Re: Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

On 18 Jul, 17:01, "rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx" <rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jul 18, 2:01 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On 17 Jul, 18:13, "rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx" <rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 17, 1:54 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 17 Jul, 08:28, "rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx" <rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 16, 11:03 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On 16 Jul, 08:11, "rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx" <rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

On Jul 15, 2:13 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 Jul, 03:52, Bill Ghrist <notmyn...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Regarding the arguments about whether wind power is mature...

If you go back and read the article originally referenced by this topic
you will find that the premise has little if anything to do with the
maturity of wind power technology. Rather it has to do with the amount
and type of back up generation that must be provided if wind power is to
be a major portion of total generation. The article specifically
addresses the situation in the UK, and shows that it is not unusual to
have periods of calm winds over all of the UK and continental Europe,
sometimes for days at a time, meaning that you need an amount of backup
generating capacity equal to the total wind capacity.

Back on topic! Thanks.

And my response was it's an excellent article but there are several
points that the author misses. He concedes he doesn't analyse the
impact electric cars, which with a 30% market share might provide
10KWhrs x 10 million = 100 GWhrs flexible storage capacity.

Let me get this straight: During some parts of the winter when I plug
in my hypothetical electric car, not only will I not get any charge,
but the electric company will siphon some charge out of it. Even
better, it can last every night for a week.

If you agree yes. Probably the easiest way is when you park your car,
you set a time for when you want it fully charged. Cheap, complex
software does the rest.

So the vehicle battery is used not for storage, but the charger
interacts with the grid to manage the load curve, eliminating some of
the need for peaking units that wind supplements fuel for. This makes
the economic model for wind worse, not better. Baseload unit produce
very inexpensive electricity that wind generators cannot compete
against.

Onshore wind power is already cost competitive with most forms of
generation, measured by c/KWhr.

The issue raised is that an additional cost of standby capacity is
needed.

Making demand more flexible is a way of overcoming some of this
requirement.

There are a number of ways of making demand more flexible, of which
electric powered vehicles will be the largest scale. (It's like
running your dishwasher at night, but on a much bigger scale, and in a
smarter way).

This makes the economics of wind better.

If I accept that wind power is competive with most forms of
generation, you must acknowledge that it is not competitive with all
forms of generation. Wind is cost competitive with peaking units.
However load management reduces the need for peaking units, and enough
of it will eliminate peaking units altogether. In a fully managed
load environment, wind is only competing with baseload units. In that
environment, wind power makes no economic sense.

OK, but lets look at the alternatives.

- Coal is the cheapest and its abundant. However, if you price in the
carbon output, or require sequestration, it's now on a par with on
shore wind.
- Nuclear - if you look at the cost models, the overriding cost driver
is cost of capital. The French Government had a low cost of capital is
therefore able to supply very cheap electricity. The next biggest
variable is uncertainty over construction costs. I would expect
nuclear to be cheaper than the current cost of wind power. However,
Britain is not going to build more that a dozen nukes, which could
provide a maximum of 40% of the electricity supply.

Did they pass laws banning the construction of more than dozen?

For better or for worse, in effect and by default, yes. (Except on the
other side of the channel).

- Gas: Cheap to build, but very expensive to operate. Given current
gas prices, on shore wind is cheaper. In future, gas should be used
for peaking units (or for home power generation - where its efficiency
can approach 100%).

When you talk about CHP and electricity production, at the same time,
you must sperate the heating efficiency from the conversion
efficiency. You must also seperate the electrical output from the
heat output. As a heat source, they are expensive, but thermally
competitive, however, their heating efficiency goes down when they are
also producing electricity (but it does produce electricity). As a
generator, they are comparable in output to a portable gasoline
powered generator, except that they are less efficient and more costly
(way, way too much waste heat). Their only excuse for existing is
producing heat and power at the same time. Getting electricity out of
them when they are not producing heat is really expensive.

I was looking for a cost competitive successor to the whispergen. That
could be a fuel cell or a small gas turbine, producing about 25%
electricity, 70% usable heat, and perhaps 5% waste (which is more than
a condensing boiler).

- Oil: Similar analysis to gas, but more expensive.
- Wind: On shore can supply competitively, but is space constrained.
Offshore not yet competitive, but the cost curve (ref discussion above
about immaturity) is looking promising.
- Solar: Hugely expensive, but has the most promising cost curve, but
mainly for countries with a lot of sun and where maximum demand
correlates with maximum sun,

So I could see a rosy scenario where the UK electricty mix is 1/3
nuclear, 1/3 wind, 1/3 gas, with most of the gas being micro CHP. And
a high capacity line to Norway, where surplus wind is used to pump
water up mountains.

No, the ratios, as you describe them, are 1/2 nuclear, 1/2 wind, and
1/2 gas turbines (50% overcapacity);

Electricity supply 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Small scale CHP is important in the
winter, when the heat is used, making its effective/combined
efficiency close to 100%. In summer, it's only used when the wind
doesn't blow.

unless you are advocating both
really expensive peaking power and importing up to a third of
electricity demanded at any given time. The norwegians are only going
to buy surplus wind power killowatt*hours if they are sold at less
than the cost of hydro-electric kilowatt*hours, but they will sell the
power back at peaking rates (that's the free market, for you).

No - less than the price of HEP KWhrs. The marginal cost of HEP is
close to zero.

Norway will import surplus wind because for every KWhr they import (or
produce), they can export about 0.8KWhrs. Obviously they have to make
a margin on this, and there they have to compete with other storage
means.

To add
insult to injury, if the high capacity line does not run directly to
Norway,under the North Sea, every utility along the way will charge
for wheeling the power (as it reduces their transmission capacity, but
does not supply them with power).

There would need to be a European, or North Sea HVDC grid. Nice thing
is that laying HVDC at sea is cheaper than on land.

I can see a rosier picture with 100% nuclear producing hydrogen for
fuel cells during the off-peak periods, and the fuel cells supply any
needed peaking power (not as cheap pumped storage, but way cheaper
than oil/gas peaking). Everybody pays less for electricity and there
is hydrogen for their fuel cell cars.

Except Electricity to Hydrogen to Electricity is about 40% efficient,
which is why most of the world is giving up on hydrogen.

There are schemes like this though: http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/ess-specifications.html

It would be interesting see what the cost is per GWhr of storage. If
you were designing a HVDC grid (as a CEGB / French Government might,
rather than having economics dictate it), it might make sense to have
a few GWHr storage plants at the ends of the HVDC net.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A programme to tackle the Environmental Crisis
    ... "The so-called renewable forms of energy (wind, wave, solar, ... electricity, assuming there is a broad spread of wind farms. ... Wind Power is actually a very rapidly growing industry across the ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: A world-changing event
    ... The same would apply to things like wind turbines. ... wonder how durable these dishes will be in a wind storm. ... > - They promise a cost of electricity of 0.06$/kWh for large projects. ... > price than wind power, but production occurs at daytime (more valuable ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: affordable power for homes
    ... it seems a windmill would be a good ... > for those days when there was not enough wind. ... > enough to fill up the storage while you were still using power. ... It might cost them far more to put a power ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: affordable power for homes
    ... it seems a windmill would be a good ... > for those days when there was not enough wind. ... > enough to fill up the storage while you were still using power. ... It might cost them far more to put a power ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Atheists: Americas most distrusted minority
    ... There's some dispute among economists over how ... comfortable worst-case scenario for power generation. ... But wind seems to be an even better alternative. ... But as far as I can tell storage would add perhaps 50% to the cost of ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)