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

 

[JoshPlumSE]

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,

My belief is that nuclear causes a lot less pollution (per megawatt) than we'd get with coal plants. Someone who knows more can pipe in here.

In the most well known case of nuclear waste problems (Hanford, Washington) the issue isn't so much the nuclear waste (although that's part of it). The real issue is someone had the bright idea of combining other types of waste were combined together.

As I understand it, nuclear waste has "gas emission" issues that require periodic venting, but they are otherwise easy to store.

The other materials that were combined with the nuclear waste were highly corrosive.

Adding the two together made the facility much, much more prone to leaking that would have happened otherwise.

Note: That we rarely hear of any other facilities that have issues with nuclear waste containment.... only Hanford.

 

[1503-44]

The problem with nukes are the low probability extremely consequencial events are not acceptable to current political palet. That may change, or it may not. Right now we have to build 20% more wind turbines for slack wind years, or learn to accept variable maximum capacities.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

The problem with nukes are the low probability extremely consequencial events are not acceptable to current political palet. That may change, or it may not. Right now we have to build 20% more wind turbines for slack wind years, or learn to accept variable maximum capacities.

I agree.... for the most part.

I think we're at the point where we have to move forward with all currently available options.
[ul]
[li]Expand the use of solar, wind, and hydro wherever possible and practical.[/li]
[li]Discontinue Coal Power wherever we can. Even if it means replacing it with other fossil fuel based power that will be more carbon friendly.[/li]
[li]Increase the cost of fossil fuels by taxing them at a higher rate than we do currently. Ideally, we'd increase this tax gradually so as not to have too sudden of an effect on inflation and our economy.[/li]
[li]Try like hell to change the public opinion on nuclear power.[/li]
[li]Use government subsidies to pay for wind, solar, hydro or nuclear projects. But, try to use these subsidies as efficiently as possible. Ideally, we'd use the income from our fossil fuel taxes or tariffs to pay for these subsidies.[/li]
[/ul]

 

[rb1957]

and research fusion power (for the long term)

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

 

and research fusion power (for the long term)

Unlimited cheap energy would be an unmitigated disaster for the planet and all the people on it.

(Doesn't anyone read ancient mythology anymore?)

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

 

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

"wind draught" is perfectly redundant .....

..... did you mean drought?

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

 

[AutisticBez]

The entire total of human nuclear waste to date would fit a medium sized warehouse. Its a joke when people complain about the waste aspect. Fuel is changed on a yearly cycle. Its tiny. The container is 10 times larger then actual waste.

 

[AutisticBez]

You spend all that wasted renewable energy investment on nuclear power, 100% we already solved climate change. There has been over 60 years of wasted human production on this green hoax. And now its batteries? How much of Africa has to be strip mined to solve the battery storage problem. Its epic vanity projects which will be the cause of human extinction. When we are all gone and the only life left on the planet is Tesla cars transporting imaginary people around.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

Note: That we rarely hear of any other facilities that have issues with nuclear waste containment.... only Hanford.

If you live in South Carolina, that is different: "Savannah River Site"

Right now we have to build 20% more wind turbines for slack wind years...

Nothing unusual about that. Equals an "availability factor" of 83% (reciprocal of 1.20), more or less comparable to traditional (gas, coal, nuclear) thermal power stations (availability factor of 85% +).

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[1503-44]

Or Fukushima.

Right. That was what my first post was about. Build 20% more, or wait for winter to eat your icecream, etc.

The linked article was complaining that variable profits were down. Nothing unusual about that when profits are directly linked to production = wind velocity. Its not a dot.com business. Nothing to see hare really.

 

[1503-44]

On the other hand, this study is interesting.
Energy economics and optimal generation mix of selected power plants technologies in Ghana

https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/...egion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20210818095959

 

[rb1957]

I do so hate how the word "optimal" is bandied about.

Any conclusion from the study would be sub-optimal by the time the paper came to print, let alone 2 years later.

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

 

[JoshPlumSE]

If you live in South Carolina, that is different: "Savannah River Site"

Wow, it's exactly the same thing! They combined other wastes together, now they are going to try "vitrification" which (I don't believe) has actually worked yet.

Thankfully, it sounds like they've had the major problems that Hanford has had. Some leakage, but it sounds like they've mostly dealt with it before it could makes it's way into the water table.

 

[SlideRuleEra]

Josh - A friend of mine has been working on decommissioning SRS for over 30 years, with no end in sight.

http://www.SlideRuleEra.net

 

[JoshPlumSE]

When I started my career (in the mid 1990's) my company was working on the Hanford site. I wasn't involved, but some of my cubicle neighbors were. Crazy stuff. Incredibly slow, and painful process. Almost like they don't even want to fix anything. That's not true, but it genuinely felt like it.

I always thought there should be a 2 level design process, 1) Quick and fast (call it emergency work) where you identifying failures (cannisters, storage tanks and such) and fixing (repairing, upgrading or replacing) them temporarily so that identified sources of leakage are stopped as soon as possible.... even though we know these new tanks and cannisters will continue to corrode over time. 2) A long term process to make sure this never happens again.

It seemed (from my limited exposure) that everyone was focused on #2 which has take 30+ years and is likely still on-going.

 

[GregLocock]

Here' the problem solving method we use, as you see we get three goes to solve the issue!
D0: Preparation and Emergency Response Actions: Plan for solving the problem and determine the prerequisites. Provide emergency response actions.
D1: Use a Team: Establish a team of people with product/process knowledge. Teammates provide new perspectives and different ideas when it comes to problem solving.
D2: Describe the Problem: Specify the problem by identifying in quantifiable terms the who, what, where, when, why, how, and how many (5W2H) for the problem.
D3: Develop Interim Containment Plan: Define and implement containment actions to isolate the problem from any customer.
D4: Determine and Verify Root Causes and Escape Points: Identify all applicable causes that could explain why the problem has occurred. Also identify why the problem was not noticed at the time it occurred. All causes shall be verified or proved. One can use five whys or Ishikawa diagrams to map causes against the effect or problem identified.
D5: Verify Permanent Corrections (PCs) for Problem that will resolve the problem for the customer: Using pre-production programs, quantitatively confirm that the selected correction will resolve the problem. (Verify that the correction will actually solve the problem).
D6: Define and Implement Corrective Actions: Define and implement the best corrective actions. Also, validate corrective actions with empirical evidence of improvement.
D7: Prevent Recurrence / System Problems: Modify the management systems, operation systems, practices, and procedures to prevent recurrence of this and similar problems.
D8: Congratulate the Main Contributors to your Team: Recognize the collective efforts of the team. The team needs to be formally thanked by the organization.

D8 is mythical

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[SnTMan]

Almost like they don't even want to fix anything.

Oh. Not like a Superfund site then

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

 

[GregLocock]

here's a neat plot, the wind turbine utilisation across the whole east coast of Australia, say 4000 km north to south, and 2000 east to west

https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2021/august

As you can see there are days at a time of 30% or less, and some at 50% or more.

There's a lot of good stuff on that website.

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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

 

[1503-44]

Those numbers are fairly good, especially when reaching 60% nameplate capacity. I suspect averaging over a year might bring them down to levels I'm more used to seeing, because I usually look at yearly averages. I see yearly Spanish data at 25 to 30% as more typical. The lowest has been 12%; highest still below 40%. I find as the area of interest and length of time increases, numbers tend to be lower, although the best sites can reach 50% during some yrs, but only the very best. That has long been my critism of wind turbine generation. In the end, they never get anywhere near nameplate capacity, to the point that I believe there are efficiency factors left out of the equations used to calculate power production over time from wind, such as inertia in swiveling around all the time to accommodate variable wind directions. When I try to correlate power production to actual weather wind speed data, I get higher power production than published figures suggest.

Seems a shame that 40% of capacity is extra build and never gets used.

Greg, how much of nameplate capacity do you get?

 

[GregLocock]

From solar I average 4 hours of nominal power per day, across the year. That varies by month obviously, typically in winter I get 20% of the best month

Cheers

Greg Locock


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

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