Wind farms - ugly truths

AngryHippie · 19-05-2014 3:18am

Wouldn't the easiest way to tackle all of the problems listed be to improve energy storage capacity (Pumped storage, thermal storage etc.) so that it can become the primary infrastructure ? Rather than throwing it in the too hard pile ?

Energy demands are only going one way, and Energy supply is getting pulled the other.....

Cookie_Monster · 19-05-2014 3:19am

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

bur · 19-05-2014 3:52am

Who could argue with that font?

jca · 19-05-2014 3:57am

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

Free for who? Not the consumer anyway. The "for a while" part of your post proves the op's point....

ted1 · 19-05-2014 4:16pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Wouldn't the easiest way to tackle all of the problems listed be to improve energy storage capacity (Pumped storage, thermal storage etc.) so that it can become the primary infrastructure ? Rather than throwing it in the too hard pile ?

Energy demands are only going one way, and Energy supply is getting pulled the other.....

So because the mass marketed RES is so inadequate in meeting our baseload or general energy needs,
we have to spend a fortune developing other RES to meet up its shortfall.
so we'll end up with even dearer electricity.

ted1 · 19-05-2014 4:21pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

any source to back that up?

what happens this week when the wind is not blowing? That's right they source it from fossil plants. but the fossil plant wasn't working last week because the wind was free.

was the fossil plant cycling last week, shut down, or idling away?

surely the fossil plant had to pay bills last week that can only be recovered this week so the costs goes up.

so the net result is the same AUP. emissions will probably remain static due to baseload plants and spinning reserve operating at low efficiency

TimeToShine · 19-05-2014 4:32pm

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

What about the ugly truth that energy was free in Garmany for a while last week thanks to abundant wind energy?

Germany are constraining the synchronous grid in continental Europe because of what you think is free wind energy. This "free" energy you speak of was paid for by bordering countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic who had to ramp down power stations to accommodate this influx of power. The supergrid simply cannot accomodate such an unpredictable source of energy without someone paying for it. Energy constraints are extremely inefficient and costly to the grid as a whole, as can be seen in the case of continental Europe - a direct result of wind energy. Of course if you cherry pick data from one country it will look favourable.

The Germans are under pressure because they can't be seen going back on their renewable energy promises. This green image its politicians are selling to the people has manifested itself as an integral part of their electricity supply. Constraining their wind energy is, synergy wise, the best option for all involved but it won't happen.

fclauson · 19-05-2014 4:51pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

..

Energy demands are only going one way

Interestingly no - electrical demand has dropped in Ireland

read the attached report

KEY FINDINGS:

• Including the East West interconnector, Ireland's back-up capacity increased by 21% since 2006. This is despite falling demand. For every 1MW of wind, 1MW of back up conventional (dispatchable) generation was built.

• An additional 1,200 MW (at least) of fossil fuel/dispatchable plant is required to back-up the amount of additional wind farms required to meet the renewable targets - that's equivalent to a plant 1 and a half times the size of Moneypoint.

• Reducing demand for electricity in Ireland is crucial to reaching renewable targets. Irish govt are in precarious situation whereby they have to encourage growth and resulting increased electricity and at the same time encourage less electricity use.

• Grid25 needed to accommodate extra wind and back-up capacity to keep the system secure. Eirgrid admit this will have potential environmental effects.

• Capacity payments have increased and will increase more to keep back-up generators viable. All paid for by you and me.

• No justification given for the surplus of generation supply. Ireland still dependent on EWIC despite this surplus and reduced demand.

• Tarbert heavy fuel oil plant, one of the most polluting plants in Ireland, was due to close last year but will now stay open until after 2020. In other words, it's (paradoxically) crucial to meeting our renewable targets.

• Due to increasing wind penetration, back-up plant has been forced to cycle frequently, increasing the risk of unexpected outages. So we have a crazy situation whereby additional back-up plant is required to back-up existing back-up which accounts for the surplus of generation supply.

ted1 · 19-05-2014 7:32pm

AngryHippie wrote: »

Wouldn't the easiest way to tackle all of the problems listed be to improve energy storage capacity (Pumped storage, thermal storage etc.) so that it can become the primary infrastructure ? Rather than throwing it in the too hard pile ?

Energy demands are only going one way, and Energy supply is getting pulled the other.....

Energy demands have decreased during the recession and also machines are getting more energy efficient and people are managing it better.

Macha · 19-05-2014 8:36pm

What a load of complete nonsense.

deegs · 19-05-2014 8:47pm

What a load of balony.... Comparing the efficiency of wind power (itself a relatively new tech) with other older established energy is like comparing a model t to a Ferrari.

Wind energy in conjunction with other energy types has huge potential. Wind energy is not as good as it gets right now, but in in a few years time people will look back on arguments such as above and wonder how people could be so naive.
Kinda how some view the people who said climate change was a myth...

jinghong · 19-05-2014 8:53pm

deegs wrote: »

What a load of balony.... Comparing the efficiency of wind power (itself a relatively new tech) with other older established energy is like comparing a model t to a Ferrari.

Wind energy in conjunction with other energy types has huge potential. Wind energy is not as good as it gets right now, but in in a few years time people will look back on arguments such as above and wonder how people could be so naive.
Kinda how some view the people who said climate change was a myth...

Can you address the specific issues posed, rather than making a fact free rant - I'm actually interested in hearing the opposing view point - if there is factual content behind it

fclauson · 19-05-2014 9:46pm

Macha wrote: »

What a load of complete nonsense.

Kindly elaborate - to which of the many posts are you referring

fclauson · 19-05-2014 9:49pm

deegs wrote: »

Wind energy in conjunction with other energy types has huge potential.

May be - but if it don't blow there is no energy and if it don't blow for a number of days any amount of stored energy will become depleted.

So you will always need some for of back up
and that backup MUST be able to service the full demand of the grid

Macha · 19-05-2014 10:29pm

fclauson wrote: »

Kindly elaborate - to which of the many posts are you referring

The first one. I don't even know where to begin correcting it.

deegs · 19-05-2014 10:36pm

jinghong wrote: »

Can you address the specific issues posed, rather than making a fact free rant - I'm actually interested in hearing the opposing view point - if there is factual content behind it

Sorry, I didn't really see any 'issues', per se, posted...
Just some balony in the first post, and generally, any other posts thereafter supporting that opinion...

I'd be happy to give you factual content, you give me yours first other than a jpg

deegs · 19-05-2014 10:51pm

fclauson wrote: »

May be - but if it don't blow there is no energy and if it don't blow for a number of days any amount of stored energy will become depleted.

So you will always need some for of back up
and that backup MUST be able to service the full demand of the grid

That is such a simplistic viewpoint....

Do you know that the feasibility planning for any new farm is a long and difficult process. Looking purely at wind potential, countless met weather and wind mapping data is analysed as well as wind logging for a period of years to determine potential. Genetic algorithms can then be run to analyse what positioning each turbine needs to limit the wake effects and efficiencies with regard to the other turbines. This is all run for seperate turbine manufacturers and placements given several other constraints like access, land ownership.

Software in some cases can run for months non stop 24 hours a day and have a team of engineers working on it for dozens of sites. Most will be rejected. At the end of the day a variable is fed out that considers all factors (wind potential being one).

Bottom line if it is feasible to set up they will, if they won't they won't. Wind energy is a big business.... Ain't no one gonna invest tens of millions for setup and hundreds of thousands annually on o&m if they haven't considered the days it "don't blow" as you put it.........

Seriously.... Come on!

And that's just wind, exact same goes for solar, marine, fossil fuel etc. it's simply a numbers game that needs to be balanced.

ted1 · 19-05-2014 11:30pm

deegs wrote: »

That is such a simplistic viewpoint....

Do you know that the feasibility planning for any new farm is a long and difficult process. Looking purely at wind potential, countless met weather and wind mapping data is analysed as well as wind logging for a period of years to determine potential. Genetic algorithms can then be run to analyse what positioning each turbine needs to limit the wake effects and efficiencies with regard to the other turbines. This is all run for seperate turbine manufacturers and placements given several other constraints like access, land ownership.

Software in some cases can run for months non stop 24 hours a day and have a team of engineers working on it for dozens of sites. Most will be rejected. At the end of the day a variable is fed out that considers all factors (wind potential being one).

Bottom line if it is feasible to set up they will, if they won't they won't. Wind energy is a big business.... Ain't no one gonna invest tens of millions for setup and hundreds of thousands annually on o&m if they haven't considered the days it "don't blow" as you put it.........

Seriously.... Come on!

And that's just wind, exact same goes for solar, marine, fossil fuel etc. it's simply a numbers game that needs to be balanced.

A wind farm operator making a profit isn't what this thread is about. Of course they make a profit and there's plenty of tax schemes along with REFIT to ensure that they do.

However ignoring the profit the operator makes they are not the answer to out energy needs. They can not provide baseload. And require alternative supplies who will require A CMP or similar

fclauson · 20-05-2014 8:50am

There are three threads to this discussion:

Technical design
Financial model for the operator
Benefit to the grid and end user

For the technical design I agree there are some very clever people who can build the very best model for getting the max out of a specific wind farm site.

The financial model is interesting - (see a posts by Warren Buffet) - if you have a model where for a specific up front investment you will receive a guaranteed return for 20 years - regardless if your end product is needed & you are given tax incentives and paybacks guarantees (all of which are written into law) - then a providing the model pays who would not invest.

Which leaves the benefit to the grid and end user. Take the past few days - for around 3000Mgw installed capacity we are getting sub 3% of output due to low winds. To make up this deficit Eirgrid/ESB Networks have had to generate more and import more (the imported being a mix of fossil and nuclear). And all the while billions of euro of hardware is sat stuck into the sky doing practically nothing. When the wind does pick up in a day or two the grid operator (bound by legislation) will have to take that "renewable" power, run down there fossil plants and reduce the import of foreign electricity. They have to continuously juggle this mix based on the weather which as I put in my opening post puts considerable inefficiencies into the network and most importantly considerable cost to the end user. Check your bill for public service obligation which is a fee to go to "renewable" providers to have that kit stuck there which only runs when the wind blows.

deegs · 20-05-2014 10:06am

ted1 wrote: »

A wind farm operator making a profit isn't what this thread is about. Of course they make a profit and there's plenty of tax schemes along with REFIT to ensure that they do.

However ignoring the profit the operator makes they are not the answer to out energy needs. They can not provide baseload. And require alternative supplies who will require A CMP or similar

My points had nothing to do with profit. It's about feasibility. It it consumes more to extract than the power converted then it is not feasible. It if consumes less to extract then it is feasible. This includes non windy days, due to averaging. And note the consumption model used may not be exclusively financial...
If it is then feasible then operators can see what they can add on to it to make a profit... But it must be feasible first. Plenty of feasible site in Ireland that are not used for other reasons, that have not even been presented to corporate entities.

Anyway This is going off topic. Main point... Op image is nonsense.

fclauson · 20-05-2014 12:53pm

deegs wrote: »

My points had nothing to do with profit. It's about feasibility. It it consumes more to extract than the power converted then it is not feasible. It if consumes less to extract then it is feasible. This includes non windy days, due to averaging. And note the consumption model used may not be exclusively financial...
If it is then feasible then operators can see what they can add on to it to make a profit... But it must be feasible first. Plenty of feasible site in Ireland that are not used for other reasons, that have not even been presented to corporate entities.

Anyway This is going off topic. Main point... Op image is nonsense.

Using your example - without subsidy wind farms do not "consume less than to extract" particularly as you need backup reserve for when they are not producing.

ford2600 · 20-05-2014 1:15pm

fclauson wrote: »

Using your example - without subsidy wind farms do not "consume less than to extract" particularly as you need backup reserve for when they are not producing.

Ladies/Gents is this discussions really about order not energy?

We don't pay for energy, we pay for order; lights that work when we click a switch, heating that switches on when we want it etc.

Nuclear, modern fossil fuel fired plants etc are high order systems; they deliver xMW when and where you need it.

Wind is a low order system(unreliable supply) and to fit in to a modern economy needs a dispersed collection system with the inbuilt losses as per the 2nd Law with all the power conversions involved.

Modern economies need an ordered system, a discussion on wind is not an honest one without a discussion on the cost of increasing the order of energy supply to fit into a modern energy supply system.

A note on efficiency; generally throughout human evolution, since hunter gathers first put order on wilderness by becoming farmers we have, increased how efficiently we can order the world. However each increase in efficiency has come with an increase in gross energy; a modern car is much more efficient than a model T but there are infinitely more modern cars, hence higher gross energy usage, ditto led's etc.

Expecting we can power a modern economy by increasing efficiency and relying to any great degree on wind ignores the issues of order and the counter intuitive cost of increased efficiency.

ted1 · 20-05-2014 2:34pm

deegs wrote: »

My points had nothing to do with profit. It's about feasibility. It it consumes more to extract than the power converted then it is not feasible. It if consumes less to extract then it is feasible. This includes non windy days, due to averaging. And note the consumption model used may not be exclusively financial...
If it is then feasible then operators can see what they can add on to it to make a profit... But it must be feasible first. Plenty of feasible site in Ireland that are not used for other reasons, that have not even been presented to corporate entities.

Anyway This is going off topic. Main point... Op image is nonsense.

your points have every thing to do with profit. That is why wind farms are put up. That is what the feasibility is to test for.
Eirgrid do not do a feasibility test the company proposing the wind farm do. So the feasibility is purely down to profit and zero to do with adding benefits to the grid our providing

The OP was not questioning their feasibility, hew was demonstrating how they do not do much to help with CO2 reduction and that they are often hyped as the answer to out climate issues, but are in fact really useless in reducing CO2

Grudaire · 20-05-2014 10:08pm

ted1 wrote: »

The OP was not questioning their feasibility, hew was demonstrating how they do not do much to help with CO2 reduction and that they are often hyped as the answer to out climate issues, but are in fact really useless in reducing CO2

That was the argument in the OP, but he didn't actually show that CO2 emissions aren't being cut as a result of the windfarm policy.

If there are figures to back up that argument I'd be interested in seeing them?

fclauson · 20-05-2014 10:31pm

The SEAI have been preparing a report on this - their current report ignores the spinning reserve which is the elephant in the room

The report has been promised for a month and I'll post it when available

Eirgrid publish a CO2 intensity number and a total Co2 but it explicitly excludes co2 generated by dispatchable but un committed reserve (ie the spare capacity which can get switched in at a moments notice)

There are a number of parties who have asked for these numbers but got no reply

Also they asked for - for a specific demand number - where wind is say 15% - which other plants are providing the deficit and more importantly what plants have actually been spun down

From memory to spin up money point coal fired takes 6hrs to 9 hrs plus they cannot let it go cold because that would involve a boiler service/re bricking

If it's not spun back to a significant extent when there is excess wind then there is no co2 saving but there is a massive cost overhead

ted1 · 20-05-2014 10:50pm

Don't forget the mox mix and sox increase

deegs · 20-05-2014 11:04pm

ted1 wrote: »

The OP was not questioning their feasibility, hew was demonstrating how they do not do much to help with CO2 reduction and that they are often hyped as the answer to out climate issues, but are in fact really useless in reducing CO2

The op was an image with some lines that read more like a poem than scientific facts.
That ain't a demonstration....

I'd love to see your peer reviewed stats about how they are 'useless' at reducing co2
I know you didn't start the thread but the op is not very forthcoming with evidence.....

ted1 · 20-05-2014 11:44pm

Page 25 on is an interesting read
http://www.powertrans.com.au/UserFiles//file//PDFs//EG-4-13.pdf

As is this
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/hughes-windpower.pdf

deegs · 21-05-2014 7:48am

ted1 wrote: »

Page 25 on is an interesting read
http://www.powertrans.com.au/UserFiles//file//PDFs//EG-4-13.pdf

As is this
http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/hughes-windpower.pdf

A report generated by a commercial entity with a clear bias towards the content is not really what one might call "peer reviewed" or unbiased....(I would even be wary to call it scientific!) rather its most likely director reviewed.... hence, all but useless...

Try sources that are at least beyond disrepute, for example:

Brekken, T. K., Yokochi, A., Von Jouanne, A., Yen, Z. Z., Hapke, H. M., & Halamay, D. A. (2011). Optimal energy storage sizing and control for wind power applications. Sustainable Energy, IEEE Transactions on, 2(1), 69-77.

Foley, A. M., Leahy, P. G., Marvuglia, A., & McKeogh, E. J. (2012). Current methods and advances in forecasting of wind power generation. Renewable Energy, 37(1), 1-8

Vidyanandan, K. V., & Senroy, N. (2013). Primary frequency regulation by deloaded wind turbines using variable droop. Power Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 28(2), 837-846.

All these have had experts conduct analysis and experts perform a stringent blind review process to determine quality and accuracy.

Hence, my position that the OP is balony!

Bigus · 21-05-2014 8:29am

I'll take my irish wind power the next time there's an oil crisis , even if it's only sporadic , hopefully there'll be enough electric cars and bikes and vans around to keep us mobile too, unlike the last 73 crisis or next war.

Wind farms - ugly truths

Comments