How do we ensure a supply of Electricity in years of less wind ? 8

[MJCronin]

Recent important article about wind variability:

https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-...YjrcDwOEDEdoT_-nIzvd39UMoPYAKFwZsc3K0emqNM_ow

How will it be possible to construct a renewable electric generation grid with both daily and yearly swings in wind supply ?

Yes, a renewable system with battery back-up can address daily load swings .... but what about yearly or regionally wind supply swings ?

Doesn't this variability, in effect, MANDATE a fossil fueled backup system ?

Will this mean that a massive infrastructure of fossil/nuclear fueled generation must be available for swings in supply ?

... or will we all be waiting silently in our electric vehicles waiting for the wind to blow ?

.... or will the prancing renewable power MBA cheerleaders simply throw their hands up and say "Well,... that's something that the engineers will figure out !!"



MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[1503-44]

Obviously you build more turbines.

Yeah, that article is rubbish. Fossil fuel propaganda. The only real problem there is the price of their stock and their power accounting and production planning. If they wanted to keep production at a fixed level, we'll guess what, they should have installed more turbines for light wind years. Then they could switch some off during windy years. But it doesn't work like that. They do not have a fixed production factory. They don't have over production limits either, except for nameplate capacity. They hardly ever switch them off cause they're making too much electricity. They operate on variable production capacity. They depend on the wind. We all know that varies. Some days they make more, some less. Their profit will vary accordingly. If they want the same profit each year, they'll have to build more turbines for light years and switch some off during windy years. Right. They're not going to do that. They just sell more during windy years and complain that profits are falling because the winds light this year.

Many years of data show that there is variability in strength of wind, rather than having wind, or not having wind. You just need to install enough wind turbines to meet your required Watts during years when the wind is not as strong as others.

Like solar, some days are brighter than others, so you install enough cells to get the power you need on overcast days and sell more to the grid when its cool and bright.

The only problem with wind, besides the obvious, is that the best onshore sites are taken and the offshore sites are rapidly disappearing.

 

[GregLocock]

Even a whole continent like Australia (as big as the USA) can have a continent wide wind drought that lasts for days. Building enough wind turbines to generate enough power for the entire country on windless days is unfeasible. Batteries likewise.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[1503-44]

"Australia can have a continent wide wind drought that lasts for days."

Solar has problems in high latitude winters too.
Wave machines don't work in the Sahara.
Australia is screwed.
Don't export your LNG.
Build your nukes.

 

[hokie66]

1503-44
You are preaching to the converted. Please tell it to the greenies in Australia. World's largest resources of low cost uranium, but no political will to overcome the naysayers.

 

[1503-44]

No worries. Thgey will quickly tire of waiting for wind to the move the prarie schooners.

We have had wind here every single day this year. I'm waiting for it to stop. A connection in my patio cover snapped last week due to wind induced vibration fatigue.

 

[MJCronin]

Parts of North America experienced a "wind draught" of up to 18% in 2015 .....

In the first 2 quarters, average wind speeds were at least 9% below average, and in some places more than 18% below average, throughout most of the West, the Great Plains, and Mexico. These deficits affected some of the continent’s largest concentrations of wind plants, and consequently had a huge impact on the wind industry’s production and revenues in this period. (Typically, every percent decrease in average wind speed produces roughly a 1.5%-2% decrease in average output.)

https://aws-dewi.ul.com/the-north-american-wind-drought/

Yes, offshore wind turbines have a much more consistent power delivery .... but the ocean places selected for installation AND the necessary beachfront power transmission equipment are getting legal challenges ...

The fluffy, butthole MBA solution of "Just make more wind turbines !!!" or "Those engineers will think of something!" doesn't cut it ....

The daily and yearly variability in wind supply will MANDATE a practical mixed system of renewable and fossil/nuclear fueled generation for decades to come ..

Despite the fact that Biden's Energy appointee Jennifer Grandholm (attorney and talk show host) will tell you otherwise ...

MJCronin
Sr. Process Engineer

 

[1503-44]

So what. In high wind years the max output is probably 18% above average.
You can switch them off during high wind years if you want to, but I dont think Vestes will go along with that. They do studies on each potential site and they know the probabilities of how much they might generate and how little they might generate way before they buy in.

All this is nothing new. There are practical limits to everything. Everyone knows the wind doesn't blow all the time and it gets dark at night. We need to take advantage of ALL power sources wherever and whenever we can. That includes wind turbines in both low and high wind years. You can turn off the coal generators during high wind years, but only if you have enough wind turbines to take advantage of it, During low wind years you run gas. Even my 80yr old aunt knows this.

The linked article wasn't even discussing that. It totally missed the point you are trying to make. It was all about lower profits for wind producers. Nothing else. Other than that, yes a mix of power sources is necessary. That's why the world isn't all nukes or wind turbines today. Theoretically there is an optimum mix for each region depending on probable availability, both today and future, cost of setup and operation, other advantages and disadvantages, some in the eye of the beholder and politics. It is not likely to be a constant ratio of each to the other for any length of time as all the variables have multiple dependencies.

 

Will this mean that a massive infrastructure of fossil/nuclear fueled generation must be available for swings in supply ?

When you build wind you also need to build a reliable backup; that is precisely what Ontario has done. We threw billions at a foreign company, but we pay Nuclear to keep running while paying way over the odds for wind power.

It's what happens when you leave the running of a country to politicians. It's why I consider Ontario a failed state (province).

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Obviously you build more turbines.

I didn't read the article. So, I cannot comment on how much (or little) rubbish is in the article.

However, I would like to point out that the question (for me, at least) isn't so much about how many wind turbines or such to build or what type of power to use. But, how to best reduce our carbon emissions while still providing adequate power to support our economy.

It's not an anathema to acknowledge that you need back-up power generation on the grid. That might be nuclear, it might still be fossil fuels for now. But, if we've moved off the majority of our power coming from fossil fuels then we've moved greatly in the right direction.

There is too much "doom and gloom" among a lot of people related to Global Warming (IMO). That's from both sides. You've got the global warming "alarmists" who insist that the world is going to be catastrophically affected by this. Where only bad things come from warmer temperatures and this is a more existential crisis than WWI, WWII or nuclear war.

The other side (call them the "skeptics") take the attitude that ONLY fossil fuels can supply our energy needs and that everything else is a fairy tale.

 

[1503-44]

We do not have the luxury of ignoring ANY power source. We are addicted to power in all of its forms. Each have advantages and disadvantages. We need to maximise the use of the advantageous forms when we can. There is not always a choice, but when there is, we must make the right decisions. It won't always be the cheapest in the short term, but then when do you ever get the best solution when minimising cost is your paramount objective.

 

[GregLocock]

Sure. It's exactly the same decision process as I go through when specifying the power system for my off grid home. I've got solar, batteries, generator. Trying to eliminate the generator by beefing up the other two would take the cost of the system from around $4500 to $17000, and increase the annual running costs from $200 for batteries and $360 in fuel, to $800 in batteries. Of course I would then be able to walk around safe in my ideological purity, but if those numbers are at all indicative then electricity is going to get very expensive if all dispatchable generation is eliminated.

Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[SnTMan]

These kinds of pragmatic decision-making is exactly what both of JoshPlumSE's factions cannot abide. One the one hand we must unilaterally stop the use of all fossil fuels now. On the other we must do nothing. I cannot image what it is going to take to make reasonable approaches, well, reasonable.

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[1503-44]

Burning cheap fossil fuel problem will solve itself one way or another, albeit maybe too late for climate change. Higher costs are inevitable when cheap is not the best option. The underlying question is, will be be able to throw the switch to alternate sources, or not, to a safe nuclear and CC/coal, et al.when cheap oil and gas run out 2060. It will be too expensive to burn well before that. And when you can't get diesel, or the price tripples, your battery cost will look good. Until then, you just have to realize that's a cost of living off grid, rather than pay high city taxes, car parking and condo maintenance fees, or you are a visionary ahead of his time.

 

[GregLocock]

Are you intentionally missing the point? in my own case it is easy to demonstrate why I have the energy/storage mix I have. On a country wide base it is not beyond the wit of man to do so, and in fact the UK network authority do publish sufficient historical data with enough granularity that you can estimate how many batteries you need to replace one coal plant, etc. (here in oz it is 'proprietary'). You don't have to use just $, you could put a carbon price in as well. Sure, it is complex, but it isn't higher maths.




Cheers

Greg Locock


New here? Try reading these, they might help FAQ731-376

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm?

 

[1503-44]

No. I agree with you.
Its an additional point.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Sure. It's exactly the same decision process as I go through when specifying the power system for my off grid home. I've got solar, batteries, generator. Trying to eliminate the generator by beefing up the other two would take the cost of the system from around $4500 to $17000, and increase the annual running costs from $200 for batteries and $360 in fuel, to $800 in batteries. Of course I would then be able to walk around safe in my ideological purity, but if those numbers are at all indicative then electricity is going to get very expensive if all dispatchable generation is eliminated.

Brilliantly put. Thank you!

 

[AutisticBez]

To me nuclear power is the only option. It perfectly fits all green energy requirements, and the only downside is it will pollute the environment making the area uninhabitable to the human race, in which case the planet will sigh with great relief because humans cause climate change and less humans is good for the planet. Thus, nuclear power is the only option, unless you are the type of person who also thinks expensive projects like the Hyperloop are a great solution to mass transit. And that all roads should be covered in solar freaking panels.

When you have autism, its so easy. The answer is nuclear and anything else is simply normies pretending to be smart. Seriously, stop it. History will record renewable energy as humans wasting what little chance at future survival on vanity projects. If you ask me, all of this is insanity.

 

[1503-44]

Nice rant.

 

[rb1957]

"... shame about the face" ?

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?