Wind farms - ugly truths

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34767194

I don't see any facts or figures or studies in that link to support any of the assertains on that table. Seems to be a hastily assembled puff piece/list of predictions designed to convey a certain agenda.Given the evidence on these matters up till now, they are likely to be as about as accurate as the $200 per barrel oil prediction from a few years back. The facts are that energy bills in the UK have followed the upward trend seen in vitually every other country that has gone down the wind/solar route in an era of falling oil/gas prices. The claims hold even less water when you consider what happened on the UK grid just last week as referred to earlier.

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

Hinkley Point C?
.

So your arguement is to keep ploughing money into wind/solar and to hell with baseload??

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

You could also argue they've failed to invest properly in their renewables. Every source of power needs apropriate back up - wind ,nuclear ,gas or coal needs apropriate back up . Usually gas suits most situations - old coal generators would not be seen as apropriate back up for most scenarios - they're base load ( and probably considered not the most reliable but cheap base load)

Whats the point in backing up baseload with a source of power that is not baseload or reliably dispatcheable at peak demand times

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

The facts are that energy bills in the UK have followed the upward trend seen in vitually every other country that has gone down the wind/solar route in an era of falling oil/gas prices.

So you’re saying prices have fallen in countries that have not “gone down the wind/solar route”? Because data on Eurostat suggests otherwise:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=ten00117

Birdnuts wrote: »

So your arguement is to keep ploughing money into wind/solar and to hell with baseload??

Yet more evidence, as if it were needed, that you’re not actually reading anything anyone posts.

I was pointing out that the UK is investing upwards of £18 billion in Hinkley Point C.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

Whats the point in backing up baseload with a source of power that is not baseload or reliably dispatcheable at peak demand times

I think you're conflating three different aspects of power systems here. Energy (which wind/solar are phenomenally reliable at producing in the long term), Capacity margin (which wind/solar typically don't get paid for), and Reserve requirements (which wind/solar never set as a couple of MW is never going to be the largest plant on the system).

Something doesn't need to be great at all of these categories to be a net benefit to the system.

GB is having a rough time of it right now because they didn't put enough money into their capacity payments and got caught on the hop - that's why they're having to scramble now (and pay a premium) to get old plant back from mothballing.

Markcheese

Birdnuts wrote:

Whats the point in backing up baseload with a source of power that is not baseload or reliably dispatcheable at peak demand times

I dont think they did ... I think ( from reading the article) the base load ( or several coal generating stations ) went off line unexpectedly... and there wasnt sufficent back up for this... if there had been windy conditions they'd have got away with this . As it was they went to plan B .
The wind generation performed as expected on the day - the coal base load didn't

But I suppose anything can be spun to suit any argument :-)

Markcheese

Birdnuts wrote:

So your arguement is to keep ploughing money into wind/solar and to hell with baseload??

Base load at any price ???
If new subsidised nuclear power(unbacked up ) costs about the same (or a lot more) as renewables and its back up ( usually gas) , and takes a lot lot longer to bring on line then do we really want it ?
Especially since the nuclear waste still has to be dealt with . Sometime. Later. In the distant future.maybe?

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

So you’re saying prices have fallen in countries that have not “gone down the wind/solar route”? Because data on Eurostat suggests otherwise:

C.

Reads more like a damming inditement of the German driven EU energy policies/targets which have forced countries across the block to go down the wind/solar route. No wonder consumers are struggling to see the benefits of lower oil/gas prices in many EU countries. And you can be sure that these reneweable energy targets will be the subject of much negoitiation between the EU and the UK as Cameron names his price for staying in the bloc. Especcially in light of the UK's recent cuts in supports to wind/solar in order to reign in escalating energy costs.

PS: I await Eurostats 2015 energy price table which like the 2014 version(much referred to in this thread) will confirm which countries energy mix is working for the consumer.

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

I dont think they did ... I think ( from reading the article) the base load ( or several coal generating stations ) went off line unexpectedly... and there wasnt sufficent back up for this... if there had been windy conditions they'd have got away with this . As it was they went to plan B .
The wind generation performed as expected on the day - the coal base load didn't

But I suppose anything can be spun to suit any argument :-)

How is this an argument to keep adding more wind to the grid??

Birdnuts

Markcheese wrote: »

Base load at any price ???
If new subsidised nuclear power(unbacked up ) costs about the same (or a lot more) as renewables and its back up ( usually gas) , and takes a lot lot longer to bring on line then do we really want it ?
Especially since the nuclear waste still has to be dealt with . Sometime. Later. In the distant future.maybe?

Baseload is a requirment for every grid - no matter how you do it. If it needs backing up(and the problem with the UK situation is they failed to maintain such plant, while ploughing a fortune into wind/solar) then it makes sense to do it with something reliable like gas rather than wind/solar that as last week showed, fails miserably when needed most

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

Reads more like a damming inditement of the German driven EU energy policies/targets which have forced countries across the block to go down the wind/solar route.

You mean countries like France?

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

Baseload is a requirment for every grid - no matter how you do it. If it needs backing up(and the problem with the UK situation is they failed to maintain such plant, while ploughing a fortune into wind/solar) then it makes sense to do it with something reliable like gas rather than wind/solar that as last week showed, fails miserably when needed most

What exactly did last week show?

You seem a bit confused about what happened in the UK last week... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/wind-is-not-driving-the-uk-towards-power-blackouts?CMP=twt_gu

SeanW

djpbarry wrote: »

The following is taken from the Council of European Energy Regulator’s latest report on the Continuity of Electricity Supply:


Germany and Denmark have two of the most stable electricity supplies in Europe.

Yeah, another nice little strawman, up there with the constant references to EPRs which I never advocated.

The problems with the grid in Germany aren't with power drops that can be measured in minutes, but milliseconds. To sensitive industrial machinery, even a very small interruption measurable in milliseconds can cause the kind of damage I've been referrring to. Such a micro fluctation might not even be noticable by a residential user. Your graph shows that the lights rarely go out in Germany and Denmark, which is great, only it's totally unrelated to what I've been discussing.

And yes, I don't know much about German corportate law, but then again I assume that Der Spiegel does.

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

What exactly did last week show?

You seem a bit confused about what happened in the UK last week... http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/12/wind-is-not-driving-the-uk-towards-power-blackouts?CMP=twt_gu

No confusion at all and I don't need the wind fan boys at the guardian attempting to score points against the Tory press to know what actually happened. The facts are that the UK has failed to maintain adequate baseload for the past decade and instead blew the budget on wind/solar which has now come back to bite them. Exactly which part of that are you confused by??

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

You mean countries like France?

Not sure what you mean by this. France under Holland is determined to repeat the German experience with plans to ramp up wind/solar at the expense of nuclear and anyone who's been to mid France recently will be struck by the March of wind farms and pylons across former pristine valleys and mountains. Along with the many issues that brings for receiving communities, French power grid etc.

http://www.french-property.com/news/french_life/wind_turbines_france/print/

monument

Birdnuts wrote: »

No confusion at all and I don't need the wind fan boys at the guardian attempting to score points against the Tory press to know what actually happened. The facts are that the UK has failed to maintain adequate baseload for the past decade and instead blew the budget on wind/solar which has now come back to bite them. Exactly which part of that are you confused by??

You seem to be confused as by what happened, because they had more than adequate baseload. The notice was a run of the mill thing just looking more generation when carbon-burning plants failed.

If you think something else happened, could you please prove it?

Capt'n Midnight

SeanW wrote: »

The problems with the grid in Germany aren't with power drops that can be measured in minutes, but milliseconds. To sensitive industrial machinery, even a very small interruption measurable in milliseconds can cause the kind of damage I've been referrring to. Such a micro fluctation might not even be noticable by a residential user.

50Hz by definition means fluctuations every 20ms. (For three phase it's every 6.66mS)

Surge protectors and power conditioners exist. And have done for a very long time. Inertial would carry motors through, which is why the grid uses them for freq stability. Heating doesn't care because of thermal inertia. Most electronics these days uses switch mode so the power gets converted to DC first and then > 100KHz AC ( as in 10uS or less) and then to DC again.

djpbarry

SeanW wrote: »

The problems with the grid in Germany aren't with power drops that can be measured in minutes, but milliseconds. To sensitive industrial machinery, even a very small interruption measurable in milliseconds can cause the kind of damage I've been referrring to.

You need to read up on power electronics. You really think industrial plants just plug their equipment straight into the raw power supply with no regulation in-between?

SeanW wrote: »

Such a micro fluctation might not even be noticable by a residential user.

I don’t know about you, but virtually all the power supplies to electronic equipment in my home are equipped with surge protection.

SeanW wrote: »

Your graph shows that the lights rarely go out in Germany and Denmark, which is great, only it's totally unrelated to what I've been discussing.

No, it’s completely, 100% related to what is being discussed, but the problem is it doesn’t support your argument, so you’re dismissing it as a “straw man”.

I suggest you look up the meaning of the term “straw man”.

SeanW wrote: »

And yes, I don't know much about German corportate law, but then again I assume that Der Spiegel does.

I don’t assume that that journalists know much about anything, to be honest. Believing everything you read in a newspapers and magazines is inadvisable.

djpbarry

Birdnuts wrote: »

The facts are that the UK has failed to maintain adequate baseload for the past decade and instead blew the budget on wind/solar which has now come back to bite them. Exactly which part of that are you confused by??

The bit where the UK has set aside billions for a new nuclear power plant?

Birdnuts wrote: »

Not sure what you mean by this.

Pretty straightforward really. France gets most of its electricity from nuclear, yet the cost of electricity has been climbing there in recent years.

The fact is, electricity prices have been climbing across Europe in recent years, regardless of individual countries’ positions on wind, solar or whatever. The repeated claims of there being a correlation between wind roll-out and electricity prices don’t stand up to scrutiny.

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

No confusion at all and I don't need the wind fan boys at the guardian attempting to score points against the Tory press to know what actually happened. The facts are that the UK has failed to maintain adequate baseload for the past decade and instead blew the budget on wind/solar which has now come back to bite them. Exactly which part of that are you confused by??

I'm pretty sure there is a misunderstanding on your side here. Here is why wind isn't the cause of this:

1. The UK has at least 4 GW in mothballed plants due to the falloff in demand from the recession. They have the physical capacity.
2. This capacity is not available at short notice (a few weeks lead time is needed to come back from mothballing) because these plants did not win in the capacity auctions (and hence aren't getting paid for being there).
3. The amount of capacity auctioned for in capacity auctions is a function of the cost the system operator thinks is appropriate to pay to prevent lost load.
4. You can calculate the loss of load expectation associated with this cost, and hence the capacity required to be that reliable, via probabilistic methods (roughly by computing probabilities of losing multiple large plant at once via their forced outage probability). The chance of wind being at zero is explicitly accounted for in adequacy methods.
5. Without having exact details (which plant were involved and their characteristics), it's hard to quantify the exact probability of an event like this occurring. However, it's pretty clear cut that losing at least three major generators simultaneously is atypical (and as a result will be dealt with via emergency measures) even before you factor in it occurring at the same time as (previously forecast) low wind.
6. Given National Grid managed the event without blackouts, I'd say their adequacy calculations held up alright.

Birdnuts

djpbarry wrote: »

The fact is, electricity prices have been climbing across Europe in recent years, regardless of individual countries’ positions on wind, solar or whatever. The repeated claims of there being a correlation between wind roll-out and electricity prices don’t stand up to scrutiny.

I suggest you actually read the link I posted. France has added a serious amount of wind/solar during that time as anyone who has visited the place in recent years can attest too. You appear to be unaware of the German inspired EU reneweable energy targets that are impacting power generation across the continent

Birdnuts

monument wrote: »

You seem to be confused as by what happened, because they had more than adequate baseload. The notice was a run of the mill thing just looking more generation when carbon-burning plants failed.

If you think something else happened, could you please prove it?

I already posted a link on it - it wasn't a Guardian link so I take it you ignored it. The incident was down to the UK's failure to modernise its baseload plants leading to last weeks incident. The operators of the grid are clearly at fault for the incident

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there is a misunderstanding on your side here. Here is why wind isn't the cause of this:

1. The UK has at least 4 GW in mothballed plants due to the falloff in demand from the recession. They have the physical capacity.
2. This capacity is not available at short notice (a few weeks lead time is needed to come back from mothballing) because these plants did not win in the capacity auctions (and hence aren't getting paid for being there).
3. The amount of capacity auctioned for in capacity auctions is a function of the cost the system operator thinks is appropriate to pay to prevent lost load.
4. You can calculate the loss of load expectation associated with this cost, and hence the capacity required to be that reliable, via probabilistic methods (roughly by computing probabilities of losing multiple large plant at once via their forced outage probability). The chance of wind being at zero is explicitly accounted for in adequacy methods.
5. Without having exact details (which plant were involved and their characteristics), it's hard to quantify the exact probability of an event like this occurring. However, it's pretty clear cut that losing at least three major generators simultaneously is atypical (and as a result will be dealt with via emergency measures) even before you factor in it occurring at the same time as (previously forecast) low wind.
6. Given National Grid managed the event without blackouts, I'd say their adequacy calculations held up alright.

I'm well aware of the issues and how wind/solar has priority dispatch on the UK grid just as it does here on.The issue is that this approach is clearly flawed on many levels. The obvious question that arises is why the UK has failed to modernise its baseload capacity and at the same time mothballed other plants, while at the same time pursuing a massive and expensive expansion in wind/solar at a time when per capita energy demand is falling??. You think that approach makes sense??Your little piece also forgot to mention that the UK grid had to pay big industrial users of energy to "switch off" last week(known as the "demand side balancing reserve” (DSBR) measure). so that the country didn't suffer a major black out. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their recent energy policies now is it??

Capt'n Midnight

Birdnuts wrote: »

I already posted a link on it - it wasn't a Guardian link so I take it you ignored it. The incident was down to the UK's failure to modernise its baseload plants leading to last weeks incident. The operators of the grid are clearly at fault for the incident

What incident ?

Don't forget that we have lots of spare installed capacity and like demand shedding it's all a question of price. Paying over the odds for a small amount of extra power for a few hours a year is a lot cheaper than building new power stations.

And it's not like nuclear would have been a reliable alternative
http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-surry-reactor-offline-20151020-story.html

A faulty generator triggered an automatic shutdown at one unit last week, while the second unit was shut down early Monday for routine refueling that could take weeks to complete.

Birdnuts

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

What incident ?

Don't forget that we have lots of spare installed capacity and like demand shedding it's all a question of price. Paying over the odds for a small amount of extra power for a few hours a year is a lot cheaper than building new power stations.

ml

An energy system that has to pay big industrial users to shut down production is hardly one to inspire confidence. All at enormous costs to domestic and industrial users. No wonder the likes of the British Steel industry etc. are on their knees.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/oct/19/can-government-galvanise-the-ailing-uk-steel-industry

"Steelmakers argue the industry in the UK is faced with far higher energy costs than it can cope with and that the compensation packages promised in the March budget haven’t come soon enough.


Javid promised to put the energy-intensive package to compensate high energy users at the top of his agenda".

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

The issue is that this approach is clearly flawed on many levels. The obvious question that arises is why the UK has failed to modernise its baseload capacity and at the same time mothballed other plants, while at the same time pursuing a massive and expensive expansion in wind/solar at a time when per capita energy demand is falling??.

Actually, the majority of UK baseload plant are less than thirty years old so by most power system standards are relatively modern...

Birdnuts wrote: »

You think that approach makes sense??Your little piece also forgot to mention that the UK grid had to pay big industrial users of energy to "switch off" last week(known as the "demand side balancing reserve” (DSBR) measure). so that the country didn't suffer a major black out. Hardly a ringing endorsement of their recent energy policies now is it??

I did mention it - it's the last point. You seem to misunderstand the difference between balancing reserve and blacking out part of the grid. Demand side response is a prior contract where demand users are asked to shift some of their power requirement by a few hours. It's used because it is cheaper than contracting for another large generator that you rarely need to use. Demand response is a growing part of most developed power systems because it's a way of avoiding peak demand related costs by shifting energy use a couple of hours.

Look, I get you don't like wind - but not everything is about wind. The more you muddy the waters on things like this the harder you make any actual conversation about the positives and negatives because you damage understanding. Power systems aren't some fluffy subject you can waffle on - they're a complicated field of engineering which has been evolving for more than a century.

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

Actually, the majority of UK baseload plant are less than thirty years old so by most power system standards are relatively modern...



I did mention it - it's the last point. You seem to misunderstand the difference between balancing reserve and blacking out part of the grid. Demand side response is a prior contract where demand users are asked to shift some of their power requirement by a few hours. It's used because it is cheaper than contracting for another large generator that you rarely need to use. Demand response is a growing part of most developed power systems because it's a way of avoiding peak demand related costs by shifting energy use a couple of hours.

Look, I get you don't like wind - but not everything is about wind. The more you muddy the waters on things like this the harder you make any actual conversation about the positives and negatives because you damage understanding. Power systems aren't some fluffy subject you can waffle on - they're a complicated field of engineering which has been evolving for more than a century.

Sorry - am I meant to read your mind?? You never referred to DSBR measures in that post. I don't care either for your condescending tone in the second para above. Maybe you should read the title of this thread - its a discussion about wind farms in case you hadn't noticed, and like one or 2 others you seem to have a problem with anyone who isn't a wind developer fan boy. The facts are that the UK is cutting back wind/solar subsidies etc. on the basis of rising costs and other issues already highlighted in this thread. If this upsets you then maybe contact their Energy Minister with evidence that you know better.

PS: Your claim that the UK's baseload is "modern" is also false as my earlier link on the matter highlighted

"Several ageing coal-fired power plants had unexpected maintenance issues and temporarily shut down, experts said, reducing available supplies"

I'd love to know how spending more money on non-dispatchable wind/solar addresses that issue??

Now if you want to keep claiming there are no issues with recent UK's energy policies , then thats fine and dandy with me. But please spare me the arrogance creeping into to some of yours posts referring to others like myself that don't share your view of the world

L

Birdnuts wrote: »

Sorry - am I meant to read your mind?? You never referred to DSBR measures in that post.

You're right I didn't mention it specifically because it's a tiny minor component of the power system covered (along with a heap of other things) by my last point. It only became specifically relevant here when you misconstrued it.

Birdnuts wrote: »

I don't care either for your condescending tone in the second para above. Maybe you should read the title of this thread - its a discussion about wind farms in case you hadn't noticed, and like one or 2 others you seem to have a problem with anyone who isn't a wind developer fan boy.

I genuinely don't care what your opinion of wind is. I do care that you're misrepresenting facts to support your opinion on it. This means we can't have a meaningful discussion or argument around it because frankly you'd rather say "Wind sucks" than understand anything around it.

Birdnuts wrote: »

The facts are that the UK is cutting back wind/solar subsidies etc. on the basis of rising costs and other issues already highlighted in this thread. If this upsets you then maybe contact their Energy Minister with evidence that you know better.

The facts are the Tories are slashing and burning everything that moves to get their tax base down. If you want to base your view of the world on what they're cutting, go nuts - but you'll also need to reevaluate health care, social protection, legal aid, ag subsidies and state pensions.

Birdnuts wrote: »

PS: Your claim that the UK's baseload is "modern" is also false as my earlier link on the matter highlighted

Here is a list of generation currently available on the UK grid. You'll notice that only about a quarter of it predates 1985 and that's comprised of mostly hydro with a bit of Nuclear and coal. If you want to quibble about what I'm calling modern, go nuts - but lets argue with actual hard facts instead of cherry-picking.

Birdnuts wrote: »

Now if you want to keep claiming there are no issues with recent UK's energy policies , then thats fine and dandy with me. But please spare me the arrogance creeping into to some of yours posts referring to others like myself that don't share your view of the world

Please stop assigning a view of the world to me. If you keep the same opinion but start arguing based on real facts and policy, I'll be happy.

What you're calling arrogance feels like frustration from where I'm sitting. You want to change my level of frustration? Start arguing from a hard facts basis or at least stop assigning everything in power systems to "wind sucks".

Birdnuts

L wrote: »

The facts are the Tories are slashing and burning everything that moves to get their tax base down. If you want to base your view of the world on what they're cutting, go nuts - but you'll also need to reevaluate health care, social protection, legal aid, ag subsidies and state pensions.




Here is a list of generation currently available on the UK grid. You'll notice that only about a quarter of it predates 1985 and that's comprised of mostly hydro with a bit of Nuclear and coal. If you want to quibble about what I'm calling modern, go nuts - but lets argue with actual hard facts instead of cherry-picking.



".

I find it amazing your conflating welfare cuts affecting pensioners to wind developers being out of pocket. Says a lot about your view of the world. As for your other point. Why have a few older, poorly maintained coal plants become the basis of the UK's baseload generation , which led to that recent incident in tamdem will little or no power generation from wind/solar??. Suggests an energy policy that clearly has questions hanging over it.

PS: The UK is not the only country coming to its senses on wind/solar, albeit far too late in many cases

http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/24/europes-green-energy-industry-faces-collapse-as-subsidies-are-cut/

"
Spain new energy rates for green energy producers signal an end to subsidies for renewables that have been in place since the 1990s. The new rates are based on a “reasonable return” and are meant to rein in spiraling energy costs and an overproduction of green energy, reports Bloomberg.
The country became a poster child for green energy production after spending $68 billion (50 billion euros) over 25 years to boost wind, solar and other green energy generation. But subsidies and power costs spiraled out of control, costing the country more than $12 billion (9 billion euros) in 2013 alone.
On top of that, Spain didn’t actually appropriate enough money to actually fund all of their green spending, meaning the country took on huge amounts of energy debt — which reached more than $35 billion last July."


The good news though for Irelands most powerfully lobby group ie. the IWEA, is that Minister White is determined to plough on with the wind powered folly at the centre of our current energy policies regardless:rolleyes:.

Macha

[mod] Right, let's cut out this nonsense about other posters' world views. Debate the topic at hand and leave out the petty sniping [/mod]