Its not yet clear how necessary is a "double build". Based on some more reading of the report, their quoted data can only be on a BAU basis, not taking into account any future developments in energy storage, demand management, microgeneration etc that would reduce the need for "back up power stations". We'll just have to see how it pans out. However, I am not convinced that the carbon savings of wind farms are negated to the extent you claim, if you get some proper evidence then that can be discussed. I saw in the report that the National Grid expect most of the back up to be standing rather than spinning reserve. Does that make a difference to CO2 emissions?
Also, you have to look at what is the consequence of not going down this route. So, if you are arguing that we should just build the gas stations that we may need for back up like during this period and forget the turbines, this will create dependency on imported gas and unless all the gas stations are CCS, will not help our CO2 reduction efforts. (and if they are CCS, that will increase costs!)
Or, if you prefer instead to go nuclear like the French, you won't find a lot of people agreeing with you there! Even if this may help our CO2 targets.
All this should be put in the context of the National Grid confirming that up to 40% renewables is very manageable with only a small extra cost. That's not to say that we don't need a plan for when we get past 40% but we have some time to work something out! For now, 40% would be quite an achievement.
Responding to the other points: how is an increase in energy prices affect the point about the extra cost of increasing the share of renewables? I thought they were referring to grid investment etc, which is not related to fuel prices? Exposure to fuel price instability would certainly be much worse if we stopped the renewables programme.
I have not really come across this Stuart Young guy so don't know how he writes. I'm happy to see what people have to say but you have to be aware of agendas (on all sides).
Wind power's not intermittent, honest!
Moderator: Peak Moderation
-
An Inspector Calls
If you want to avoid double build by advocating storage, demand management (which is a saturated market as far as industry is concerned, all you can do is domestic demand management) and microgeneration (there's very little available) then I think you're proposing an even more expensive strategy than wind. The bulk of that aspiration is PS and that's very expensive to build, and only 75 % efficient.
It seems to me to be utterly obvious that if the entire wind fleet generation can disappear for a several days in the middle of winter on a regular basis then the capacity credit of wind is zero, and you have to build one for one alongside that generation.
http://populuslimited.com/uploads/downl ... ations.pdf
gives 42 % for new build, 31 % against. 60 % said they'd be cross if there is to be no new build.
Where is your support for "National Grid confirming that up to 40% renewables is very manageable ". If this is old statement (mid 2000s) then you can ignore it because in those days even they had not grasped the seriousnous of variability and intermittency. And even so, being manageable, and being cheap may well not be the same thing.
As for the increase in energy prices, I take that this can only be determined from the mix of renewables and grid improvements needed to support same. After all, if we went entirely gas no changes to the grid would be required at all and gas can be built for less than £1m/MW capacity.
It seems to me to be utterly obvious that if the entire wind fleet generation can disappear for a several days in the middle of winter on a regular basis then the capacity credit of wind is zero, and you have to build one for one alongside that generation.
That's not correct. Closing all the coal stations, replacing them with gas reduces the UK's CO2 emissions by as much as building wind, and at a fraction of the cost. Energy security might be another matter, but there are multiple sources of gas around the world so it's not as gloomy as you paint it.Also, you have to look at what is the consequence of not going down this route. So, if you are arguing that we should just build the gas stations that we may need for back up like during this period and forget the turbines, this will create dependency on imported gas and unless all the gas stations are CCS, will not help our CO2 reduction efforts. (and if they are CCS, that will increase costs!)
The Populus poll on thisOr, if you prefer instead to go nuclear like the French, you won't find a lot of people agreeing with you there! Even if this may help our CO2 targets.
http://populuslimited.com/uploads/downl ... ations.pdf
gives 42 % for new build, 31 % against. 60 % said they'd be cross if there is to be no new build.
Where is your support for "National Grid confirming that up to 40% renewables is very manageable ". If this is old statement (mid 2000s) then you can ignore it because in those days even they had not grasped the seriousnous of variability and intermittency. And even so, being manageable, and being cheap may well not be the same thing.
As for the increase in energy prices, I take that this can only be determined from the mix of renewables and grid improvements needed to support same. After all, if we went entirely gas no changes to the grid would be required at all and gas can be built for less than £1m/MW capacity.
I do often wonder about why there is such a drive towards wind power...
Timms didn’t understand the difference between installed capacity and actual production..
Prescott..well enough said..
The renewables Advisory Board..well with 16 out of the 18 members with direct financial links to wind energy I wonder if anything advised should not have been peer checked first...
The BWEA..well they are a commercial lobby group employed and paid by the Wind Industry..enough said..
The National Grid is..well all I can politely say is that it is old and well past a much needed update and it was NEVER designed to cater for the large scale intermittency that is the product of the wind..
The Government..well how many times has policy been politically driven as opposed to science driven..err.. that would be every time then...
Wind power is a nice idea.. it has it's place and should be developed.. BUT it is NOT suited to large scale reliance as a priority power production method... end of story and ANYONE who argues that it is really needs to wake up and question their understanding..
One only has to look at Eltra, the Danish power company.. they were big on wind power until the FACTS showed them it was..well don’t take my word for it.. do your own research into it..
Suffice to say according to them it is "the biggest mistake we made..."
Their peer checked and confirmed production figs show that it just does not work as a priority power source.. too expensive, unreliable and it actually raised Co2 emissions because of their reliance on fossil fuel local combined heat and power stations as a back up when the wind didn’t blow or did but too strong or not long enough...
Eltra also had/has the most advanced grid system in the world, yet their heavy reliance on priority connected wind power meant it often overloaded or tripped out. Denmark has since decided to reduce reliance on wind energy.. interesting. But don’t take my word look it up for yourself
Another example is the new local grid on the Island of Eigg.. The BBC made a huge song and dance about it, new wind turbines and all the houses now connected.. What they didn’t mention was the two HUGE diesel generators needed and the large battery house or that the three river based hydro power turbines out performed the wind generation by 600% and was more reliable..or that the system had not actually saved any emissions, that like the Eltra system in Denmark, Co2 emissions has actually risen to a higher level than when each house had it's own diesel generator
Again don’t take my word, research it yourself..
Wind is a nice idea..it can work in specific situations quite well but needs a backup and a large battery bank to ensure reliable supply.
The DTi, BWEA and the power companies that own wind farms have tried to keep the power productions statistics off record for a long time. They have only recently been made available and anyone with a balanced and open view will see their true worth..
Everytime the proposer quote how many houses the wind farm will provide power for it is a lie.. No other way of stating it.. they lie..
They say the turbine/turbines will produce enough power to supply so many homes etc.. it is NEVER the truth.. I openly challenge anyone to prove it.
A local proposal stated that all 183,000 local homes would be provided with enough power from the planned 18 turbines.. the true figs were that they would struggle to produce enough to boil 500 kettles at once
But that’s a specific and not a national average.
So what can we deduce? Some people say they are great and we need them. some people say they are a blight and should be out at sea and far enough away that they cant be seen..
All we can say is that the evidence from the production figures is drastically far below any that were quoted when they were subject of planning applications...
Some wind farms cant even produce enough power to run themselves and draw almost as much power FROM the grid as they put in.. yet continue to make huge amounts of money from subsidy for the owners...
The whole system needs a re think.. those feeding lies to Government and the public need to be brought to book..
If you were told that your new car would do 100mpg, yet when you got it home you found that it would do less than 18mpg or even 34mpg you would be demanding your money back.
If you found your neighbour bought one and it too only did 34mpg but the "Government" gave him his fuel for free and actually PAID him from YOUR tax for each gallon of fuel he used on top.. well you would be clambering to get the same deal.. If you were told that it actually saved Co2 production and that’s why they paid for the fuel you might consider that worth while..If you found it didn’t save anything and actually produced more Co2 you would be shouting at the TV...
So why cant people see what’s going on with "wind power".. It more political spin than anything else.. a total waste of money.
If we ever get the true figs there will be an uproar of public condemnation... well much like Denmark then who have moved away from wind energy on a large scale as a grid power provider..
and I've not mentioned the visual impact question at all...
Timms didn’t understand the difference between installed capacity and actual production..
Prescott..well enough said..
The renewables Advisory Board..well with 16 out of the 18 members with direct financial links to wind energy I wonder if anything advised should not have been peer checked first...
The BWEA..well they are a commercial lobby group employed and paid by the Wind Industry..enough said..
The National Grid is..well all I can politely say is that it is old and well past a much needed update and it was NEVER designed to cater for the large scale intermittency that is the product of the wind..
The Government..well how many times has policy been politically driven as opposed to science driven..err.. that would be every time then...
Wind power is a nice idea.. it has it's place and should be developed.. BUT it is NOT suited to large scale reliance as a priority power production method... end of story and ANYONE who argues that it is really needs to wake up and question their understanding..
One only has to look at Eltra, the Danish power company.. they were big on wind power until the FACTS showed them it was..well don’t take my word for it.. do your own research into it..
Suffice to say according to them it is "the biggest mistake we made..."
Their peer checked and confirmed production figs show that it just does not work as a priority power source.. too expensive, unreliable and it actually raised Co2 emissions because of their reliance on fossil fuel local combined heat and power stations as a back up when the wind didn’t blow or did but too strong or not long enough...
Eltra also had/has the most advanced grid system in the world, yet their heavy reliance on priority connected wind power meant it often overloaded or tripped out. Denmark has since decided to reduce reliance on wind energy.. interesting. But don’t take my word look it up for yourself
Another example is the new local grid on the Island of Eigg.. The BBC made a huge song and dance about it, new wind turbines and all the houses now connected.. What they didn’t mention was the two HUGE diesel generators needed and the large battery house or that the three river based hydro power turbines out performed the wind generation by 600% and was more reliable..or that the system had not actually saved any emissions, that like the Eltra system in Denmark, Co2 emissions has actually risen to a higher level than when each house had it's own diesel generator
Again don’t take my word, research it yourself.. Wind is a nice idea..it can work in specific situations quite well but needs a backup and a large battery bank to ensure reliable supply.
The DTi, BWEA and the power companies that own wind farms have tried to keep the power productions statistics off record for a long time. They have only recently been made available and anyone with a balanced and open view will see their true worth..
Everytime the proposer quote how many houses the wind farm will provide power for it is a lie.. No other way of stating it.. they lie..
They say the turbine/turbines will produce enough power to supply so many homes etc.. it is NEVER the truth.. I openly challenge anyone to prove it.
A local proposal stated that all 183,000 local homes would be provided with enough power from the planned 18 turbines.. the true figs were that they would struggle to produce enough to boil 500 kettles at once
But that’s a specific and not a national average.
So what can we deduce? Some people say they are great and we need them. some people say they are a blight and should be out at sea and far enough away that they cant be seen..
All we can say is that the evidence from the production figures is drastically far below any that were quoted when they were subject of planning applications...
Some wind farms cant even produce enough power to run themselves and draw almost as much power FROM the grid as they put in.. yet continue to make huge amounts of money from subsidy for the owners...
The whole system needs a re think.. those feeding lies to Government and the public need to be brought to book..
If you were told that your new car would do 100mpg, yet when you got it home you found that it would do less than 18mpg or even 34mpg you would be demanding your money back.
If you found your neighbour bought one and it too only did 34mpg but the "Government" gave him his fuel for free and actually PAID him from YOUR tax for each gallon of fuel he used on top.. well you would be clambering to get the same deal.. If you were told that it actually saved Co2 production and that’s why they paid for the fuel you might consider that worth while..If you found it didn’t save anything and actually produced more Co2 you would be shouting at the TV...
So why cant people see what’s going on with "wind power".. It more political spin than anything else.. a total waste of money.
If we ever get the true figs there will be an uproar of public condemnation... well much like Denmark then who have moved away from wind energy on a large scale as a grid power provider..
and I've not mentioned the visual impact question at all...
-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
Money. Energy companies find wind generators are a sound investment.Glow Worm wrote:I do often wonder about why there is such a drive towards wind power...
Altruism. It's part of the planet-saving solution. Dale Vince, who owns Ecotricity, is one of the richest people in the country. He doesn't spend his wealth but has it all tied up in concrete and steel and copper, for the benefit of humanity.
(I bet someone will try to refute that last statement.
)-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
That is not a true statement.Glow Worm wrote:Denmark...who have moved away from wind energy on a large scale as a grid power provider..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
-
An Inspector Calls
You really mean this is not a 'correct' statement.
(the admins will be adopting a zero tolerance policy towards abusive and inflammatory posts. )
I think what Glow Worm has picked up the Danish statement that they'll be stopping the build of offshore windmills. Although even that's not clear, as they might now have reversed that policy.
Interesting oversight of the capacity factor for the Danish windmills:
19 %
As high as that!
(the admins will be adopting a zero tolerance policy towards abusive and inflammatory posts. )
I think what Glow Worm has picked up the Danish statement that they'll be stopping the build of offshore windmills. Although even that's not clear, as they might now have reversed that policy.
Interesting oversight of the capacity factor for the Danish windmills:
19 %
As high as that!
I have been investigating wind power in Denmark as I've heard many comments like
...they are moving away from wind power.
..they have higher carbon intensity than other countries with less wind power
First, we got the message that the Danish government now aims for carbon free electricty by 2050, so they are clearly not stepping back from renewables including wind.
Second, I found several rather diverse data for the Danish carbon intensity - the highest being 881 g CO2/ KWh in "Sustainable Energy without the hot air"! However, the latest IEA data I found (2009) was 350 g CO2/KWh, which is less than the UK at 450. Did McKay make an error here?
A 19% capacity factor is not so impressive, is it! But it may still be economically viable for the Danes.
...they are moving away from wind power.
..they have higher carbon intensity than other countries with less wind power
First, we got the message that the Danish government now aims for carbon free electricty by 2050, so they are clearly not stepping back from renewables including wind.
Second, I found several rather diverse data for the Danish carbon intensity - the highest being 881 g CO2/ KWh in "Sustainable Energy without the hot air"! However, the latest IEA data I found (2009) was 350 g CO2/KWh, which is less than the UK at 450. Did McKay make an error here?
A 19% capacity factor is not so impressive, is it! But it may still be economically viable for the Danes.
-
biffvernon
- Posts: 18538
- Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
- Location: Lincolnshire
- Contact:
That's what the graph I posted says.
Denmark capacity factor 24% http://www.bwea.com/ref/capacityfactors.html
or
http://rmschneider.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... 1990-2009/
But 'capacity factor' is not really a very useful measure for judging the usefulness of a wind turbine. It's just a metric that is handy for comparing one site with another, one year from another. The maximum possible generation rate from my solar pv is about 4kW but the 'capacity factor' is very low because the Sun keeps setting every evening. Am I bovvered?
Denmark capacity factor 24% http://www.bwea.com/ref/capacityfactors.html
or
http://rmschneider.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... 1990-2009/
But 'capacity factor' is not really a very useful measure for judging the usefulness of a wind turbine. It's just a metric that is handy for comparing one site with another, one year from another. The maximum possible generation rate from my solar pv is about 4kW but the 'capacity factor' is very low because the Sun keeps setting every evening. Am I bovvered?
-
An Inspector Calls
Yes, agreed. The titling of the graph is a bit misleading.goslow wrote:correction, the 19% is the share of total generated electricity, not the capacity factor?
Well it's more like 21.4 % averaged over the past 20 years, which is not far removed from the previousoly stated 19 %.biffvernon wrote:Denmark capacity factor 24% http://www.bwea.com/ref/capacityfactors.html
or
http://rmschneider.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... 1990-2009/
OK, so on that basis if the capacity factor was 0 % it wouldn't matter!biffvernon wrote:But 'capacity factor' is not really a very useful measure for judging the usefulness of a wind turbine.
It's also a very useful metric for comparing it with other forms of generation.biffvernon wrote: It's just a metric that is handy for comparing one site with another, one year from another.
Load factor for Denmark looks then not as good as UK (or Ireland, or Spain?), but better than Germany!
Its useful for comparing between windfarms, indicative of "windiness". I can't see any point to compare with other generating methods. Certainly not with thermal plants where the fuel is available (potentially) all the time. Same goes for PV, hydro, how could you compare between them?
Probably more important are assessments of cost per MWh or per kg CO2 saved. But set in the context of energy security and other factors.
Its useful for comparing between windfarms, indicative of "windiness". I can't see any point to compare with other generating methods. Certainly not with thermal plants where the fuel is available (potentially) all the time. Same goes for PV, hydro, how could you compare between them?
Probably more important are assessments of cost per MWh or per kg CO2 saved. But set in the context of energy security and other factors.
-
An Inspector Calls
I'm not sure who you're attributing these statements too?goslow wrote:I have been investigating wind power in Denmark as I've heard many comments like
...they are moving away from wind power.
..they have higher carbon intensity than other countries with less wind power
The first may have been an exaggeration of my statement:
No idea where the carbon intensity claim comes from. I don't even understand what carbon intensity might be.I think what Glow Worm has picked up the Danish statement that they'll be stopping the build of offshore windmills. Although even that's not clear, as they might now have reversed that policy.
However, here's a nice rant by Michael Trebilcock, partly on the subject of Denmark wind.
http://utorontolaw.typepad.com/faculty_ ... aster.html
-
An Inspector Calls
The best comparison would be in cost per MWh. But as generators usually don't publish their levelised generation costs we're forced to do our own calculations. Fortunately, capacity factors are widely published (or easily calculated from Ofgem generation statistics) and they allow the cost per MWh to be assessed. So capacity factor is extremely useful as a comparison tool between generation types, and countries.goslow wrote:Load factor for Denmark looks then not as good as UK (or Ireland, or Spain?), but better than Germany!
Its useful for comparing between windfarms, indicative of "windiness". I can't see any point to compare with other generating methods. Certainly not with thermal plants where the fuel is available (potentially) all the time. Same goes for PV, hydro, how could you compare between them?
Probably more important are assessments of cost per MWh or per kg CO2 saved. But set in the context of energy security and other factors.
Inspector, I heard these comments from various multiple folk including an irate letter to my local paper!
Carbon intensity is simply CO2 in g per KWh.
So, I get the point that capacity load factor can be useful in estimating costs per MWh which is certainly useful in evaluating different generating methods (but take into account external costs too!). But not useful in itself as there are completely different scenarios between dispatchable and non-dispatchable.
I think I already saw the Trebilcock article before. No idea where he gets the idea that carbon emissions are rising in Denmark. 2006 was higher than 2005 but its come down again by 2008! I could probably pick apart the rest too, but I don't have time right now!
Carbon intensity is simply CO2 in g per KWh.
So, I get the point that capacity load factor can be useful in estimating costs per MWh which is certainly useful in evaluating different generating methods (but take into account external costs too!). But not useful in itself as there are completely different scenarios between dispatchable and non-dispatchable.
I think I already saw the Trebilcock article before. No idea where he gets the idea that carbon emissions are rising in Denmark. 2006 was higher than 2005 but its come down again by 2008! I could probably pick apart the rest too, but I don't have time right now!
-
An Inspector Calls
Well we'll have to agree to differ on the usefulness of capacity factor.
Joe Public seems to have grasped the significance. Saying it's of little value is rather like saying the mpg figures on cars are useless.
And here's an interesting article from E.On pointing out that the capacity credit for wind is below 10 %:
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/library/ ... _e_eng.pdf
(see page 6).
As for the Denmark CO2 savings, if 2006 was higher than 2005 then it rather flies in the face of renewables saving CO2 in that country, especially when 2006 was apparently a better generation year than 2005.
Joe Public seems to have grasped the significance. Saying it's of little value is rather like saying the mpg figures on cars are useless.
And here's an interesting article from E.On pointing out that the capacity credit for wind is below 10 %:
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/library/ ... _e_eng.pdf
(see page 6).
As for the Denmark CO2 savings, if 2006 was higher than 2005 then it rather flies in the face of renewables saving CO2 in that country, especially when 2006 was apparently a better generation year than 2005.