Britain’s biggest wind farm companies are to be paid not to produce electricity when the wind is blowing.
Published: 9:00PM BST 19 Jun 2010
Energy firms will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing.
Critics of wind farms have seized on the revelation as evidence of the unsuitability of turbines to meet the UK’s energy needs in the future. They claim that the ‘intermittent’ nature of wind makes such farms unreliable providers of electricity.
The National Grid fears that on breezy summer nights, wind farms could actually cause a surge in the electricity supply which is not met by demand from businesses and households.
The electricity cannot be stored, so one solution – known as the ‘balancing mechanism’ – is to switch off or reduce the power supplied.
The system is already used to reduce supply from coal and gas-fired power stations when there is low demand. But shutting down wind farms is likely to cost the National grid – and ultimately consumers – far more. When wind turbines are turned off, owners are being deprived not only of money for the electricity they would have generated but also lucrative ‘green’ subsidies for that electricity.
The first successful test shut down of wind farms took place three weeks ago. Scottish Power received £13,000 for closing down two farms for a little over an hour on 30 May at about five in the morning.
Whereas coal and gas power stations often pay the National Grid £15 to £20 per megawatt hour they do not supply, Scottish Power was paid £180 per megawatt hour during the test to switch off its turbines.
It raises the prospect of hugely profitable electricity suppliers receiving large sums of money from the National Grid just for switching off wind turbines.
Dr Lee Moroney, planning director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank opposed to the widespread introduction of wind farms, said: “As more and more wind farms come on stream this will become more and more of an issue. Wind power is not controllable and does not provide a solid supply to keep the national grid manageable. Paying multinational companies large sums of money not to supply electricity seems wrong.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Roger Sowell:
Your comment at June 21, 2010 at 8:30 am is not merely disingenuous: it is a set of downright lies. In total it says:
“@ur momisugly Richard Courtney – repeating the falsehoods from a different thread does not make them true. My statements in reply to yours, on the earlier thread, stand.
You have a very peculiar definition of “useful.” But, you are entitled to be as wrong as you choose to be.”
1.
I have presented no “falsehoods” here or in the other thread. My posting here is at June 21, 2010 at 3:11 am and the other thread is at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/18/climate-craziness-of-the-week-lighting-up-your-windmill/
so anybody can check this for themselves.
2.
You have made no “statements in reply” to my substantive point – none, zilch, nada – on that thread or on this. I again remind that (as I quoted in my post at June 21, 2010 at 8:30 am above) my substantive point is:
“Intermittent supply of electricity that merely displaces supply from continuously operating power stations is NOT “useful”: it is an expensive bloody nuisance.”
3.
My definition of “useful” is not “very peculiar”.
My definition is simply that something is useful when its use provides a benefit and/or benefits of some kind.
But wind farms and the use of wind farms provide no benefit of any kind to an electricity grid.
their intermittent supply of electricity is not a practical addition to the electricity suppied to, or supplied by, the grid at any time.
They provide additional costs to electricity supply.
Their use increases fuel consumption for power generation.
Their use increases emissions from power generation.
Their intermittent supply of electricity is a disruption to operation of the grid.
They cover the landscape in concrete for their foundations and for roads to access them.
They swat birds and bats.
They obscure the landscape.
THESE EFFECTS ARE DIRE AND NONE OF THEM PROVIDES A BENEFIT AND/OR BENEFITS OF ANY KIND.
However, wind farms milk consumers and taxpayers of funds through subsidies and legally enforced purchase of their expensive output so – while their intermittent supply of electricity that merely displaces supply from continuously operating power stations is NOT “useful” – owning and operating wind farms is profitable (so “useful”) to their owners and operators.
3.
I choose to be right. And I remind that on that other thread at June 19, 2010 at 1:47 pm I wrote to you saying (in total)
“Roger Sowell:
At June 19, 2010 at 10:57 am you assert:
“@ur momisugly Richard S. Courtney, re clear statements of fact. No, you have made erroneous statements of non-facts, easily and clearly rebutted. ”
OK, then rebut my clear statements of fact. I like to be shown when I am wrong because then I learn. However, nobody can learn anything from your propogandist assertions that ignore my substantive point. I again remind you that my substantive point is
“Intermittent supply of electricity that merely displaces supply from continuously operating power stations is NOT “useful”: it is an expensive bloody nuisance.”
If that is “erroneous” and if that is “non-fact” which is “easily and clearly rebutted” then you should have no difficulty in refuting it. Please try.”
To date you have still to address that issue (i.e. you have made no attempt to refute my substantive point).
Richard
[Snip] Your point is sufficently clear without the additional reinforcement – RT Mod
Gail Combs and tallbloke – I’ve heard Costa Rica is a nice place, very stable government, cost of living very cheap. There is supposedly a growing American/foreign community establishing residence there. I’ve thought about going down there to see if it’s worthwhile.
Also, the statement by Leo Moroney HAS to be a candidate for understatement of the year.
“Paul Jackson says:
[…]
problem is storage; but a BOB, Big Old Battery cost $25 million for 32 MWhr of storrage, so I don’t see too many of these being built.”
Thanks for the link; i’m eager to see more NaS battery technology. When Lithium runs out due to the electric automobile craze NaS can save our ass. Too hot and too heavy for mobile application but it may become a viable mass storage; hopefully the cost will come down. Might even make wind and solar viable.
“LearDog says:
[…]
Am I missing something here? Why pay to NOT use peak wind load? Somethings wrong… And I’m stupid I guess…”
LearDog, you must remember that the Greenies are basically socialists. They do NOT want every man to decide for themselves via the electricity bill which power-type to consume.
They want a Commitee to decide for you what the price per KWatt should be.
Not you, you are too stupid to decide that. Not me either.
They also want to decide whatever to be produced. 100 000 left shoes this month, 100 000 right shoes next month. All according to a 5 year plan. They have to,they believe.
All to the greater good. Which is that all must be equal.
There will be a socialist elite dieciding all this. They will eat goose liver canapees, ride 747’s and Airbus to Paris and Brussels to join the holy commitees, where only those agreeing to the great Party Concencus will be allowed to join.
You, LearDog, will most likely NOT be allowed. You are using your own brain as an individual. That cannot be.
In a society where everyone shall be equal, and everyone must follow a concencus, something must be done with those who are not equal, who does not follow the concencus. They must be equalizised.
And that happens at school and via the media. Every day.
“kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
[…]
Hmm, this looks good. Currently identified as its #1 Most Popular Article:
Solar Aero’s Bladeless Wind Turbine”
I found a link to an article with a better picture of the design:
http://www.physorg.com/news192426996.html
There’s an interesting comment below:
“ubavontuba – May 07, 2010 Rank: 1 / 5 (3) Oh brother, this isn’t really all that new. If you eliminate the excess mass incorporated in the disks, you wind up with a typical blower fan of the type commonly used in climate control systems.
The only significant difference here is they’re using it passively, rather than actively.”
Tesla was a genius but later geniusses were able to stand on his shoulders…
Does anyone know where one can get reliable figures on how much of the world’s energy usage is supplied by wind power?
The World Wind Energy Assoc., an advocacy group for wind power, says 2%, but they provide no information about how that figured was derived.
DirkH says:
June 21, 2010 at 11:27 am
“LearDog says:
[…]
Am I missing something here? Why pay to NOT use peak wind load? Somethings wrong… And I’m stupid I guess…”
You’re not stupid. It’s a rigged market. I don’t know who invented it first, the Danes or the Germans: The feed-in tariff, a politically fixed guaranteed prize for every kWh produced over a lifetime of the generator of 20 years. The idea was to make it an absolutely risk-free investment, transferring all risks to society / the taxpayer / the consumer. It works! The whole risk IS transferred. That’s also why Troels likes this system so much – it makes his job risk-free. The Spaniards, the Brits, everybody imitates it. Some give extra subsidies even if no power at all is produced. European politicians all love it. Don’t ask me why they love it; i’m not a political scientist nor a psychiatrist.
The whole scheme is predicated upon the idea of ‘facilitation.’
The so-called ‘greens’ WANT to ‘see’ their dreams come true. So they enact laws which MAKE things happen with government assistance and funding.
In order for an artificial market to succeed, it needs entirely artificial impetus.
So then, one group of idiots (the greens) declares that they need to be free of another group’s energy supply. But the ‘other’ group is paying the ‘greens’ to instigate matters.
The ‘other group’ is actually owned by the same people whom the ‘greens’ despise, i.e., the multinational oil companies.
The greens want to ‘see’ windmills, and they are the quintessential Don Quixote: Instead of charging windmills, they charge the coal and oil interests.
Lenin had a term for what the greens are: Useful idiots.
Either way, the multinationals make big bucks.
“899 says:
[…]
The so-called ‘greens’ WANT to ‘see’ their dreams come true. So they enact laws which MAKE things happen with government assistance and funding.”
I had an idea along the same lines. It’s actually a way to neutralize the greens politically. Use money to satisfy one of their wishes and carry on running the country. Seen this way, a lot of subsidy schemes make sense. There are also still subsidies for some coal mining in Germany; this neutralizes another interest group.
By keeping an unviable scheme alive this way you make your enemy dependent on you. And keep him happy.
You guys seem like a knowledgeable group, so I have a question regarding the use of windmills: Has anyone ever used wind-powered water pumps to return water from below a hydroelectric dam back to the reservior above it? Given the absurd inefficiency of using wind to generate electricity directly, this might offer a more practical, storable way of converting intermittant wind energy. Here in Washington state, areas of the Columbia River gorge, which features several hydroelectric dams, are notable for windy conditions.
Very interesting thread, the arguments from Richard and others show how surprisingly useless and disruptive wind “power” is. As “solutions” to reduce carbon emissions, wind/solar and nuclear appear to be mutually exclusive. The only way to “mollycoddle” and accommodate wind/solar is to increase the contribution of wind/solar to a maximum of 30-40% while making ALL the remaining power generation peak generation, i.e. able to increase and decrease quickly. This peak power supply is more expensive (prices for peak are always higher than for baseline). Essentially the end point of pushing wind/solar is th have NO baseline. Peak adjustable power has to adjust to two things – fluctuating demand and fluctuating output from wind/solar. These adjustments for fluctuating wind/solar will be large and hard to predict and will require, as repeatedly pointed out, a big INCREASE in adjustable peak supply.
Nuclear of course is essentially baseline. So wind/solar and nuclear are mutually exclusive. Maybe this is one of the hidden agendas of the greens, eliminating nuclear out of sheer irrational bloody-mindedness. REplacing a solution that would decrease carbon emission with one that increases it.
“Maxbert says:
[…]
below a hydroelectric dam back to the reservior above it? Given the absurd inefficiency of using wind to generate electricity directly,”
I don’t think the conversion is inefficient.
Here’s an interesting table:
http://k0lee.com/turbineeff.htm
Up to 70% of the Betz limit? That’s not bad. Using electricity for pumped storage? Efficiency should be about 85%. So you get max. 59% efficiency.
Can a mechanical transmission top that? I doubt it. There’s a reason we replaced mechanical with electrical transmission. How would you transport mechanical power from the site of the wind turbine to the place where it’s needed without incurring huge losses?
Some facts on wind-energy, and research into various issues surrounding it, may be found at this site:
http://windpower.sandia.gov/topical.htm#WPR
Sandia National Laboratory is one of several U.S. laboratories funded by the U.S. government, located near Albuquerque, New Mexico.
“Beacon Power Corporation, a leading provider of advanced products and services to support a more stable, reliable and efficient electricity grid, today [March 18, 2010] announced that it has shipped, installed and successfully connected a Smart Energy(TM) 25 (Gen 4) flywheel energy storage system at a wind farm in Tehachapi, California. The system is part of a wind power/flywheel demonstration project being carried out for the California Energy Commission.”
source: http://www.windfair.net/press/7183.html
@ur momisugly DirkH:
I’ve read persuasive studies saying that total windfarm efficiency (for electrical generation), when you factor in all losses due to “intermittancy” and demand mismatch such as pointed out in the above article, is never better than 20%, since it’s prohibitively expensive to store electrical energy. Therefore, I was thinking that a wind turbine located close by a hydro dam could drive an hydraulic pump (instead of an electrical generator), which in turn would power an hydraulic motor on the water pump below, to move river water back upstream to the dam’s reservoir, where the stored energy could be used as dictated by grid demand.
In my senior year in engineering school, my team designed and built a feedback load control system for a wind turbine. Using the flexible loading characteristics of impeller-type water pumps, such a controller keeps the turbine spinning at the optimal tip-speed/wind-speed ratio to maintain turbine efficiency in varying wind velocities, with disruption due to hysteresis. I realize that there are losses in every kind of pump and motor (and hydro generation too), but nevertheless, water pumping would seem superior to an maximum overall electrical-generating efficiency of 20%.
But back to my initial question: Has the hydro dam idea ever been tried, or even studied by anyone?
Oops! I meant to write, “…without disruption due to hysteresis.”
@tallbloke and @John Wright, & co.
Just a clarifying point about using wind power as a ‘pumped storage system’. A windmill is a means of extracting energy from flowing air. If the blades drove an air compressor which charged up a reservoir, then this compressed air could be discharged when needed, into a remotely sited air-motor/generator.
If the reservoir is insulated then losses ought to be lowered directly. However we are talking about a ‘free’ energy supply and so inefficiency of such a system is only a capital as opposed to an recurring revenue loss. In other words, inefficencies show up as a one-time cost in terms of larger-than-necessary apparatus.
One interesting feature of such a system is that the loss of adiabatic heat at the reservoir, piping etc will show up directly as cooler-than-ambient air-motor exhaust temperature.
Another interesting feature is the possibility of using the compressed air in the reservoir to store heat energy. For example if the grid needed to dump some excess electrical power, it could do this by heating up the compressed gas via electrical heater elements mounted inside the reservoirs. This will increase the temperture, and so the pressure will also increase, and this extra energy will be recovered by the air- motor/generator.
And so by using these relatively cheap ‘wind-pumped air storage farms’, a grid could also handle local lumpy electrical suppliers such as traditional wind turbines, by dumping any excess power into these reservoirs.
The whole concept is like a huge but very slow heat engine.
Maxbert says:
June 21, 2010 at 1:50 pm
You guys seem like a knowledgeable group, so I have a question regarding the use of windmills: Has anyone ever used wind-powered water pumps to return water from below a hydroelectric dam back to the reservior above it? Given the absurd inefficiency of using wind to generate electricity directly, this might offer a more practical, storable way of converting intermittant wind energy. Here in Washington state, areas of the Columbia River gorge, which features several hydroelectric dams, are notable for windy conditions.
The idea certainly sounds intriguing, but what purpose would it serve, if the water from the dam is also supposed to feed the salmon stream?
But aside from that, it would seem to be a matter of cost effectiveness: How much will it cost for the purchase, installation and maintain of such, versus the amount of water returned to the reservoir?
In other words, will the power generated by the returned water bring a return on investment greater than the investment itself? Will it even break even?
Tony says:
June 21, 2010 at 3:20 pm
@tallbloke and @John Wright, & co.
Just a clarifying point about using wind power as a ‘pumped storage system’. [–snip–]
And so by using these relatively cheap ‘wind-pumped air storage farms’, a grid could also handle local lumpy electrical suppliers such as traditional wind turbines, by dumping any excess power into these reservoirs.
The whole concept is like a huge but very slow heat engine.
What will be the return on investment? That is, how long will it take for the system to pay for itself, and that includes its continued maintenance and operation?
Will it stand by itself, or will it require subsidies?
>>A research company in New Hampshire recently announced
>>the patent of their bladeless wind turbine, which is based on a
>>patent issued to Nikola Tesla in 1913.
Based upon a centrifugal compressor, and HUGELY ineficient at slow speeds. You might have noticed that slow aircraft have propellers, not turbines.
Again the Greens want to kill us all with their ignorance.
.
Trolls Halken,
“but when 10% of the American people sits on 90% of the wealth, then the average Joe has less to himself than the average Jens, even thou on average Jens is less rich than average Joe. Unemployment? 10% in the US? I think it is about 4% here ATM.”
You’re showing your leftist inclinations. Perhaps you regard wind “power” as a device to redistribute wealth from the productive entities to yourself. Don’t try to compare Denmark to the USA. The USA is a country of +320 million people. Denmark has 5.4 million. There are counties in the USA with larger populations than Denmark. America absorbs an equivalent to the population of Denmark in poor immigrants within every 2-3 years, and Despite all of Denmark’s “green” postureing their wealth comes from the exportation of North Sea oil and natural gas.
And Trolls, maybe indirectly but every person that works in a business is part of the sales aparatus. The the goal of every business is sales without which no business can exist.
From: DirkH on June 21, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Thank you.
Not exactly. I am well familiar with a standard squirrel cage fan, so much so I find Wikipedia’s illustrations to be ridiculous. Normally the blade part is a stamped strip of steel sheet metal, said stamping causing a long row of slits, then between the slits each little strip (still attached at the ends) is twisted to form a blade. The long strip is then bent into a circle, ends joined, and that part is attached to the disk with the mounting hub for the full assembly. An extra reinforcing ring to maintain the circular shape on the other end is often used. Plastic injection-molded versions are also found.
The Wikipedia illustrations, with wide blades normally curved reaching into the center and resembling a water turbine design more than anything air related, are quite humorous.
That comment you mentioned, with that article’s illustration in mind, misses an essential point. They’re trying to use Tesla’s turbine design, which is bladeless and uses the boundary layer effect. But that requires rather close spacing and very rigid disks, especially at the size shown. If the illustration is correct, their “bladeless” design is using other pieces at the edge for greater rigidity, probably sheet metal threaded through punched slots, in effect yielding a multitude of tiny blades. Thus the tiny blades, when you remove practically all the rest of the metal, resemble a squirrel cage. But the disks (actually rings as depicted) are yielding that Tesla turbine effect, allegedly, thus the efficiency is increased over using a plain squirrel cage.
From the linked Wikipedia Tesla turbine article, down in the “Pump” section, it is mentioned how Tesla experimented with washers (read small disks) spaced out along the perimeter for better performance. It doesn’t exactly say if this was done only for a pump application or also for a regular turbine. If it works for said wind application, such could be used to provide rigidity, in application as possibly rods threaded through punched holes.
The design as illustrated is somewhat of a hybrid but not by much, and claiming it’s basically a squirrel cage is in error, provided it properly has the details that make a Tesla turbine work.
Tesla was quite a bit a showman, willing to give the impression of possessing deep mysterious knowledge only he himself could comprehend. Which doesn’t seem all that unusual for inventors of that time who needed to attract investors. Look at some of the tricks Edison tried to pull off. Yet underneath the mysteries, the science must be there for those things that worked. It’s just a matter of finding it, then one can build greater mysteries.
Jordan says: June 21, 2010 at 5:03 am
Compressed air …
Compressed Air Energy Systems (CAES) do exist at small scale. For example there has been some discussion in the press about a compressed air car.
And here is that very same compressed air car.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, roll up, roll up, we have here a car that uses its own compressed air generator to generate its compressed air, to run the car with compressed air, so this car needs no energy to run whatsoever. Zippo, Nada, Nothing. One million miles per gallon, guaranteed. It simply runs on fresh air and few prayers to the great god of Green Pipe-Dreams.
http://www.zideo.nl/index.php?option=com_youtube&tag=200&tubeid=ztFDqcu8oJ4&feature=youtube_gdata&zideo=6b773d3d
(look at end part of video)
.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Greens have rediscovered the old perpetual motion con trick !!!! Daa, daaa. (drum roll…)
“” Roll up, roll up, get your wallets out, ladies and gentlemen – and lets hope our politicians are just dumb enough to fall for the oldest confidence trick in the book. Give us £billions, and we will laugh all the way to our yacht in the Bahamas. “”
.
As I said, the Greens are out to kill us all with their ignorance. We let them do it at our peril.
.
DirkH says: “(Assuming CCGT means CO2; i’m of the opinion that our emissions don’t harm the climate. YMMV.)”
sorry for the jargon Dirk – CCGT means combined cycle gas turbine genertator
If we leave the matter solely to the Market, the only new generating stations that compete will be CCGT and there will be loss of diversity.
For example, how much does Germany want to be dependent on supplies of gas from the east if all the new generators are CCGT?
So if no other generating tecnology is competitive, the only remaining question (assuming we don’t want to be wholly dependent on gas supplies) is how much subsidy to dole out to other generating tecnologies to secure diversity of supply.
Now that is a worthy question. Meantime all the hand waving about a test of a wind generator in the balancing mechanism is a wasteful distraction.
And in case you missed it – I am agnostic towards wind.
Ralph says:
June 21, 2010 at 4:00 pm
>>A research company in New Hampshire recently announced
>>the patent of their bladeless wind turbine, which is based on a
>>patent issued to Nikola Tesla in 1913.
Based upon a centrifugal compressor, and HUGELY ineficient at slow speeds. You might have noticed that slow aircraft have propellers, not turbines.
Again the Greens want to kill us all with their ignorance.
Ralph,
Don’t be so quick to condemn!
There are plenty of slow aircraft which employ turboprop engines.
Actually —and it might amaze you to discover— that turbine driven aircraft engines can indeed be lighter than their reciprocating cousins, whilst delivering greater torque and horsepower.
But aside from that, I’m intrigued by the design of the impeller.
Wind forecasting for electrical grid purposes in California, a PowerPoint (TM) presentation from 2005. The slides on page 11 are particularly good, showing forecast vs actual hourly wind-energy output for wind-turbines at San Gorgonio Pass.
http://www.caiso.com/docs/2005/03/22/2005032215434015268.pdf