Wind farms - ugly truths

Greensleeves

Wind was blamed for pushing up the price of electricity in March and gas is being credited with reducing the price in April.

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/energy-price-ireland-wind-1402326-Apr2014/

http://www.thejournal.ie/gas-price-low-drives-down-electricity-costs-1507769-Jun2014/

Macha

Greensleeves wrote: »

Wind was blamed for pushing up the price of electricity in March and gas is being credited with reducing the price in April.

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/energy-price-ireland-wind-1402326-Apr2014/

http://www.thejournal.ie/gas-price-low-drives-down-electricity-costs-1507769-Jun2014/

This is getting completely ridiculous. Did anyone actually read the links?

No? Right, I'll highlight a relevant point that was very conveniently skipped over in the first link:

Lower wind speeds than expected combined with “forced outages” from efficient gas and cheap coal plant to drive the price of electricity up, Bord Gais said in its latest energy index.

Yes, that's right. It was the lack of wind in March that pushed up wholesale electricity prices.

And by the way, we're seeing very low gas prices because Europe has had an incredibly mild winter and we are heading into the months of lowest demand, i.e. summer. If you actually read the analysis, you realise just how horribly reliant we are on the UK gas market because that's basically all the analysis is about.

The quality of debating on this forum is hovering around pathetic.

Birdnuts

Macha wrote: »

Yes, that's right. It was the lack of wind in March that pushed up wholesale electricity prices.

.

The quality of debating on this forum is hovering around pathetic.

Really?? And then certain posters get hammered when they point out the unreliablilty of wind on a grid. It increasingly appears only pro-wind types are welcome on this forum. Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

Macha

Birdnuts wrote: »

Really?? And then certain posters get hammered when they point out the unreliablilty of wind on a grid. It increasingly appears only pro-wind types are welcome on this forum. Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

If you feel the modding is biased, please feel free to take it up in the relevant manner. I'm talking about the quality of debating, which to be perfectly honest, I find depressing.

Let's just take your statement above.

Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

Does it do anything to contradict the point I made above that the story was entirely misrepresented and 'thanked' by three posters who clearly didn't read the link (or if they did, didn't care)? No. Does it show any acceptance or comprehension of the difference between wholesale electricity prices and retail electricity prices as already discussed at length in this very thread? No.

Is it just another unfounded, accusative statement alluding to something else that wind power must be to blame for despite it not actually making any practical sense to anyone who understands how power markets work? Yes. And I will explain it again here. Ireland's retail electricity prices are regulated. This means that retail electricity price bands are set by the Commission for Energy Regulation, not by the market. Therefore, the downward pressure that wind has on wholesale electricity prices isn't always passed onto the retail consumer in the form of lower retail electricity prices.

Moreover, the reality may actually be different from the Eurostat research you're referring to as it uses a number of assumptions, including using a default annual kWh for all households that's lower than Ireland's (we are less efficient than the European average), leading to an assumption that the unit price of electricity must be higher than it really is. More details here: http://www.bonkers.ie/blog/ireland-fourth-most-expensive-country-in-europe-for-electricity-prices-/

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

Really?? And then certain posters get hammered when they point out the unreliablilty of wind on a grid. It increasingly appears only pro-wind types are welcome on this forum. Ireland must have a serious lack of wind given we now have the 4th highest retail power prices in the EU.

Could you please supply some numbers about winds "unreliability".

Unless you can then please just admit it's an illogical Mantra of FUD.

Just because it doesn't blow on demand doesn't mean it's unpredictable.

Base it on annual time there was a shortfall in the 24 hour prediction was more than the spinning reserve needed to support fossil fuel generation.

This is the MAXIMUM measure of unpredictability of wind.

Then take into account that even coal takes less than 24 hours to come on line and that predictions of less than 24 hours are more accurate. We've a somewhat flexible grid since fossil fuel generators and other large single points of failure like transformers have a more disturbing effect than a predicted weather front moving across the country over several hours gradually changing the output.

Then compare it to other generators IIRC the max is about 11% downtime.

fclauson

Last week the SEAI told us in their report that Renewables are delivering €260m energy savings , can someone explain why we need a massive 50% hike in the PSO levy that accordingly will raise €328m if we have already saved €260m - we would expect a reduction due to this "saving" and would also expect reduction due to the wholesale cost of electricity dropping 10% as per above article.


Someone is not telling us the clear facts and deliberately muddling the waters.

Macha

fclauson wrote: »

Last week the SEAI told us in their report that Renewables are delivering €260m energy savings , can someone explain why we need a massive 50% hike in the PSO levy that accordingly will raise €328m if we have already saved €260m - we would expect a reduction due to this "saving" and would also expect reduction due to the wholesale cost of electricity dropping 10% as per above article.


Someone is not telling us the clear facts and deliberately muddling the waters.

For a start, €240m of that money is going to peat and gas, not renewables.

The problem here, again, is that Irish retail electricity prices are regulated meaning that the savings are not being directly passed onto the consumer. The savings that SEAI measure are accurate so renewables are bringing a net benefit of €172m. There is another problem I have with the system. The PSO levy in Ireland is a flat rate on each energy bill that has no correlation with how much energy you use. By contrast, in Germany this levy is applied per kWh used, which means the more you use, the more you pay - much fairer.

Greensleeves

Macha wrote: »

And by the way, we're seeing very low gas prices because Europe has had an incredibly mild winter and we are heading into the months of lowest demand, i.e. summer. If you actually read the analysis, you realise just how horribly reliant we are on the UK gas market because that's basically all the analysis is about.

The quality of debating on this forum is hovering around pathetic.

Wind increases our reliance on gas. The IEA (International Energy Agency) highlighted this in their 2012 Energy Review of Ireland.

"Ireland is highly dependent on imported oil and gas. While the push to develop renewable energies is commendable, this will result in an increased reliance on natural gas, as gas-fired power plants will be required to provide flexibility in electricity supply when wind power is unavailable. With two-thirds of Ireland’s electricity already coming from gas-fired generation, this poses concerns with regard to gas security, particularly as 93% of its gas supplies come from a single transit point in Scotland. In order to meet Ireland’s ambitious renewable targets and improve the island’s level of energy security, the country must successfully develop a range of gas and electricity infrastructure projects and market solutions while continuing to integrate its energy markets with regional neighbours."

http://www.iea.org/countries/membercountries/ireland/

Greensleeves

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Could you please supply some numbers about winds "unreliability".

Unless you can then please just admit it's an illogical Mantra of FUD.

Just because it doesn't blow on demand doesn't mean it's unpredictable.

Base it on annual time there was a shortfall in the 24 hour prediction was more than the spinning reserve needed to support fossil fuel generation.

This is the MAXIMUM measure of unpredictability of wind.

Then take into account that even coal takes less than 24 hours to come on line and that predictions of less than 24 hours are more accurate. We've a somewhat flexible grid since fossil fuel generators and other large single points of failure like transformers have a more disturbing effect than a predicted weather front moving across the country over several hours gradually changing the output.

Then compare it to other generators IIRC the max is about 11% downtime.

We can just do what the National Grid in the UK is considering doing and pay customers to do without electricity when no wind is forecast.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10890695/Wind-farm-expansion-will-see-more-factories-paid-to-switch-off.html

Greensleeves

Macha wrote: »

For a start, €240m of that money is going to peat and gas, not renewables.

Is the Tynagh CCGT plant included in the PSO because it is a backup for wind?

Macha

Greensleeves wrote: »

Wind increases our reliance on gas. The IEA (International Energy Agency) highlighted this in their 2012 Energy Review of Ireland.

"Ireland is highly dependent on imported oil and gas. While the push to develop renewable energies is commendable, this will result in an increased reliance on natural gas, as gas-fired power plants will be required to provide flexibility in electricity supply when wind power is unavailable. With two-thirds of Ireland’s electricity already coming from gas-fired generation, this poses concerns with regard to gas security, particularly as 93% of its gas supplies come from a single transit point in Scotland. In order to meet Ireland’s ambitious renewable targets and improve the island’s level of energy security, the country must successfully develop a range of gas and electricity infrastructure projects and market solutions while continuing to integrate its energy markets with regional neighbours."

http://www.iea.org/countries/membercountries/ireland/

Jesus, this is bad even by IEA's conservative standards! With gas already providing 66% of our electricity back then it would be absolutely bonkers to think that more renewable electricity would actually cause an increase. And, uh, the facts show this was wrong. We have more renewables in our electricity system today and gas now generates 50% of our electricity.

Greensleeves wrote: »

Is the Tynagh CCGT plant included in the PSO because it is a backup for wind?

It's in but because there's more wind and it's running less (which totally contradicts the IEA point above, I have to say), therefore gaining less revenue from the market and has to be subsidised more, ie it was a contract for difference (CfD).

What a stupid contract for them to have signed - but then again, they were all signed in 2005 when we thought the Irish population was going to hit 6 million by the end of the year and projected electricity demand predicted a shortfall and we're left paying for them. So just to be 100% clear, these gas plant subsidies have nothing to do with backing up wind - they are about additional capacity we thought we need to build asap.

Here's the relevant part of the CER document:

Lower running of Tynagh, a 400 MW gas plant provided with a PSO for
security of supply reasons. In recent years the Tynagh plant has being
running less in the SEM due to a variety of factors, including more wind
generation being available to run instead. As a result, the plant receives lower
revenues from the SEM. Under the terms of its PSO, most of its allowed costs
are fixed, and so lower SEM running and revenue is largely being
compensated for by a higher PSO payment

Capt'n Midnight

Greensleeves wrote: »

Wind increases our reliance on gas.

More FUD

Almost all of our spinning reserve is Open Cycle Gas Turbines running at 2/3rd's of their full power. So can ramp up in seconds and more importantly can ramp back down again in seconds.

Even combined cycle gas can respond fairly quickly for load following, and demand varies faster than country wide fluctuations in wind


Again can you please supply some numbers for your preposterous claims.


Typically the increased O&M & fuel costs for spinning reserve needed for wind are only between 0.1 and 1% of the fuel costs saved by wind.


BTW Nuclear, and to a lesser extent Coal, increase reliance on gas, because it can't load follow and the capital cost means you can't invest in renewables like wind that have the proven ability to opportunistically replace gas.



In theory nameplate capacity of wind farms isn't that impressive.
In practice the limiting factor this winter was the limit of 50% asynchronous generators on the grid at any one time, based on that limit wind had a 50% capacity factor. Which is pretty impressive considering all the fuss people make about it.


There's a very simple rule in science. If your theory doesn't match the facts you have to get a new theory.

Capt'n Midnight

Greensleeves wrote: »

We can just do what the National Grid in the UK is considering doing and pay customers to do without electricity when no wind is forecast.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10890695/Wind-farm-expansion-will-see-more-factories-paid-to-switch-off.html

OMG :eek: !!!!

you've re-discovered load shedding


Before there were wind farms in the UK , I can remember big industrial customers in the North of England realising that they had a big contract for leccy at a fixed price and a manufacturing business that wasn't all that profitable. The marginal cost of providing them with power at peak times was more than they could profit by using that power. So it was cheaper to "pay" them not to use the amount of power they were contracted to use.

Also not providing the power meant less capital investment was needed so you don't have power stations that only run for a few minutes after Coronation Street ends.

ESB have a similar scheme too

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

Jesus, this is bad even by IEA's conservative standards! With gas already providing 66% of our electricity back then it would be absolutely bonkers to think that more renewable electricity would actually cause an increase. And, uh, the facts show this was wrong. We have more renewables in our electricity system today and gas now generates 50% of our electricity.

Are you saying gas generation capacity hasn't increased ?

Can you please clarify this point ?

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

More FUD

Almost all of our spinning reserve is Open Cycle Gas Turbines running at 2/3rd's of their full power. So can ramp up in seconds and more importantly can ramp back down again in seconds.

Tynagh is ccgt. In recent years, ccgt has been favoured.

Typically the increased O&M & fuel costs for spinning reserve needed for wind are only between 0.1 and 1% of the fuel costs saved by wind.

mmm...sounds tiny but 69 million euros for one plant suggests otherwise.

BTW Nuclear, and to a lesser extent Coal, increase reliance on gas, because it can't load follow and the capital cost means you can't invest in renewables like wind that have the proven ability to opportunistically replace gas.

Nuclear can displace gas plant as opposed to fiddling around with its output.

Its like saying using a car increases reliance on the horse and cart as you cant use the two together, unlike a bike which you can bring along in the horse and cart, and use it for part of the journey. So completely failing to see that one car can completely dispense with the need for the horse and cart altogether.

You need to think in terms of the big picture.

Energy is full of paradoxes, like Jevons, this is also another one. That's why ordinary people almost always get it wrong when commenting on it.

Capt'n Midnight

Fabo wrote: »

Tynagh is ccgt. In recent years, ccgt has been favoured.

Kinda obvious seeing as efficiency approaches 60% compared to maybe half that for previous generations of plant

mmm...sounds tiny but 69 million euros for one plant suggests otherwise.

Obviously you can't attribute the full O&M costs , just the extra that's needed. Like I keep saying most of the reserve is in case of fossil fuel generators going offline.

Nuclear can displace gas plant as opposed to fiddling around with its output.

Its like saying using a car increases reliance on the horse and cart as you cant use the two together, unlike a bike which you can bring along in the horse and cart, and use it for part of the journey. So completely failing to see that one car can completely dispense with the need for the horse and cart altogether.

You need to think in terms of the big picture.

Nuclear is like a car
If you have one you have to pay for tax and insurance whether you use it or not. The incremental cost of fuel maybe about the same as taking a bus. And you have to pay for the car in the first place, so you can't afford a decent bike with all the repayments.

Actually if you don't use your car regularly the cost per mile becomes very expensive because of those overheads. So economics says that you should use your car more often to minimise the cost per mile. ( because otherwise you could never justify getting a car ) If the car breaks down you can always take take bus , but it might be more expensive if you can't buy a commuter ticket if you've already filled the tank.

If the weather is OK you can cycle. You save money each time, and you can always hop on the bus if the weather forecast says it's going to be windy or rainy tomorrow. The question about whether commuter tickets are slightly cheaper than a leap card is resolved when you realise that you can usually cycle one day a week and possibly more as you get fitter.

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Kinda obvious seeing as efficiency approaches 60% compared to maybe half that for previous generations of plant




Obviously you can't attribute the full O&M costs , just the extra that's needed. Like I keep saying most of the reserve is in case of fossil fuel generators going offline.




Nuclear is like a car
If you have one you have to pay for tax and insurance whether you use it or not.

It would get priority dispatch because of low emissions.

The incremental cost of fuel maybe about the same as taking a bus.

this is akin to importing the nuclear from UK which we do. Either you burn fuel in your car or someone else burns it on your behalf in a bus.

And you have to pay for the car in the first place, so you can't afford a decent bike with all the repayments.

Wind = bike in this case. Fairly expensive bike.

Actually if you don't use your car regularly the cost per mile becomes very expensive because of those overheads. So economics says that you should use your car more often to minimise the cost per mile. ( because otherwise you could never justify getting a car ) If the car breaks down you can always take take bus , but it might be more expensive if you can't buy a commuter ticket if you've already filled the tank.

nuclear would get PD

If the weather is OK you can cycle. You save money each time, and you can always hop on the bus if the weather forecast says it's going to be windy or rainy tomorrow. The question about whether commuter tickets are slightly cheaper than a leap card is resolved when you realise that you can usually cycle one day a week and possibly more as you get fitter.

yes but here's the killer................

the BUS has to RUN regardless of what you do and what days you decide to cycle.

UK's nuclear plant has to run, regardless of whether Ireland wants the power or not. (this doesnt happen very often btw)

Capt'n Midnight

Fabo wrote: »

It would get priority dispatch because of low emissions.

Guess what ? wind is even lower.

this is akin to importing the nuclear from UK which we do. Either you burn fuel in your car or someone else burns it on your behalf in a bus.

Maybe I should have likened nuclear to a steam engine where it takes ages to increase the power because of the time it takes to heat the water, and firing up from cold takes hours. Steam engines don't have gearboxes, you can pretty much tell it's optimum speed from the size of the wheels.

nuclear would get PD

and that's why nuclear is a lock in technology , investing in it means you don't have cash to invest in renewables.

yes but here's the killer................

the BUS has to RUN regardless of what you do and what days you decide to cycle.

hmmm, should have said taxi.

UK's nuclear plant has to run, regardless of whether Ireland wants the power or not. (this doesnt happen very often btw)

But the UK will be paying twice the average wholesale rate for Hinckley C

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

Are you saying gas generation capacity hasn't increased ?

Can you please clarify this point ?

No, I'm not talking about capacity, which doesn't always follow the market, as we can see with silly Irish CfD contracts and gas plant operators begging for capacity payments across Europe.

I'm talking about how gas is performing in the market and its role in generating electricity. In just one year from 2011 to 2012, natural gas dropped from providing 55% of our electricity down to 49%.

And that is also a real drop in ktoe, not just a drop in percentage. In 2007, 2737 ktoe of natural gas was used to generate Ireland's electricity. In 2012, that number was down to 2269 ktoe.

Fabo

Obviously you can't attribute the full O&M costs , just the extra that's needed. Like I keep saying most of the reserve is in case of fossil fuel generators going offline.

thats a lot of maintenance costs for a plant that doesnt get on the grid too often. but then again as John Lynch, the CER official who wrote the PSO paper, stated in 2010:

As observed by [Denny 2009] the number of plant start-ups will increase dramatically as the level of wind penetration increases. This will significantly
increase operation and maintenance costs and reduce the operating lifetime of thermal plants, especially
of existing thermal plants which have not been designed to withstand thefatigue resulting from repetitive cycling

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

No, I'm not talking about capacity, which doesn't always follow the market, as we can see with silly Irish CfD contracts and gas plant operators begging for capacity payments across Europe.

I'm talking about how gas is performing in the market and its role in generating electricity. In just one year from 2011 to 2012, natural gas dropped from providing 55% of our electricity down to 49%.

And that is also a real drop in ktoe, not just a drop in percentage. In 2007, 2737 ktoe of natural gas was used to generate Ireland's electricity. In 2012, that number was down to 2269 ktoe.

so you're saying that most of the new gas plant built in last 7-8 years is lying idle ?

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

so you're saying that most of the new gas plant built in last 7-8 years is lying idle ?

I'm not sure how you're reading that out of what I wrote. But a lot of existing gas plants are suffering from low capacity factors in Ireland and across Europe.

I'm sure the exact numbers on capacity factors are out there somewhere.

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

I'm not sure how you're reading that out of what I wrote. But a lot of existing gas plants are suffering from low capacity factors in Ireland and across Europe.

I'm sure the exact numbers on capacity factors are out there somewhere.

Strange then that Eirgrid keep accepting connections for new ones then isnt it ?

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

Strange then that Eirgrid keep accepting connections for new ones then isnt it ?

I think I've made my point clear about gas being gradually replaced by renewables in our electricity system and backed it up with evidence.

You keep asking questions about capacity. If you have a point, why don't you make it?

Greensleeves

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

ESB have a similar scheme too

I didn't know that the ESB pay customers to not use electricity. I did an internet search but can't find any information; do you have a link?

It is a very good idea IMO.

Capt'n Midnight

Greensleeves wrote: »

I didn't know that the ESB pay customers to not use electricity. I did an internet search but can't find any information; do you have a link?

It is a very good idea IMO.

http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/ancillaryservicesothersystemcharges/demandsidemanagementdsm/demandsideunits/

see top of page 63

Activation Energy - 12 MW
DAE Virtual Power - 29MW

Capt'n Midnight

Fabo wrote: »

so you're saying that most of the new gas plant built in last 7-8 years is lying idle ?

this time of year minimum demand drops to 2GW at night, if we get a windy night half of that could come from wind.

We'd only need 1GW of dispatchable generation out of an 7.4GW installed capacity , so yeah most of the gas plant would be idle. But that's the whole point of gas, it can follow demand.

Fabo

Macha wrote: »

I'm not sure how you're reading that out of what I wrote. But a lot of existing gas plants are suffering from low capacity factors in Ireland and across Europe.

I'm sure the exact numbers on capacity factors are out there somewhere.

Well, you can only get data in Ireland on grid accepted power so you cant see the whole picture as its "confidential" so no, we dont know what the true capacity factors are.

Fabo

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

this time of year minimum demand drops to 2GW at night, if we get a windy night half of that could come from wind.

We'd only need 1GW of dispatchable generation out of an 7.4GW installed capacity , so yeah most of the gas plant would be idle. But that's the whole point of gas, it can follow demand.

sorry but if it lies idle it goes out of business

Macha

Fabo wrote: »

sorry but if it lies idle it goes out of business

Or it gets a payment under the PSO levy