Guest post by Steven Goddard
The Telegraph has an article today about the latest addition to the UK wind energy grid, described as “Europe’s largest onshore wind farm at Whitelee.” The article says :
When the final array is connected to the grid later this week, there will be 140 turbines generating 322 megawatts of electricity. This is enough to power 180,000 homes.
Assuming the turbines are actually moving. The problem is that on the coldest days in winter, the air is still and the turbines don’t generate much (if any) electricity. Consider the week of February 4-10, 2009 in Glasgow.
The average temperature was -2C (29F) during the week, and there was almost no wind on most of those days. No wind means no electricity. On the coldest days, there is no wind – so wind power fails just when you need it the most. On the morning of February 4, the temperature was -7C (19F) and the wind speed was zero.
In order to keep society from lapsing into the dark ages, there has to be enough conventional (coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear) capacity to provide 100% of the power requirements on any given day. Thus it becomes apparent that Britain’s push for “renewable” energy is leading the UK towards major problems in the future.
The belief that conventional capacity can be fully replaced by wind or solar is simply mistaken and based on a flawed thought process. People want to believe in renewable energy, and that desire blocks them from thinking clearly. The people of Glasgow were fortunate in February that there was still still enough conventional capacity available to keep their lights on. As the UK’s plans to “convert” to “renewable energy” proceed, this will no longer be the case.
Wind and solar can reduce the average load over a year, but they can not reduce the base or peak requirements for conventional electricity.
In the future, weather forecasts may have to include a segment like “No electricity from Wednesday through Friday. Some electricity possible over the weekend.”
BTW – You can purchase those nice fluorescent green jackets at the Claymore Filling Station in Ballachulish for about £12. I’ve got one just like it in the closet.
What is the point of monitoring if nothing is going to be done about the problem the monitoring discovers?
The most obvious answer is the monitoring is just a cost of getting something built.
Stephen Goddard,
You can be as impressed or unimpressed as you like. I fully understand the point you tried to make, and that is, that it is a waste of everyone’s time and energy to pursue renewable energy. You are certainly entitled to that view.
And yes, wind is a small percentage of California’s energy supply, but that is limited by geography. Wind will never be a huge source of supply in California, but it has greater potential in the Great Plains area, and offshore. In California overall, geothermal plays a much greater role at around 5 percent.
One could look to Iowa for greater percentages, but a smaller base. Iowa achieves around 5 to 6 percent of its electricity from wind.
Politicians are generally not engineers, and do not listen to engineers when they should. The engineers could easily tell the politicians that to rely solely on wind power will not work. None of us ever claimed it would. As I wrote above, only economic energy storage will achieve that goal.
Some cynics write that after 30 years of pouring research money into renewables, we in the U.S. obtain barely 2 percent of our electricity from that source. Therefore, it is a bust and we should cut off the funds.
From the table I linked to above, renewables provide 10 percent of all power generated and sold in California. Renewable generation is mandated by law to be at least 20 percent by the end of 2010, and 33 percent by 2020. As California is a rather large state with one of the top power generation and consumption figures, those are impressive figures for renewables. I suppose whether one is impressed or not depends on one’s point of view.
For comparison, the toxic nuclear power plants so beloved by the anti-renewable crowd provides only 12 percent of the power sold in California. That percentage continues to drop as nuclear power will never increase here, but renewables and natural gas plants will.
Bill,
Read up on what they were doing to cause the disaster at Chernobyl and the reactor design which sped up the rate of fission as temperture increased. In western reactors the relationship between heat and fission is reversed, so fission will shut down if they get too hot, and our reactors have always been sheilded. A disaster like chernobyl could not happen with new reactor designs, or even old western reactor designs.
Back in the 70s the Soviets built a city that was powered by co-gen heat and power nuclear reactors which would use the waste heat generated by fission to heat homes. This town is still in existence and they are still using the soviet era nuclear power generators. McMurdo Station in Antarctica was using a mini-nuke station for power and heat as early the late 50s.
I believe that using super-safe and small nuclear reactors like the General Atomic’s High temperture Helium reactor and recycling waste heat to warm and cool homes could prove to be a great cost savings to consumers and would be perfectly safe. After all, our Navy Personall have been living within 100 yards of nuclear reactors for the last 50 years with little to no problems.
Roger,
My biggest complaint about “renewables” is the environmental destruction which low intensity power sources cause. Power lines everywhere is something that which old environmentalists like myself detest.
Why not sink the billions into developing economical fusion power? Get that solved, and all the other energy technologies become irrelevant.
I suppose ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, when I drive out to Indio, I see a spectacular, if austere, landscape that is being converted into an instant industrial slum.
Steven Goddard,
I am a rational environmentalist, and completely enjoy the outdoors. Few things are as refreshing as hiking and camping through the High Sierras or sailing the high seas.
But as an engineer, I am also aware that the benefits of abundant energy are worth the costs of having it. Economies of scale dictate that power lines will be built to bring the power from the large generating plant to the consumer. Distributed generation, as that term is now used, reduces the need for power lines because the power is generated either on-site, or much closer to the consumer. Cogeneration in industrial facilities also reduces the need for transmission lines. The realities of solar and wind power require some transmission lines to collect and send the power to the consumers.
One could also argue that telephone poles across the land are a blight, yet for decades that was (and still is) the case, just so consumers could use telephones rather than wait for snail mail for communication. Roads, highways, bridges, railroads, ports, cities, all are useful yet change the natural landscape.
As for nuclear fusion, it has been a long while since I looked into the state of that art (early 1980’s). There seem to be insurmountable difficulties in finding materials of construction that will not melt or evaporate at the very high temperatures obtained in a fusion reaction. Magnetic pinch bottles were used, and perhaps still are, to squeeze plasma until it begins the fusion process. Even if that fusion process is someday sustainable (they were thrilled at achieving fusion temperature for a fraction of a second), melt-down is a very real problem.
There were two fundamental problems to overcome, the first being how to sustain the fusion reaction, the second how to keep the thing from melting. Sustaining the fusion reaction required a magnetic bottle with an inlet for fresh fuel, and an outlet for the reaction products. The nature of a magnetic bottle does not allow for inlets or outlets, at least at that time. There may have been advances since then, I do not know.
Then, finding a way to do something useful with the heat without melting the reactor is a bit of a problem. The materials science professors and researchers were having quite a bit of difficulty with that one. It had something to do with the energy of inter-atomic bonding, under which everything they tried disintegrated at those temperatures.
It is a very good thing that the sun is so very far away from Earth.
Therefore, unless some amazing breakthroughs in magnetic bottles and heat-resistant materials have occurred, or will occur, fusion is off the list of energy providers.
We (the engineers) are much closer to having renewable energy storage systems that work reliably and economically. At that point, wind, solar, wave, and ocean current energy will provide everlasting, cheap, reliable power. And that is a very good thing.
In response to :
Mr Lynn (11:23:04) :
Are there places in the world where the wind never stops blowing?
Yes.
That place would be Wyoming.
Roger,
I hold degrees in science and engineering and have worked for many decades as both, and am keenly aware that harnessing fusion is just a technology problem.
bill (20:31:59) :
At a newly built Swedish sea based park, Lillgrund:
http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:tJq5zyFIEMQJ:www.svensk-vindkraft.org/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_docman%26task%3Ddoc_download%26gid%3D4+%22m/s%22+lillgrund+stoppvind&cd=4&hl=sv&ct=clnk&gl=se
“Stoppvind m/s. 25-20-20. 25 D=90 m. 20 D=100 m.”
I have actually never seen data where any wind turbine actually operating at more than 25 m/s.
The stop wind for large turbines with 100 m diameter at Lillgrund is 20 m/s. Here a person mention that the stop wind has been reduced to 15 m/s:
http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/article/20090508/TYCKTTANKT/815075349/1028/&/Ratt-om-vindkraft
This is just something the chairman of the largest most influential anti-wind power association in Sweden sais. I have not seen official statements about this, so it shold be 20 m/s. But wind power at sea don’t use to work very well. At some sea based parks in Sweden and Denmark after a few years most turbines stands still. (The maintenance cost of sea based wind power is also so high that I think Denmark will stop to building sea based wind power. But all their wind power is meaningless and only costly anyway.)
It’s lots of figures in your reply. I only read the relevant lines. I guess there was impressing figures, although some of them may be far from real outcome. E g efficiency of turbines can be below 20% when spec says 30 %.
Steven Goddard (21:22:54) :
Why not sink the billions into developing economical fusion power?
Roger Sowell (22:13:16) :
We (the engineers) are much closer to having renewable energy storage systems (…)
And that is a very good thing.
Messrs Engineers,
You are closer to (stolen via taxes) bucks, be frank. What about superconducting lines deep in the ground for power lines? BTW Do not the “underground” fiber optic cables supersede the copper “air-lines”? Do you have to spoil everything in the name of money?
Regards
bill (20:31:59) :
Few people say that the turbines will deliver no energy, on the average, they do. In rebutting the hostility to wind turbines it is no use to give tables of characteristics. The problem as everybody knows who has ever had a working windmill, and I have, is a matter of storage. For a cottage without mainline electricity two large truck batteries provided the storage and we had 12 volt electricity for lights at night, and running a 12 volt freezer. Then the main electricity line came close, and that was it. The windmill was sold to a person too far from the main line :).
It is good that we become less attached to fossil fuels for all the known reasons, but alternative energy will always be alternative unless we cover the Sahara with photovoltaics, raise water to some large lake inland, use hydropower continuously.
Wind is less sure than sun, still, for windswept islands and a well designed hydro system again it would work nicely.
So to make windmills and sun energy viable, a lot of thought and money has to go to storage studies.
Personally I think the only solution is nuclear. I have not been able to find how this Hyperion reactor works. They call it a battery, working with an oscillation cycle of uranium hydride. Is there a reactor expert in the house?
bill. Also don’t post so much irrelevant stuff when you answer me next time. One specification with almost a page of lines wasn’t relevant at all. 3 blades… Rotating clockwise… etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Graaaaasp. Nothing was relevant but one line.
bill. And yet more. Your example was just one specification for a particular turbine which didn’t falsified my data. 20 m/s, not 28-34 m/s (which is a figures I never seen in operating mode even for smaler wind power turbines) is the stop wind at operating mode for the turbines with diameter 100 m which I refered. These turbines at a particular Swedish park may very well be operating with 15 m/s stop wind now, due to what I’ve read and what the chairman says in the link I posted 22:40:14. /br, Magnus
“Jeremy (11:38:01) :
It is worse than that not only are these towers incredibly ugly and cover huge tracts of land these wind turbines kill birds. At Altamont Pass, California, more than 1,000 birds of prey are killed each year”
That is called evolution in action.
Evolution: its the law.
Well, I don’t think they’re ugly; to my eye, they’re graceful and elegant, a tribute to how technology can be beautiful.
Last week while driving through the Horse Heaven Hills I noticed that less than half of monster mills were turning, in a 25 mph wind. The big uglies just sat there ominously, degrading one of the most beautiful places on Earth.
And, btw, one of the few places on Earth that has scenic ordinances that ban homes, logging, and anything that might detract from the “historical setting” as defined by the compounded Federal-State Scenic Area Commission, an unelected body imposed on the local citizenry with dictatorial powers, no due process, and no appeal short of an Act of Congress.
I am sorry, but your personal opinion on what is beautiful counts for absolutely nothing in the real world. What does count is the opinion of petty bureaucrats, carpetbagger functionaries who determine whether your home is in keeping with their whims or not. And most often not. But the big ugly windmills get a free pass because… well, who really knows?
Did I mention that the Mid-Columbia has one of the largest populations of American bald eagles in the Lower 48? Chop chop.
It is a sad sad world that these carpetbaggers proposing useless wind farms to receive government subsidies have been allowed to perpetuate the lie that wind turbines have any impact on CO2 production.
Roaring Forties – Hydro Tasmania are waiting for their government subsidies to be guaranteed before they build thier proposed wind farm at Pipers Creek in the beautiful Macedon Ranges of central Victoria Australia.
A disaster like chernobyl could not happen with new reactor designs, or even old western reactor designs
I remember hearing similar statements when the film ‘The China Syndrome’ was released, then 12 days later Three Mile Island happened. It must have made Jack Lemmon smile…
Laws of physics deemed capitalist & warmongering, government funds peaceful perpetual motion.
But when they are working we burn a lot less fossil fuels! If they work at full capacity for 30% of the year then we burn less fossil fuels for 30% of the year … surely that makes sense?
James P (01:25:20) :
Please, read the following blogs’ posts on nuclear reactors:
1) http://nextbigfuture.com/
2) http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
and do not invoke memories of “Jack Lemmon (stupid) smile…” and Hanoi Jane’s equally intelligent facial expressions…
Regards
Firstly, if we ban coal, what on earth will millions of expectant mothers chew on at 3:00am?
Secondly, don’t worry about we plucky Brits, we’ve solved our energy crisis. It’s called the Houses of Parliament. Those lovely money grabbing people of dubious parentage have generated oodles of hot air of late so with a little sticky plaster, an old washing-up liquid bottle, some sticky-backed plastic, & a wire coat-hanger, we should be able to harness this (unfortunately) infinitely renewable resource to heat water, generate steam, & produce elevtricity.
On a much more serious note. The automotive industry appears to be keen to dance with hydrogen powered cars, although few seem available or reliable & there seem to be none in the UK. (Personally, driving around in a car sitting on the most exposive element known to mankind is something I am not too keen to attempt). What are the merits of tapping into this element extracted from sea-water to power our power stations/plants, etc? I am sure there are real difficulties involved due to its explosive tenendcies but is it not possible to use it for such a purpose? Is it a case of too much energy needed to extract it making it uneconomic?
sorry about the typo!
“The fossil-fired plants will be built whether wind power plants are built or not.”
Except that they won’t. Permits for fossil-fired plants are being denied left and right, and regulations are driving the costs for those plants exponentially.
For comparison, the toxic nuclear power plants so beloved by the anti-renewable crowd provides only 12 percent of the power sold in California. That percentage continues to drop as nuclear power will never increase here, but renewables and natural gas plants will.
And California will continue to become less and less competitive with more and more expensive energy.
We (the engineers) are much closer to having renewable energy storage systems that work reliably and economically. At that point, wind, solar, wave, and ocean current energy will provide everlasting, cheap, reliable power. And that is a very good thing.
Uh-huh. How many times have we heard that the next big breakthrough in X was just around the corner? That’s the thing ab out breakthroughs, they happen when they happen. In the meantime, let’s not handicap ourselves.
then 12 days later Three Mile Island happened.
How many people were injured because of Three Mile Island?
How many people die every year in Coal Mines?
But when they are working we burn a lot less fossil fuels! If they work at full capacity for 30% of the year then we burn less fossil fuels for 30% of the year … surely that makes sense?
It’s been discussed up thread, but no, that’s not the way it works.
The Cut In Wind Speed
Usually, wind turbines are designed to start running at wind speeds somewhere around 3 to 5 metres per second. This is called the cut in wind speed. The blue area to the left shows the small amount of power we lose due to the fact the turbine only cuts in after, say 5 m/s.
The Cut Out Wind Speed
The wind turbine will be programmed to stop at high wind speeds above, say 25 metres per second, in order to avoid damaging the turbine or its surroundings. The stop wind speed is called the cut out wind speed. The tiny blue area to the right represents that loss of power.
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/powdensi.htm
Wind Turbines:
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/WETF/Facts_Volume_1.pdf
jon (04:18:07) :
But when they are working we burn a lot less fossil fuels!
This is what it’s all about. Wind does not instantly cease all over the UK. Impending loss of of power can be predicted.
Instant response:
Synchronised and spinning-in-air Emergency load pick-up rate from standby 0 to 1,320 MW in 12 seconds from Dinorwig for example
will catch the first windless turbines.
8.5 GW of additional capacity available to start immediately but not running, referred to as “warming” or “hot standby
Is then available in 30 to 120 minutes
8GW to 10 GW by capacity – are operable from a cold start in about 12 hours for coal burning stations, and 2 hours for gas fired stations.
Birds and windturbines:
The RSPB is now in favour of CORRECTLY SITED turbines.