increase in effeiciency by changing a parameter (say the time you charge your car), and do not address the dynamic (charging your car) which is what drives the on demand grid. You have simply put the demand on at a convienent time. You have not changed the actual specifications of the system.
Certainly infrastructure does. However, as I pointed out these units work in systems, and unless you wholesale change out the system the incremental cost will indicate that it is less expensive to repair a system than replace. In engineering school, I was taught that one had to consider incremental costs when comparing and also take into the time cost of money. Just the time cost of money for wholesale changeout of systems around the world would be far greater than the draconian costs associated with 20/20 plan for CO2 being touted.
As the technology becomes available one can make sure new systems avoid the pitfalls of the sytems that we use today. However, considering that incremental costs often extend the life of a system to about 50 years versus replacing with a new system immediately , and the technology is yet to be had, we are looking at 2060 before large inroads can be made for the systematic problem of energy distribution and its usage. However, depending on what technology we use, the world may well have to support two systems with its resulting increase in costs, which is figure I have yet to see even from those who don’t use the one piece of kit approach. I have not claimed that we are slaves to coal plants. In particular, I think the bioaccumulative heavy metals associated with coal needs more urgent addressing than CO2. The dangers of metal accumulation are wll known and documented.The CO2 potential harm has large CI’s, and even the accuracy is being well argued in science at this time. See Radiative and Dynamical Feedbacks Over the Equatorial Cold-Tongue: Results from Seven Atmospheric GCMs, D.-Z. Sun and T. Zhang, C. Covey and S. Klein, W.Collins, J. Kiehl, and J. Meehl, I. Held, M. Suarez
By comparing the response of clouds and water vapor to ENSO forcing in nature with that in AMIP simulations by some leading climate models, an earlier evaluation of tropical cloud and water vapor feedbacks has revealed two common biases in the models: (1) an underestimate of the strength of the negative cloud albedo feedback and (2) an overestimate of the positive feedback from the greenhouse effect of water vapor. … These biases, however, highlight the continuing difficulty that models have to simulate accurately the feedbacks of water vapor and clouds on a time-scale we have observations.
Yes, health care and others already have back-ups. Though as you state they are separate from coal powered systems, yet they are not separate from the system of controlling CO2 or emitting CO2. I was using their dependency to highlight that such constant and deliverable energy is expected of our systems by the public. I may not have done this well.That is why I named other use categories and stated they “cannot tolerate random blackouts, downtime or overvoltage.”
John,
Ahhh, I see what you mean in using back up power supplies as emphasising a dependence on on-demand, i didn’t understand that before. and i also see your point about incremental costs extend the life of systems far longer than components.
I highlighted pages 48 and 49 because thats where the report notes the nature of australia’s energy system being supply-led up to the early 2000’s;
“Australia’s vast, reliable and inexpensive fuel resources have been a
substantial factor in the country’s economic growth. They have also led to a
supply-side approach to energy rather than a demand-side approach and
partly as a result, Australia has one of the highest energy intensities in the
IEA. Australian TPES grew by 2.4% annually since 1970 while the IEA
countries on average saw a 1.5% annual growth in TPES. Projections by
ABARE forecast continued high energy demand growth well above IEA
averages. Because of its abundant domestic energy resources, the country has
had no apparent motive to pursue efficiency ambitiously and has had less
experience in these areas than other IEA countries. Nevertheless, the
advantages of greater demand-side attention are relevant to all aspects of the Australian energy sector and should therefore be seen as a major opportunity
across the board. The use of demand-side options to address energy questions
could, in many cases, provide more attractive solutions than on the supply side.
Benefits of greater efficiency would include, but are not limited to, reduced GHG
and other emissions; increased energy security; improved productivity and hence
competitiveness; greater economic efficiency in meeting peak needs that the
market does not price well; reduced need for network and infrastructure
expansion through suppressed demand and hence the ability to take advantage
of more advanced technology”
One thing I take from this passage is that we waste a heck of a lot of energy compared with our competitors and one day that may come back to bite us.
If you get the numbers, one of the strange things is that US overall efficiency is so ahead of others that even though we are second in emissions, we are 7th in per capita energy consumption. This is not the best measure. SOmewhere on the net they list efficiencies and depending on assumption and weighting usually Japan, US, and France “lead” in certain respects.
One of the better offers I have seen is solar/NGas high temperature or pressure systems for extending solar into the night with molten salt or other similar systems. In this case, the two energy sources share the basic electric generation reducing capital outlay as seen in wind with a 4:1 or even 5:1 at best potential:realizable generation. In order to be close to economical will reguire infrastructure improvements to handle the variability. Running dual inputs to a single energy transmission is tricky if both are well behaved. If one is not well behaved, problems can lead to inefficiencies quickly. However, the solar can be well predicted in a short term and a high temperature salt system has a lot of thermal inertia to compensate for small fluctuations.
In this case, the advantages of solar, quick response of NG, and large thermal inertia reduce the problems of the source at the source by being well matched. This is not true of the Denmark wind scheme. But, having dual controls, safeties, heat sources, etc, do add to the cost. And of course, when the sun don’t shine you emitt CO2. But it can beintegrated in a far reaching diverse system to reduce overall CO2 longterm.
I have been looking up the numbers for NSW electricity production, which are given below. The numbers for current production are from Wikipedia, the numbers for proposed alternative are taken from the Greenpeace document “Policy Report: A Just Transition to a Renewable Energy Economy in the Hunter Region, Australia” June 2008 pg 42
Current 2009 NSW electricity production in MW
Coal 12000
Hydro 4245
Gas 1000
Bioenergy 100
Gas co-generation 100
Wind 16
———
Total 17460 MW
Proposed Greenpeace NSW alternative 2020 in MW
Wind 4900
Hydro 4245
PV 3575
Gas co-generation 3500
Bioenergy 1550
Solar thermal 2000
Geothermal 200
———-
Total 19970 MW
Total investment cost is estimated by Greenpeace to be $12b for NSW. There you go chaps, complete replacement of NSW electricity production with alternative energy (sorry, I hate the word ‘renewables’) in ten years for a mere $12b. Sounds cheap, looks like it can be done for a quarter of the price of the new $43b optical fibre broadband network. Go for it.
I assume that the 4900MW of windfarms would need to be multiplied by a factor of 3 for practical purposes, requiring approx. 15000MW actual wind turbine installation in NSW, or approx 85% of the current total installed electricity generation capacity.
However be warned that the coal saved in shutting down the NSW power stations will of course be shipped straight out for burning in Asia. The overall CO2 emissions savings are therefore likely to be minimal.
With respect to sod’ posts, they are now getting laughable
he replied:
“this is complete nonsense. Denmark for example is backing up its wind with norwegian water power. you don t need the full back up, if you spread out the wind fields. ”
The whole point of the original article, which people like sod seem to have forgotten in their parallel universe is that spreading the windfarms out across SE Australia, compounds not mitigates the problem.
I don’t know where Greenpeace get their numbers from that dribble quotes but they are garbage. $12b will only get you 4000MW of wind – I think their numbers are out by a factor of 10. Oh and 2000MW of solar. What is going to happen when the sun goes down and electricity demand peaks? The geothermal is a non-starter, they haven’t even got their 1MW plant working yet. Don’t quote MW, quote GWh out of each source and on proven technology, not someone’s dream.
What used to happen was a lot of coal fired plants were in cities and their water was used for district heating. Battersea Power Station in London was the most famous example. However, the size of modern plants, NIMBYs and the drive to get cheaper power by reducing transportation costs meant that they had to move. Most of the heat out of a thermal power station is very low grade, less than 100°C. There isn’t much demand for it, especially in summer.
s
Wind turbines have other shortcomings as well.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25964195-5006785,00.html
The accompanying decibel chart in the printed version of the paper, has a lawnmower at 90db, a power drill at 80db, a wind turbine at 75db, a vacuum cleaner at 70db etc.
From the article,
“Three months ago the first of 128 turbines started turning and almost instantly Mr Dean became sick. He started waking with headaches……..His wife also began experiencing an inexplicable malaise………It was only after the 57-year-old couple travelled to their other property…….and instantly fell well again……’
What gives? Is this common?
The Greenpeace report states:
“Approximately $12b would need to be invested in renewable energy, co-generation and energy efficiency measures for Scenario 1 between now and 2020. This may be an over estimate, as it makes no allowance for technology cost decline over the period.” (p. 11)
Scenario 1 is the assumption that the Hunter region generates 100% of electricity for local use (23% of NSW electricity) (p. 9)
Therefore my quickie email cost figure was in fact incorrect. The $12b represents a changeover of production in the Hunter region only. Using these figures an estimate for the whole of NSW would be about $50b. My apologies to all concerned.
Jeremy mentioned demand-side approaches to energy policy. If I’ve understood what he was trying to say, here’s one small example.
My local utility in Sacramento County (California) has a program called Peak Corps, with an interesting quid pro quo. You agree to allow the utility to remotely turn off your air conditioner/heat pump for specified periods of time during the peak usage hours during the Summer. In return, you get lower rates for the electricity that you do use.
As a side-note, this PUBLICLY OWNED utility has lower rates than in most of the surrounding area, whose residents are serviced by a private utility that’s supposedly guided by Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’. Or should I say middle finger?
If you look up the Greenpeace Australia alternative energy universe offerings on wind farms you are referred to an article by Mark Diesendorf, ‘The Base-Load Fallacy’
http://www.cana.net.au/documents/Diesendorf_TheBaseLoadFallacy_FS16.pdf
Quoting from the article:
“To replace the electricity generated by a 1000 megawatt (MW) coal-fired power station, with annual average power output of about 850 MW, a group of wind farms with capacity (rated power) of about 2600 MW, located in windy sites, is required.
Computer simulations and modelling show that the integration of wind power into an electricity grid changes the optimal mix of conventional base-load and peak-load power stations. Wind power replaces base-load with the same annual average power output. However, to maintain the reliability of the generating system at the same level as before the substitution, some additional peak-load plant may be needed. This back-up does not have to have the same capacity as the group of wind farms. For widely dispersed wind farms, the back-up capacity only has to be one-fifth to one-third of the wind capacity. In the special case when all the wind power is concentrated at a single site, the required back-up is about half the wind capacity. (Martin & Diesendorf 1982; Grubb 1988a & b; ILEX 2002; Carbon Trust & DTI 2004; Dale et al. 2004; UKERC 2006).”
In other words, the green intellectuals recognize that the average power output of a wind farm situated on a windy site is approximately 1/3 of its nameplate capacity. They also state that the backup is required is 1/5 to 1/3 of the wind capacity for sites averaged over a wide area. They don’t state whether wind capacity is the same as average power output, but go on to state that backup of up to 1/2 is required for a single site. Thus what they appear to be saying is that backup capacity of only 1/5 to 1/3 of the average power output is required for combined sites situated over a wide area.
The graphs provided by Andrew Miskelly and Tom Quirk for combined wind farm performance in SA and VIC for June 2009 show that this assumption is invalid. The combined output is highly correlated, and there are days when total combined output drops to the 0-10% level. Thus the backup capacity needs to be 100% of the combined wind farm average power output, ie 1/3 of the nameplate capacity, at least in this geographical area.
To clarify the above issue concerning the meaning of ‘wind capacity’ and ‘average power output’, I also include this quotation from ‘A Clean Energy Future for Australia’ found on the Energy Science website.
http://www.energyscience.org.au/reports.html
“For example, in an electricity grid with total generating capacity of 10,000
MW, 2,000 MW of wind power would have an annual average power output of about
660 MW, so this amount of base-load capacity (coal in eastern Australia) could be
retired or deferred. At the same time, to maintain the reliability (e.g. as measured by
LOLP) of the grid at the pre-wind level, up to about 300 MW of peak-load gas
turbines may have to be installed in grids without sufficient hydro plant. Because
these gas turbines have low capital cost and rarely have to be operated, they are like
reliability insurance with a low premium (Martin & Diesendorf, 1982, 1983).” (p. 87)
Here the green intellectuals are saying that 300MW of backup is required for 660MW of average power output, which I assume relates their non-combined wind farm scenario in which they state that backup of approximately 1/2 wind capacity is required.
In the Greenpeace power plan highlighted by dribble, they imply 2000MW solar can replace the equivalent thermal generation. If one looks at the load curves and do the numbers, it is about 8000MW solar and 60GWh of pumped storage needed. There are no large installations anywhere but the budgets indicate solar will be about $8,000 per kW. When challenged on the price, the greens wave their arms and talk of efficiencies of large scale and cost reductions for technology. Their plan for NSW to get 100GWh of generation will cost over $100B, running costs not much lower than current, involve large civil works across all the parks and scenic areas (where do you put wind farms or pumped storage) and still not give reliable power. Is that really the Utopia they want?
“Is that really the Utopia they want?”
Apparently so. The green idea of pastoral heaven appears to be wall-to-wall windmills. Perhaps after a while they get to be like telephone poles, you don’t really notice them.
The greens also claim that diversified power generation systems will empower local communities. I can’t really see how a wind farm in your back yard owned by a multi-national corporation is going to accomplish this though.
The link to the greenpeace report from which I quoted the power generation figures is:
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/resources/reports/climate-change/just-transition-report
It describes how by 2020, newly unemployed coal miners and power station workers in the Hunter Valley will all have funky new sustainable jobs installing solar panels and manufacturing wind turbines.
This whole discussion misses the point. The only “green” in wind power is money; what is “green” about a feckless, unreliable source of electricity that requires the total devastation of a countryside or shoreline for dozens of km in order to generate a piddling amount of power (say, 50 MW)?
These wretched monstrosities are disfiguring the landscape and destroying habitats — both human and wildlife — on an incredible scale all over the world. Germany and Denmark, the most turbine-ridden countries in the world, have halted all new installations; E.On, which operates Germany’s grid, fears that much more from turbines will destabilize the grid; Denmark has to export nearly all its wind power to the much larger grids of Norway and Sweden because its own grid can’t take the rapid variation in output from all its turbines.
Wind turbines are simply a method of vacuuming taxpayers’ — and ratepayers’ — money into the pockets of international financiers; that is all they do. As actual commercial power sources, they manage to actually be WORSE than useless.
CO2 is not a pollutant. “Wind power” is a fraud based on a lie.