Intermittency of Wind Power Generation

Chloe Pink wrote: »

No I couldn't as they don't; this, as I'm sure you realise, is not the point in question.

So what exactly is your point? You were initially arguing that (apparently) wind generation is not a sensible venture as back-up generators are required, which to me is like arguing that there’s no point switching your lights off because power stations are required for when you want to switch them on. You have now shifted to arguing semantics with regard to the accuracy of wind forecasts. But, nobody is suggesting that (a) we should be completely reliant on wind power for 100% of our electricity or that (b) wind forecasts are 100% accurate and cannot be improved in any way. As such, your parallel arguments are essentially moot.

Unless of course I'm missing something?

djpbarry wrote: »

Unless of course I'm missing something?

Ummm!

djpbarry wrote: »

You've already been asked once to better formulate your posts/arguments - consider this an official warning: If you have nothing of value to contribute, then don't post.

Now, with the above in mind, care to answer the question?

The ‘point in question’ as referred to in post 62, was ‘which of three statements about wind forecasting best represented our ability to forecast the wind’; the fact that the statements did not contradict each other was irrelevant.

You are correct in saying that “…nobody is suggesting that (a) we should be completely reliant on wind power for 100% of our electricity or that (b) wind forecasts are 100% accurate and cannot be improved in any way.” but I am not sure what you are trying to convey here.
However, as you raised the matter of wind forecasting, perhaps you would explain the significance of our ability to forecast the wind?

From my point of view, I find Hugh Sharman’s report makes very interesting reading.
http://www.ref.org.uk/images/PDFs/sharman.ice.pt2.pdf
In the forward it says:

“Furthermore, experience in Denmark and Germany shows that the UK will find it impractical to manage much over 10 GW of unpredictable wind power without major new storage schemes or inter-connectors.”

And from the heart of Denmark’s wind industry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUsun3hIT0

And so I believe that until the matters of new storage schemes and/or inter-connectors have been fully addressed, we should not be banking on wind to do any more than as described in the report:

“The total CO2 savings achieved by a 10 GW wind power capacity will be in the region of 9–11 Mt/y. This is roughly 1.5–2.0% of the UK’s 2004 emissions (550 Mt) and 0.046% of global emissions. Global CO2 emissions were about 24 000 Mt in 2003 and are increasing at about 2% per year, mainly from India and China.18 “

And I think the cost of this saving is of note:

“This is a very modest saving, but would cost the UK consumer more than £10 billion (including transmission and distribution expenses). The National Audit Office has recently pointed out that the cost of CO2 savings achieved by wind are up to 20 times more expensive than the early 2005 value of displaced CO2 in the EU Emissions Trading System.19 These remarks are consistent with the advice of the Irish grid board, ESB, and the German energy authority, DENA: wind power is a very costly emissions-reduction method. However, 10 GW of wind energy will also deliver a small but significant fraction of all energy, thus saving fuel, most of which will need to be sourced from distant countries. A wind carpet of this size, predominantly offshore, might generate roughly 22 TWh, thus saving the UK 3.3 Mt of gas a year. This is significant, but only a small fraction of the electrical energy needed to support the country. Gas consumption in 2003 was 86 Mt20 and, under current government policies enunciated in the energy White Paper, may increase to anything up to 130 Mt by 2020.”

And in the report’s conclusion:

“The Government is advised that the UK’s system can accept anything up to 26 GW of wind power. For all the reasons explained in this paper, this advice cannot be regarded as sound. Ample evidence from relatively large wind systems in Denmark and Germany exists to prove that 10 GW (+/–25%) will be the probable safe upper limit of all wind capacity.”?


However, here’s some potentially good news from Lord Lawson of Blaby at 4:25pm on 2 Nov 2010 around Column 1584:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101102-0001.htm#10110262000457

“In his admirably brief opening speech, the Minister mentioned two things which the Government generally-I do not want to single my noble friend out because he was just speaking the Government's policy-are trying to make out. They say that there is a real energy security problem, which we have to meet by decarbonising our economy, and that there are great economic benefits in our decarbonising our economy. Both those things are absolute nonsense. I have some knowledge of the energy scene, having been Secretary of State for Energy in the distant past, but these things do not change completely.

Carbon-based energy has never been more abundant than now. It is commercially extractable because, not least, of the exciting recent technological development of the commercial extraction of gas from shale. This not only increases enormously the commercially winnable carbon energy resources of the world, but it is fortunate that shale is abundant throughout the world-in North America, Europe, South America and so on. We do not have to feel that we are dependent on the Middle East, which may be unstable, or on Mr Putin, who may be unreliable. The development of the liquid natural gas business has also increased security on the gas front very significantly. So there is no energy security problem. In so far as there is an energy security problem, it is because we may come to rely too much on intermittent wind power, when the lights might indeed go out, but that is the only problem we have.” (my emphasis)


Meanwhile, the posts at these links strike a cord for me:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66501829#post66501829
Post 36
Post 37
Post 41
Post 45
“Looking at the Sustainability & Environmental Forum now, it seems very quiet compared to how is was in the past. I wonder how many members are put off posting there by what is viewed as heavy handed moderation…”
“I suppose the answer to that is that we will never know, but certainly compared to the forum in the past, which was both thought provoking and interesting, it is a forum of little activity.”
Post 46 (next page)
Post 47 (next page)
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055995220&page=15
Post 213
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055995220&page=16
Post 232

So I’m out of here.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

You are correct in saying that “…nobody is suggesting that (a) we should be completely reliant on wind power for 100% of our electricity or that (b) wind forecasts are 100% accurate and cannot be improved in any way.” but I am not sure what you are trying to convey here.

You're not sure what I'm trying to convey, but you consider it to be correct?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

However, as you raised the matter of wind forecasting, perhaps you would explain the significance of our ability to forecast the wind?

The significance of our ability? I don’t know what you mean?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

From my point of view, I find Hugh Sharman’s report makes very interesting reading.
http://www.ref.org.uk/images/PDFs/sharman.ice.pt2.pdf
In the forward it says:

“Furthermore, experience in Denmark and Germany shows that the UK will find it impractical to manage much over 10 GW of unpredictable wind power without major new storage schemes or inter-connectors.”

Ok – so what? In the forward, it also says that wind power should be exploited as fully as possible. What’s your point?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And from the heart of Denmark’s wind industry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgUsun3hIT0

That (heavily-edited) video is not “from the heart of Denmark’s wind industry” at all. It is from the Institute for Energy Research, based in Houston, Texas, an organisation that has in the past been funded by Exxon Mobil.

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And so I believe that until the matters of new storage schemes and/or inter-connectors have been fully addressed, we should not be banking on wind to do any more than as described in the report...

Ok, but who (in this thread) has argued that wind should provide more than x% of the UK’s electricity requirements?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

And I think the cost of this saving is of note:

“This is a very modest saving, but would cost the UK consumer more than £10 billion (including transmission and distribution expenses). The National Audit Office has recently pointed out that the cost of CO2 savings achieved by wind are up to 20 times more expensive than the early 2005 value of displaced CO2 in the EU Emissions Trading System.19 These remarks are consistent with the advice of the Irish grid board, ESB, and the German energy authority, DENA: wind power is a very costly emissions-reduction method. However, 10 GW of wind energy will also deliver a small but significant fraction of all energy, thus saving fuel, most of which will need to be sourced from distant countries. A wind carpet of this size, predominantly offshore, might generate roughly 22 TWh, thus saving the UK 3.3 Mt of gas a year. This is significant, but only a small fraction of the electrical energy needed to support the country. Gas consumption in 2003 was 86 Mt20 and, under current government policies enunciated in the energy White Paper, may increase to anything up to 130 Mt by 2020.”

And once again I’m left wondering, what is your point? That the cost of wind installations is too high? That the price of carbon in the EU ETS is too low? That the UK is too dependant on gas? What?

Chloe Pink wrote: »

However, here’s some potentially good news from Lord Lawson of Blaby at 4:25pm on 2 Nov 2010 around Column 1584...

The “good news” (in your view) is, presumably, the abundance of ‘shale gas’? Ignoring for a moment the fact that shale gas is obviously non-renewable, it’s probably worth pointing out that Europe presently has zero shale gas production. So much for Lord Lawson’s assertion that there is no energy security problem.

Oscardela wrote: »

the flaw with a site lie this in having a proper discussion, as is demonstrated here, is that a moderator will threaten a non moderator if he doesn't like the answers. Well done to Chloe Pink for, apparently, deciding to end the discussion and stop replying.

Read the forum charter before posting anything else.