The Wind Power Problem

[waldo]

This is where you provide evidence of current storage capacity for generation of wind and solar. The only storage capacity in power grids is hydro, the rest is potential capacity in the form of offline generators. And none of it can be started instantly to respond to demand. But it still has to be built and maintained. Power generation capacity has always ahd a requirement for some redundancy in reliable generation, wind/solar make very little difference to that equation.

You are confusing operation of the grid with the necessity of redundancy, which is expensive but critical. Dead reliable electrical supply is the cornerstone of every industrialized society. Of course you can incoprorate wind/solar into daily operations, but you absolutely have to have reliable sources to meet 100%+ of demand. Wind/solar displaces virtually none of that essential element.

you're not getting it - clearly. Yes, that redundancy exists within the 'system'... built for peak demand, regardless. Of your several failed points, you seem to think additional (new) redundancy needs to be built/integrated to manage the so-called variability of wind. Notwithstanding you refuse to acknowledge the assortment of practices, already described to you, intended to manage that variability. By the way... how long does it take to bring a spinning turbine (hydro or combustion) online? In any case, you say lot... anything to substantiate what you're... saying?

[jbg]

you're not getting it - clearly. Yes, that redundancy exists within the 'system'... built for peak demand, regardless.

But the problem is that the "dirty" parts are needed for periods when sun and/or wind is not there. Those cannot restart on a moment's notice, say on a cloudy, windless, and hot day.

[waldo]

But the problem is that the "dirty" parts are needed for periods when sun and/or wind is not there. Those cannot restart on a moment's notice, say on a cloudy, windless, and hot day.

the "dirty parts" are needed anytime peak demand is hit... regardless on whether there is sun/wind integrated. Same question to you - how long does it take a spinning reserve (hydro or combustion) to be brought online?

[fellowtraveller]

you're not getting it - clearly. Yes, that redundancy exists within the 'system'... built for peak demand, regardless. Of your several failed points, you seem to think additional (new) redundancy needs to be built/integrated to manage the so-called variability of wind. Notwithstanding you refuse to acknowledge the assortment of practices, already described to you, intended to manage that variability. By the way... how long does it take to bring a spinning turbine (hydro or combustion) online? In any case, you say lot... anything to substantiate what you're... saying?

Yes, redundancy does have to be built to account for variable supply sources because the peak demand is a pretty firm number while supply is manufactured. There are two variables in your dreamworld, both of which require redundancy: variable supply sources such as wind/solar, and contingency for planned and emergency dowtime at conventional generators. Before the advent of wind/solar, there was need only for redundancy for the latter. They all need downtime for maintenance, and sometimes the downtime is unplanned. There are no options for redundancy to provide complete system reliability 24/7.

Time frames to wind up conventional power sources, redundant or not? Hours to days, depends on the individual plants. The turbine is not spinning, The boiler is not running. The water for hydro may not be sitting waiting. The time frames for nuclear, coal, gas can be long. You're used to flipping a switch on the wall and having a light bulb come on, it doesn't happen that way where the juice gets squeezed.

Edited May 8, 2012 by fellowtraveller

[fellowtraveller]

how long does it take a spinning reserve (hydro or combustion) to be brought online?

hours or days, but first it HAS TO BE BUILT because wind/solar cannot be relied upon at any time, much less high demand times.

[Guest Peeves]

For some reason I keep hearin Peter, Paul and Mary, and Blowin' in the Wind"

..Those were the days...my friend.

Gas was I think 35 cents/gal.

Blowin' in the Wind" is a song written by Bob Dylan in 1962

[dre]

This is where you provide evidence of current storage capacity for generation of wind and solar. The only storage capacity in power grids is hydro, the rest is potential capacity in the form of offline generators. And none of it can be started instantly to respond to demand. But it still has to be built and maintained. Power generation capacity has always ahd a requirement for some redundancy in reliable generation, wind/solar make very little difference to that equation.

You are confusing operation of the grid with the necessity of redundancy, which is expensive but critical. Dead reliable electrical supply is the cornerstone of every industrialized society. Of course you can incoprorate wind/solar into daily operations, but you absolutely have to have reliable sources to meet 100%+ of demand. Wind/solar displaces virtually none of that essential element.

This is where you provide evidence of current storage capacity for generation of wind and solar. The only storage capacity in power grids is hydro

Yes thats exactly the capacity Im talking about. Theres a shitload of hydro it all over the world that could be used to integrate intermittent energy sources into the grid.

[waldo]

Oh my, another unneeded critical opinion of a subject and reference.

Insert emoticon for derisive pfffffffffffffffft!

Hot damn I missed the communique elevating you to the master of the most high board blivic.

unneeded critical opinion? Really? Clearly you don't take well to challenge, hey?

clearly you have no qualms in linking to anything that supports your predilection, your agenda. You have no reservations in blindly linking to and/or quoting unsubstantiated claims. Your linked reference web-site lacks even the basic presence to identify itself... to identify who/what is behind the web-site and its unsubstantiated claims. You've simply shown anyone can link to anything on the interweebs. Job well done MLW member 'Peeves'.

of course, as is readily showing through in just a couple of threads, you're simply content to link/cut/paste... without even attempting to offer your own interpretation/commentary.

imagine! MLW member 'Peeves' took exception to me questioning the nature of his linked reference that had absolutely no... none... identification as to what organization/persons was behind it. Cause, like... if it's on the interweeb it must be true! Speaking of, the following is just now getting some play:

Conservative thinktanks step up attacks calling for climate change sceptics to turn American public against solar and wind power - re: leaked confidential memo:

A network of ultra-conservative groups is ramping up an offensive on multiple fronts to turn the American public against wind farms and Barack Obama's energy agenda.

A number of rightwing organisations, including Americans for Prosperity, which is funded by the billionaire Koch brothers, are attacking Obama for his support for solar and wind power. The American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), which also has financial links to the Kochs, has drafted bills to overturn state laws promoting wind energy.

Now a confidential strategy memo seen by the Guardian advises using "subversion" to build a national movement of wind farm protesters.

The proposal was discussed at a meeting of self-styled 'wind warriors' from across the country in Washington DC last February.

"These documents show for the first time that local Nimby anti-wind groups are co-ordinating and working with national fossil-fuel funded advocacy groups to wreck the wind industry," said Gabe Elsner, a co-director of the Checks and Balances, the accountability group which unearthed the proposal and other documents.

Among its main recommendations, the proposal calls for a national PR campaign aimed at causing "subversion in message of industry so that it effectively because so bad that no one wants to admit in public they are for it."

It suggests setting up "dummy businesses" to buy anti-wind billboards, and creating a "counter-intelligence branch" to track the wind energy industry. It also calls for spending $750,000 to create an organisation with paid staff and tax-exempt status dedicated to building public opposition to state and federal government policies encouraging the wind energy industry.

[Guest Manny]

So Peeves is possibly a paid shill?

[Guest Peeves]

So Peeves is possibly a paid shill?

Certainly am, I'm paid by McGuinty Welllll, he promised.

[jbg]

Certainly am, I'm paid by McGuinty Welllll, he promised.

Weren't you also being paid by Mulcair?

[Guest Manny]

Certainly am, I'm paid by McGuinty Welllll, he promised.

The real whores never get paid.

[jbg]

The real whores never get paid.

They make more than I ever will.

[Wild Bill]

The storage technologies will emerge if the market demands them... the idea of grid storage is relatively young in terms of capital investment and the cost is coming down.

A lot of good points Dr. Dre but I have to quibble with one of them. This idea that anything you want will be invented or developed if there is market demand makes anyone technically educated just cringe!

I think this idea came about from the digital computer revolution. When the computer chips that make up computers were invented the improvements in both price and power were spectacular! They gave rise to the oft-quoted Moore's Law, which says that the price of memory will halve and the power double every 2 years.

So now we have cheap computing for the masses that would have been a Defense Dept secret only a decade or two ago.

There is a popular view fostered by talking heads that aren't that technically learned themselves that this concept is universal and applies to any other technology.

Unfortunately, reality doesn't work like that! What happened with computers was very different from what had gone on before. The devices themselves were rather cheap, dollars or even pennies instead of hundreds or thousands. The very technology was revolutionary, rather than evolutionary. Nothing like the computer chip had ever been invented before.

Look at cars! It's been a century and we are just barely starting to get away from the internal combustion engine. All the improvements have been evolutionary - better and more efficient ways of doing the same thing. There have been electronic add-ons to the typical auto but the basic car is essentially the same as that built by Henry Ford. A mechanic from the 1940's would recognize much if not most of what he would see on a modern automobile, except of course for the electronics. Even then, he would likely be able to quickly figure out what the electronics does, not HOW it works!

So it is very much just an assumption that storage for power produced by alternative technologies would quickly follow demand, or become cheap enough to be cost effective. Have cars gotten very cheap over the years? In some respects they are more expensive today than 50 years ago, as a portion of the typical disposable income. Certainly, their cost is not in the class of that of a laptop computer.

Different technologies have their own unique aspects that make them different from one another. Only an "artsie" rather than a "techie" sees them as all the same, since he hasn't enough background knowledge to understand those differences.

Storage technologies such as you suggest could very well take generations to be developed to the point of being cost-effective or competitive to that which we already have. It's entirely possible that it could NEVER happen! Making what we have artificially more expensive in the hopes of forcing what we want to be developed is likely not just futile but downright cruel to those of us not rich enough to afford the increased costs of necessities like energy.

That's why I grow very uneasy when politicians like McGuinty try to use political power to play with technologies by manipulating market conditions. They just don't have any clue of what they are doing!

It's like giving a baby a loaded machine gun for a toy.

[fellowtraveller]

Yes thats exactly the capacity Im talking about. Theres a shitload of hydro it all over the world that could be used to integrate intermittent energy sources into the grid.

You intend to convert wind and solar energy into water stored in dams in other countries?

I am starting to suspect you are a little short on the actual workings of electrical generation and transmission.

[TimG]

I am starting to suspect you are a little short on the actual workings of electrical generation and transmission.

He is completely clueless when it comes to the practicalities of electricity generation and distribution.

Case in point: World hydro capacity is about 800GW running with a capacity factor of 50%. There is little scope to increase this capacity since the best locations already have dams. This represents a hard upper limit on the amount of wind power that can be "stored" in hydro dams (i.e. the best you can hope for is to increase the capacity factor to 100%). This means a maximum of 3000 TWh/year could be stored in the dams. The real number would be much less.

World electricity consumption is 18,000 TWh/year so we are looking at a solution that could meet 16% if the worlds *current* needs. This fraction would only decrease over time because the hydro capacity is fixed but demand grows (especially if oil prices continue to rise).

Edited May 24, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

You intend to convert wind and solar energy into water stored in dams in other countries?

I am starting to suspect you are a little short on the actual workings of electrical generation and transmission.

Im starting to wonder if you can read.

[dre]

He is completely clueless when it comes to the practicalities of electricity generation and distribution.

Case in point: World hydro capacity is about 800GW running with a capacity factor of 50%. There is little scope to increase this capacity since the best locations already have dams. This represents a hard upper limit on the amount of wind power that can be "stored" in hydro dams (i.e. the best you can hope for is to increase the capacity factor to 100%). This means a maximum of 3000 TWh/year could be stored in the dams. The real number would be much less.

World electricity consumption is 18,000 TWh/year so we are looking at a solution that could meet 16% if the worlds *current* needs. This fraction would only decrease over time because the hydro capacity is fixed but demand grows (especially if oil prices continue to rise).

Wow stupid post. First you say Im clueless, and then you make my point for me. Even based on your own numbers the idea is viable. 16% is huge.

This fraction would only decrease over time because the hydro capacity is fixed

Hydro capacity isnt fixed, its increasing rather quickly.

Edited May 24, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

Wow stupid post. First you say Im clueless, and then you make my point for me. Even based on your own numbers the idea is viable. 16% is huge.

You obviously don't get it: wind power and other intermittent renewables are niche power sources that can only supply a fraction of our power needs at a very large cost. My calculations put the 'storage' problem in perspective and show that storage is not going to increase this percentage by much.

IOW: my numbers show that renewables are not going to replace conventional power sources. Now if you agree that we need to move forward with new coal and gas generation to meet demand while supplementing it with cost effective renewable sources then we do not disagree. If you are arguing that renewables can replace coal and gas generation then my numbers show you are dead wrong.

Edited May 24, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Hydro capacity isnt fixed, its increasing rather quickly.

In north america and japan hydro capacity has barely changed in 20 years because most of viable locations have been dammed. World capacity has risen rapidly in the last 10 years largely due to a few big projects like the three gorges dam in China. There is little room for it to expand further. i.e. recent growth is not indicative of future growth.

[Wild Bill]

Im starting to wonder if you can read.

My good doctor, it would appear in your own reading you may have missed an important technical point that destroys your argument. With normal losses in transmission lines your suggestion of storing power hundreds if not thousands of miles away just won't work!

What you seem to have overlooked is what was mentioned about needing superconductor technology before our transmission grid could do such tricks. It was also mentioned that by then we would likely have fusion power. Just exactly WHEN we will have such technologies is as impossible to predict as when someone like Einstein will come along. Some ideas are not the result of slow development but of some individual's inspiration. Creativity comes when it wants to, not when we demand it! When will the next Da Vinci appear?

If we artificially set the price of art higher will that force more Mona Lisa quality work?

The fact that superconducting technology is absolutely necessary to store alternative power in some reservoir some distance away is as obvious to anyone with even a casual education in how electrical generation and distribution works as why a fish needs a fin or a flipper!

Hence the criticism that was directed at you. I admit it was a little unkind but Dre, in this case I'm afraid it was accurate!

If its any comfort, you are in good company! That's the trouble with trying to substitute casual academic reading for more in depth and experienced learning. The very premier of Ontario has done the same as you, even worse by a quantum jump! It was only a year or two ago that we all saw him doing photo-ops where he promised that all the unemployed from our lost manufacturing industry were going to get high paying jobs building wind turbines and solar panels! We heard him say that Ontario was going to be a world leader and exporter of such technology!

He's been kinda quiet about that for a while now, hasn't he?

[dre]

You obviously don't get it: wind power and other intermittent renewables are niche power sources that can only supply a fraction of our power needs at a very large cost. My calculations put the cost 'storage' in perspective and show that storage is not going to increase this percentage by much.

IOW: my numbers show that renewables are not going to replace conventional power sources. Now if you agree that we need to move forward with new coal and gas generation to meet demand while supplementing it with cost effective renewable sources then we do not disagree. If you are arguing that renewables can replace coal and gas generation then my numbers show you are dead wrong.

Why dont you read the thread, instead of inventing positions to argue against? I never claimed that wind and solar would replace conventional energy in fact I specifically said that they are not a "silver bullet".

There has never been a silver bullet. Different technologies make sense in different areas. Some places have lots of hydro, some have large coal deposits, some are very sunny, some are very windy.

[dre]

My good doctor, it would appear in your own reading you may have missed an important technical point that destroys your argument. With normal losses in transmission lines your suggestion of storing power hundreds if not thousands of miles away just won't work!

What you seem to have overlooked is what was mentioned about needing superconductor technology before our transmission grid could do such tricks. It was also mentioned that by then we would likely have fusion power. Just exactly WHEN we will have such technologies is as impossible to predict as when someone like Einstein will come along. Some ideas are not the result of slow development but of some individual's inspiration. Creativity comes when it wants to, not when we demand it! When will the next Da Vinci appear?

If we artificially set the price of art higher will that force more Mona Lisa quality work?

The fact that superconducting technology is absolutely necessary to store alternative power in some reservoir some distance away is as obvious to anyone with even a casual education in how electrical generation and distribution works as why a fish needs a fin or a flipper!

Hence the criticism that was directed at you. I admit it was a little unkind but Dre, in this case I'm afraid it was accurate!

If its any comfort, you are in good company! That's the trouble with trying to substitute casual academic reading for more in depth and experienced learning. The very premier of Ontario has done the same as you, even worse by a quantum jump! It was only a year or two ago that we all saw him doing photo-ops where he promised that all the unemployed from our lost manufacturing industry were going to get high paying jobs building wind turbines and solar panels! We heard him say that Ontario was going to be a world leader and exporter of such technology!

He's been kinda quiet about that for a while now, hasn't he?

My good doctor, it would appear in your own reading you may have missed an important technical point that destroys your argument. With normal losses in transmission lines your suggestion of storing power hundreds if not thousands of miles away just won't work!

Not sure who youre replying to here, because I never said anything about storing power thousands of miles away.

Hence the criticism that was directed at you. I admit it was a little unkind but Dre, in this case I'm afraid it was accurate!

It wasnt even directed at me at all. Similar to your comment about transmitting power thousands of miles, or Timmys horse shit about replacing conventional sources. I never said any of these things, in fact I said the exact opposite.

I said that if you have storage capacity you can smooth over intermittent supply. And I said that in areas that already have hyrdo electric resevoirs pumped storage can be used as that afformentioned storage capacity. These are statements of fact and they arent even arguable from an engineering standpoint.

Stands to reason then I guess that you invented some OTHER position to argue against instead of the one I actually stated.

Edited May 24, 2012 by dre

[TimG]

I said that if you have storage capacity you can smooth over intermittent supply. And I said that in areas that already have hyrdo electric resevoirs pumped storage can be used as that afformentioned storage capacity. These are statements of fact and they arent even arguable from an engineering standpoint.

The issue is the number of locations where such a pairing is viable is small. This means the wind power is not going to make much of a difference to supply.

[Wild Bill]

I said that if you have storage capacity you can smooth over intermittent supply. And I said that in areas that already have hyrdo electric resevoirs pumped storage can be used as that afformentioned storage capacity. These are statements of fact and they arent even arguable from an engineering standpoint.

Stands to reason then I guess that you invented some OTHER position to argue against instead of the one I actually stated.

I went back and re-read all the posts. You're right! I did have it wrong as to what you and not someone else had said! My apologies.

However, you did say the following:

"Thats only true if the grid has no storage capability. The more you have the more you can smooth over flucuations in availability.

None of this stuff is impossible or even technologically very hard."

Actually, most of it IS impossible or technologically hard today!

Even here in a part of Canada blessed with a lot of lake and water systems there aren't that many close by to all the population centres. I doubt if there are enough to make a significant difference to our needs anyway but even if there are, the present technology won't work to store wind power produced by Oshawa with water pumped up behind a dam in Moosonee or Kapuskasing.

For even a small town we're not talking a simple water tower here, Dre! The reservoir would have to be BIG!

And what about the prairies? Kinda flat near Winnipeg or Regina! With today's technology there's no way in hell we could power them from energy stored from those Oshawa turbines.

We need a stupendous technical breakthrough to make alternative power viable by having significant storage capability and transmission ability, along the lines of an Apollo Project!

Virtually every techie understands this as blatantly obvious. Sometimes they can get a bit testy when they hear the same idea that WON'T work from someone not technical - and it's the thousandth time they've heard someone say it.

Still, none of us know everything and to be fair, I don't think you deserved the harshness of some of the feedback.

An apology towards you is in order, I think but it's not up to me.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Wild Bill