Guest essay by Wayne Delbeke
From the 180 on CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Monday, March 21, 2016.
The maximum California can realistically achieve from renewables is 18% of their total energy supply.
The comment was made by a former member of the California Energy Commission during a CBC review of Alberta’s goal of “UP TO 30%” of it’s power supply from wind and solar. The key word from a political standpoint is “UP TO” since 1% actually achieves the goal POLITICALLY.
The new Alberta government plans to use a carbon tax to fund subsidies for “renewable” energy projects – whatever that means. People think “solar and wind” but that is not necessarily the case.
Still an interesting listen.
Summary below:
“In California where I used to be a regulator, we went out and did a complete estimate looking at all the land we could get access to and be able to use for renewables and find out what’s the best you could do… and the best we could ever imagine, if you fully committed to renewables was thirty percent. Then we backed off and said what’s it realistically going to be, and the best we could come up with was eighteen percent. – Michal Moore, School of Public Policy, University of Calgary “
“Last week, The 180 visited the town of Hanna, Alberta, where residents worry they’re living in a town without a future.
Hanna’s coal-fired power plant has had an uncertain future since the release of the NDP’s climate plan in November. Dean Girodat works at the mine that feeds the plant, and is worried about life after it closes — both in terms of his own ability to make a living, and the province’s ability to power itself without coal.
But while coal power is on the way out in Alberta, wind is picking up. The Alberta government’s plan sees renewable energy, like wind and solar, to provide up to 30 per cent of Alberta’s electricity once coal is gone. The 180 visited a turbine farm near Pincher Creek, Alberta, where wind from the Rocky Mountains whips across the rolling foothills and ranch-land.
Wayne Oliver supervises TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek, Alberta. (Kathryn Marlow/CBC)
Wayne Oliver is the Operations Supervisor for the company TransAlta’s wind operations in Pincher Creek and Fort Macleod. The company operates 412 turbines around around Pincher Creek.
If you consider that your fuel source is free, once you put up your tower, all you have to do is maintain it. Then, it’s a great supplemental source of energy for the grid… of course, sometimes it’s not windy. I don’t know if wind will replace everything we have, but it’s a great supplemental source of energy. -Wayne Oliver
So there’s one of the challenges in bringing renewable energy up to 30% of Alberta’s energy grid. Right now, wind turbines provide 4% of Alberta’s electricity. Solar power, another renewable energy source, has challenges of its own, such as efficiency in a province where for much of the year, the sun is at a low angle.
Michal Moore is a Professor of Energy Economics at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. He was also a commissioner of the California Energy Commission. He says getting renewable sources to power 30% of Alberta’s grid is a good, but difficult, goal.”
Note: in the last full year of reporting (2014), Coal-fired plants provided 55% of Alberta’s power. There is more Natural Gas generation (44%) than Coal-fired on line but coal-fired (38%) was still providing the majority of electricity in the province. That may change as there are a number of new NG plants. Wind and solar – not so much. It’s snowing as I write this, my solar panels are covered with white stuff and the wind is calm. But I have grid power and a Propane fired 12 kW generator for when the wind and/or snow knock the power out – which happens regularly in my remote neck of woods in the Alberta boreal forest.
The NDP goal of 30% of electricity from Wind and Solar in Alberta is likely nothing more than “California Dreamin’ ” If sunny California can’t achieve 30%, then it is highly unlikely that Alberta will – in terms of ACTUAL production as opposed to “installed capacity”.
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Electricity/682.asp
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/Electricity/681.asp
Michal Moore is referring to land area access that is a moving target due to technical change in solar PV efficiency. I’m not sure how far back that was that they did the estimate in California, but it is a fact that project areas are shrinking for utility scale PV. The efficiency of the lowest cost producer is rising by double digit annual percentage rates due to R&D investment. Community scale solar PV in the mid range size class will also benefit from the rate of change in efficiency. The competitive bid price for utility scale PV is now in the range of 3 to 5 cents per kwh in PPA deals and headed lower. There is also the issue of changing land use patterns to alter the assessment of capacity. The California Flats PV project to be jointly owned by PGE and Apple was a large dry land farming operation being converted to renewable energy.
Awesome quote of the day:
David Suzuki approx. 09:52 local CBC radio The Current with Anna Maria Tremonti
Thank you Dr. Suzuki.
The batteries, which can store large amounts of energy and thus even out the ups and downs of power production and power use, are in the process of being commercialized by a Cambridge-based startup company, Ambri.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2016-03-chemistries-liquid-batteries.html#jCp
At what cost compared to standby natural gas turbine plants?
No idea, but wouldn’t mind having one for my i-phone.
Natural gas peaker plants can be subjected to carbon taxes. If non-carbon sources are used for peakers and storage they will not pay carbon taxes.
Companies will use tax avoidance if they can.
It takes a lot of nerve on the part of some Americans to expect that Canadians should furnish them with “green” electricity.
Flood parts of Canada, cover their land with wind and solar to furnish large urban areas of the U.S with “green”electricity and paid for by Canadians.
“It takes a lot of nerve on the part of some Americans ….”
There is no carbon tax in the US. There is no national mandate. A few states like California have high mandates they can not meet. Alberta may or may not have a mandate they can not meet.
I suspect that Canada has as many wing nut in government as the US.
From the hardware store standpoint, wing nuts are more easily removable. Can we apply this to governments?
At some point we have to admit that the green agenda that has been rammed down our throats for decades is about depopulation, nothing else.
+++ 10,000
More world for their children – no world for the children of those “below them”.
If I were owner of that coal fired power plant in Alberta, I would investigate co-firing biomass with the coal. It is a win-win-win. The local farmers and loggers win since their business gets a boost. The enviros are happy since they have less coal burning. The power plant gets to stay in business and charge for green energy credits. You can burn 10% biomass without making too many problems in the boiler.
Edward G says:
The enviros are happy…
The enviros are never happy.
That is much too straightforward. It needs to import wood pellets from across the Atlantic that they do in the EU plan. Besides it also needs trading schemes and middlemen in green agencies to divert funds and make it a modern, sophisticated system. It also needs a financial trading market for carbon credits with old Soviet plant sites in the mix.
There is a lot of waste biomass used for co-firing or boilers designed for it. A proven cost effective concept. Kettle Falls in Washington State is one example.
There so much BS on this site wrt the power industry, that it hard to know where to start. First of Seth is correct about ‘Bird Kills’ and all you bird whiners are wrong.
Because we can, all power plants built since the 80s have to be safe and have insignificant environmental impact. See the EIS (Environmental Impact Statement)
“A hint: no.”
Seth was wrong about that. All buildings.
The three most important things for siting a power plant are: location, location, location. So you bird whiners who talk about some place in California, it is not applicable to anyplace else.
My first commercial nuke startup had a problem with migrating birds flying into the cooling towers. This was before the EIS regulations but a biologist kept track of the issue.
“When a company called Enron was messing with the power grid ”
Boris you assessment is correct with a few exceptions. First it was not the US, it was the State of California. California had a flawed deregulation system. ENRON was a victim as were many other companies who thought a contract was binding if you played by the rules.
It is interesting that BC socialists (aka commies) are complaining that the commies in Kalifonia did not play fair. Stop your whining or US Navy will stop protecting you.
The second problem California did not permit new power plants in a timely manner. Third there was a drought in California. Third a nuke plant wiped the bearing on the turbine shaft. Fourth a large coal plant in Utah had a main transformer fire. Finally, a gas pipeline to California blew up in New Mexico.
Every month the CEO of my company would write a letter to Governor Davis warning of rolling blackouts when it got hot.
Just for the record, the largest gouger of ratepayers of investor owned utilities was Los Angeles Department of Water and Power LADWP. LADWP GM S. David Freeman became the California Czar and pointed a Texas bandits from the statehouse steps.
S. David Freeman was GM at SMUD when they closed the nuke plant I worked.
It should also be noted that under Governor Bush, Texas had deregulation that resulted in investment to build needed power plants and no rolling blackouts. A modest 5% wind mandate that worked.
Bush became POTUS and Davis got recalled. The only winners in the California energy crisis were lawyers.
“which kills about 13,000 people per year in the US.”
Not true. The US does not air quality issues rising to the level to cause harm. https://www.airnow.gov/
Only problem with this guest post — in 2014 19.8% of electricity generated by California came from renewable resources, even taking into account imported electricity. 85,000 GWh were imported but no data regarding source was collected. Even so out of 296,000 total GWh — 57,000 GWh came from renewables.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_gen_1983-2014.xls
Actually there were 97,000 GWh imported. I missed direct coal imports. The 85,000 GWH of Other imports are not categorized per source.
In-state generation in California was only 199,000 GWh of which 57,000 was Renewable
So as a percentage of in-state electricity generation Renewables actually were 29%
Only 44,887 GWh renewables were generated in state.
43,687 GWh commercial + a little more than 15,000 GWh of in state Government production = 59,000 GWh
On the subject of coal killing people, I have studied this in the past.
Since I worked mostly in nuclear power, I have no reason to promote coal but I do not like junk science. CAGW is a theory. So is PM 2.5 from burning fossil fuels is killing people.
It is classic how to tell a lie.
It goes like this. Researchers looked at data for emergency visits in 1980 and correlated an increase with air pollution. First association is not causation. Second the source of the pollution was not identified.
Next you have to look at what they mean by killing folks. What they are really saying is premature deaths. All the people who died were chronically ill patients over 75 years old. Furthermore, the theory has not been proven.
Let me put this in the context of the political climate. Bush was a new president and had proposed regulations on old coal plants and sulfur in diesel.
For the benefit of Seth, there was a time when many of our cities did have serious air pollution problems and cars did not have seat belts. Our parents worried about polio.
And the industry was basically told to leave. So it did, to the Pearl River Delta and surrounds. The same people that made this choice for us now purport to ask, “What became of our industry?” They proceed to blame others and to suffer no consequences. No need to tell me that US industrial output is at all time highs in this manipulated easy-credit bubble world as measured by the intervenors and manipulators. The lost chances are unknowable.
It was a 6 hour bus ride for where we lived on the coast around the Pearl River Delta to Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Yes, there was air pollution. About the same level as the San Francisco Bay area 20 years ago.
Never made to places in China with bad air quality.
No intervenors outside the nuke plant either.
“= 59,000 GWh”by
@Karl Horrex
Apparently, you are being confused by Kalifornia smoke and mirror. There was an earlier link that showed in state and imported generation. I lived in the PNW and watched the wind farms get built to meet Cali goals.
People in Cali do not want to see wind farms. Rural PNW likes the jobs and the property taxes.
Nope 97,000 GWh in imported electricity is accounted for as coal and other imports — separately from the 199,000 GWh in In-State production — for a total of 296,000 GWh for 2014.
The blue section of the spreadsheet clearly totals to 199,000 and splits in- state generation between commercial and govt/utility
the diff between the 57K in the top spreadsheet and 59K in the middle is likely export
Solar PV is at Grid Parity almost everywhere below the Mason-dixon line extended to the west coast.
A consumer can get PV installed — including inverters and grid tie for $2 a watt if they try a little (panels are as low as 50 cents per watt). — direct from the supplier — no subsidy reduction
This brings the KWh cost below the average of 12-15 cents in most of the country — not counting the 30% Tax Credit nor the interest deduction or depreciation that applies to ALL capital improvements on the home.
A 10 KW system (costing $20K) that produces on average 50% for 8 hours a day = 40 Kwh /day over 25 years = 365,000 kilowatt-hours for only $20,000
5.47 cents per kilowatt-hour
Subsidies just make it a better deal.
Who supplies the capital and know-how to power your fridge after dark and on cloudy days? If it’s not you the solar owner, there is not parity.
That’s pretty good, but here’s the problem, MTBF for a 10 panel system with panels that have a 40 year life time, the system starts having failures at 8-10 years, just for the panels, not including all the other systems (inverters, and batteries are probably worse).
“Solar PV is at Grid Parity ”
Power plants are selling power for 2-3 cents per kwh including taxes. Karl is lying again. If you want to go off grid like I do with my motor home, you need backup generators and batteries.
If you want to sell to the grid part of the day and get power back at night, then you need to pay for using the grid.
PV is an expensive hobby. Nothing more.
@ur momisugly Kit — where do you live ?? In MD the per KWh cost is 15.5 cents not counting taxes
Disingenous
@ur momisugly Kit again — what part of grid tie did you fail to see in my post –
@ur momisugly jamesbbkk — the definition of grid parity is cost per kilowatt-hour
Grid Parity is defined as the point when PV-generated electricity becomes competitive with the retail rate of grid power.
“Parity” is the condition of being equal. The definition you use does not mean the same thing. It seeks to create the illusion that manipulated costs and prices and coerced purchases are evidence of true progress. It was invented by promoters who also put lots of thumbs on scales.
@ur momisugly Micro660
Based on studies of microconverters — average MTBF is about 40 years
http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=11807
The overwhelming majority of panels — never fail — they simply lose power output at approximately .5% per year — so at 25 years most are producing between 80 and 90% of rated power
@Karl Horrex,
Heat, vibration, moisture, thermal cycles all accelerate aging in electronics. Panels are in a really bad environment for electronics.
Wait until there are millions of 10-20 year panels, and if those aren’t failing, or have reduced output due to failure of a section of the panel all over the place, then you might have something.
@ur momisugly micro660
Failure= catastrophic inoperability
Obviously after a sufficient number of years casings, connectors etc will fail — but the number of panels operating within spec after 25 years is 99+%
So how many micro-inverters have been out in the field for 40 years to establish such a longevity ??
Nobody’s solar panels are going to be still on their roofs 40 years from now, and if they are they probably will be blocked from the sun by high rise rabbit warren apartment buildings.
G
Thanks Wayne, fine job.
By the looks of the commentary you should do this more often.
The biggest stumbling block for wind and solar on the utility provider scale is the inability of these capture sources to generate enough energy during their lifespans to reproduce themselves. That coupled with generally unpredictable output from these sources makes their practicality completely dependent upon subsidies from government funding or rate increases. No one asks how much it costs to close a coal plant. What is the cost of a futile fight against natural climatic cyclicity?
I’ve posted the Stanford university study that shows interconnected wind can provide baseload power at up to 40% of nameplate — several times on this site Google it– your assertions are simply false
Which grid does Stanford operated? The study is bogus done by flakes.
The crap that comes out of Stanford these days must be an embarrassment to those engineers who graduated there from my generation.
Google the study and refute the math.
WInd is ALWAYS blowing somewhere — especially at 100 meters hub height. Wind speed over time and whether wind is blowing or not is a Weibull Distribution — so statistically it is trivial to quantify the baseload power based on a statistical analysis of the Weibull distributions of wind speed and wind blowing or not at geographically distributed sites.
It’s math and math don’t lie.
And if wind speed drops in half, from full load design wind speed, then you only lose 87.5% of your generating capacity.
Not bad for reliability of supply I would say.
G
The subsidies between nuclear and wind are quite comparable — yet wind (even taking into account capacity factor) is being built at more than 10 times the rate of nuclear — and is exponential
again — refute the math
@ur momisugly george — google the study — read it — and find fault in the math or methodology
The ONLY sources of energy on the planet that do not come from the SUN are nuclear fission, geothermal, tectonic, and tidal
all fossil fuels, all wind, all biomass, and all PV come from the SUN
Nuclear is too dirty to play with — Brussels, Paris, … and Thorium has not become viable in 40 years
FYI — I am not a warmist
“RetiredKitP…go away if you don’t understand…”
I only comment on things I understand. Kit is my name. I have added ‘retired’ since I no longer work as an engineer in the power industry. I have posted a long time ago as ‘cowpiemaster’ because I know my shit.
I know that I will not win a debate with those with better writing skills. To bad they often have unfounded concepts. They do not understand that they do not understand.
For those who think wind and solar are a conspiracy to close coal, take off your tin hat and stop worrying. Not going to happen.
It is an engineering problem. Not enough of us. Building a few wind farms, no problem. But to replace a large coal or nuke takes a lot of wind turbines but it can be done. If fact it takes about the same amount of time. However, before you replace the next large steam plant, wind turbines are already beginning to fail. At some point, failures exceed new build.
The first commercial nuke that I worked startup, is still running. All Carter era wind farms have failed. While this generation of wind turbines are better, there are clearly limitation.
BS — WInd farms that replace Nuclear (1100 MWe) production have been done in a Year — when was the last time a Nuclear Reactor was completed in under 5 years?
Soler PV and Wind has come a LOOONG way since you retired.
Join us in the 21st Century
http://cleantechnica.com/2015/05/21/oldest-operating-wind-turbine-world-turning-40/
That would be 1975 —
In The last 5 years 232,000 MW of nameplate wind was installed worldwide — capacity factors average around 19% (anywhere from 15%-45%) so that equates to the installation of 45 Nuclear Reactors in the last 5 years.
How many New Nuclear Reactors were installed in the last 5 years
What nameplate capacity factors does a typical sized nuke (already installed) realize before it needs refueling ??
What is the average watt per square meter power density of all of that 232,000 MW (nameplate) installed wind power ? Measured at that average 19% capacity factor. So it’s really 44,000 MW of actual average runtime capacity.
G
PS if you think that Ivanpah solar thermal power density is ridiculously low, you haven’t ever calculated the actual power density of a typical modern wind power farm. No I don’t mean the power out divided by the swept area of the electric fan blade. You have to include all the area of the intake duct and also the exhaust duct., which combined can be many square miles. just like solar panels, electric fan generators also shadow each other, and even create their own weather and climate.
Karl seems tho think there is competition between wind and nuclear. Not true, that the thinking of amateurs.
Utilities build steam power plants because they are needed. Wind farms are built because of a mandate. Utilities have resource plans that look 20 years into the future. It was just announce that new location for a nuke plant in the southeast US was being sought. Many communities will vie for this opportunity. Construction will not start until 5-10 years before it is needed.
One of the reasons we are not building more than the current 5 is that the existing fleet is performing so well and lasting longer than expected. It is equivalent of more than 25 new reactors. Capacity factor US nukes is greater than 90% and availability is 99%
China is building many nuke reactors because they had to start importing coal in 2005. That is why I was in China. Standard designs are coming on line in 5-6 years.
@ur momisugly george — doesn’t matter — wind and PV never need refueling — thermal solar with reflective mirrors and a central tower is a BAAD idea.
The power density of a 100 meter hub height wind turbine doesn’t matter because crops, animals, and the ocean can exist just fine underneath the turbine — and you don’t need gun toting federal security either
same can’t be said for ultra-expensive nuclear.
OK george — 19/10% 40 1100MWe equivalent versus 45 — sue me
But being real — offshore capacity factors are 35% on average — so….
Following is excerpted from a recent letter I received from Alberta Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd:
“ Regarding your concerns about renewable energy being too intermittent and too diffuse to be economical, the Alberta Electric System Operator· released an Energy Storage Integration recommendation paper in June 2015, outlining key considerations regarding three top priorities for advancing the integration of storage technologies in Alberta. More information is available at: http://www.aeso.ca/gridoperations/28793.html “
The key report is here:
http://www.aeso.ca/downloads/Energy_Storage_Integration_Recommendation_Paper.pdf
QUESTION::
Seriously, is any of this proposed grid-scale storage technology practical or economic at this time?
Regards to all, Allan
Thank you for that! I am wondering if there is ever a real need for storage of energy in Alberta. For at least 10 months of the year, people need heat for their homes, at least at night. So if we had areas with a high density of wind energy for example, could we not have an efficient electric heater in the basement of every house that could automatically take care of any excess wind energy that may not have any other use at the moment?
QUESTION::
Seriously, is any of this proposed grid-scale storage technology practical or economic at this time?
ANSWER FROM AN ALBERTA ENERGY EXPERT:
No
The only one that really works is pumped storage and we do not have the elevation near the water.
The other stuff is experimental.
Just posted this comment to the following Newsweek article DID CALIFORNIA FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIX GLOBAL WARMING?
http://www.newsweek.com/california-global-warming-climate-change-439972
California has indeed led the nation in requiring energy efficiency. Kudos for that. Most of the article is gushing praise for for an imaginary California that ranks 25 of 50 states for renewable energy-
http://energy.gov/maps/renewable-energy-production-state
still today, mostly century old hydro.
and for policies, regulations, and taxes that have created high energy costs- http://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
partly responsible for manufacturing leaving California to areas with lower energy costs and for creating high unemployment- http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm
Due mostly to fracking, the U.S. is now energy independent, there’s an oversupply of of other, dirtier fossil fuels, and the costs of fossil fuels is presently so low that wind and solar are not at all competitive.
Doug
The only thing Cali leads in is BS. Like I said Cali imports 1/3 of their power.
They do not lead in conservation just the number op pages of regulations. Title 24 is a joke. It is not based on sound engineering principles that could be found in the ASRAE handbook.
I moved from Michigan to Cali and built an energy efficient house. My pants got rejected. Title 24 demands a ‘Michigan house’ where inside and outside temps are colder by 90 degrees F and no A/C is required in summer. In a mild winter climate with hot summer days and cool evenings, a ‘Monterrey house works’ and was how things were done for thousands of years before A/C. When we lived in Spain we did not have A/C.
After my house plans were rejected, I sent them back to the architect and had the south facing windows labeled ‘passive’ solar collectors. This an 37 pages of alternate calculations got me a building permit.
What did California have against your pants? Too much lead in the zipper? 😎
(There are typos and there are bloopers.
Typos are mistakes. Bloopers are mistakes that mean something else.
I love bloopers. They are sort of unintended puns.
Thanks for the “unintended” chuckle.)
Well about as fast as new fracking available petroleum comes on line for auto fuel, the breeding factor of red traffic lights just about wipes out that increase.
My commute auto, which can get better than 50 mpg driving from home to work (if I actually could do that drive) has a long term average moving speed of 11 mph, and an actual moving mpg average under 20 mpg. I almost never exceed 60 mph but can if I want to (don’t want to).
My car actually won’t go 11 mph. When properly warmed up and on a flat road my car goes 15 mph with my foot off the gas pedal. I have to put my foot on the brake pedal to drive at 11 mph (and that is the average speed). So I also have to wear both my brakes and my tires, in order to average 11 mph.
Meanwhile the one or two high occupancy vehicle lanes are mostly empty.
Note these are “high occupancy vehicles” meaning mum and kinderkid who doesn’t drive anyway.
They do not mean “high vehicle occupancy lanes”.
Motor cycles can use the high occupancy vehicles lanes, because evidently they always have as many passengers as they can possibly carry, which is just the driver. Well occasionally they also carry the designated heart donor on the back rumble seat.
Buses carrying passengers are high occupancy vehicles and can use those lanes. School children don’t count as passengers so school children carrying school buses may NOT use the HOV lanes when carrying school children, and when they are not carrying school children, but just a driver, they are not HOV, so can’t use the HOV lanes then either.
HOV occupancy by more than the driver, should ONLY include passengers who are legally licensed drivers, carrying a valid drivers license, and thereby not putting THEIR automobile on the hiway.
Solution is to allow ALL vehicles to use ALL lanes at ALL times, so entry/exit lane is not always full of 15 (or 11) mph vehicles trying to et over to the only other open non HOV lane.
g
I forgot to add that school buses carrying school kids are required to drive in the same lane as vehicles carrying explosives’ it’s the law.
G
@ur momisugly Roger
“When wind power reaches the percentage it has in Germany,…”
The US grid is much more stable than the EU because of the size. I have done the calculation for a US steam plant considering the thermal transients. Also US grid operators have very good weather predicting departments. I used to have access. For example, when it gets very cold, people suddenly start turning on portable heaters to supplement heating systems that are not designed for extreme cold days (90% design criteria). Also tornadoes, wind storms, and ice storms can take down transmission lines in an instant. To prevent cascading failure, grid operators have to be prepared.
In other words, changes in wind or solar generation are no big deal.
I dispute you Kit when you say:
“In other words, changes in wind or solar generation are no big deal.”
The E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005 is an informative document:
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/eonwindreport2005.pdf
(apparently no longer available from E.ON Netz website).
Figure 6 says Wind Power is too intermittent (and needs almost 100% spinning backup);
and
Figure 7 says it just gets worse and worse the more Wind Power you add to the grid (see Substitution Capacity dropping from 8% to 4%).
Allen I am not sure what you are disputing. Maybe you missed or did not understand this link.
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.aspx
See no big deal!
Of course you have to have rolling reserve. All steam plants are designed to load follow including nukes. Open and close steam inlet to the turbine to meet power demand. In the case of BPA, they have hydro.
I have been sailing the wind resource that BPA balances for more than 20 years. Long before any wind turbines. The rolling reserve was already there. Think of it this way. The weather conditions that result in the reserve margin be challenged are likely to coincide with no wind.
KIt – Pretty sure I am right because you are citing an unusual example. I assume BPA is the Bonneville Power Administration, a USA federal nonprofit agency based in the Pacific Northwest.
See the actual BPA numbers at
http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg.txt
BPA is about 69% hydro, which is unusually high, and realistically about 4% wind (at a Capacity Factor of about 25%). Hydro is one of the few systems that can react quickly to rapid changes in wind power, but most power grids have little hydro – not nearly enough to compensate for wind power.
For reference:
Global Primary Energy Consumption by Fuel is
86% Fossil Fuel (Oil, Coal and Natural Gas),
4% Nuclear,
7% Hydro,
and 2% Renewables.
Suggest you read my reference above – E.On Netz 2005 Wind Report, and especially Figure 6:
“The feed-in capacity can change frequently
within a few hours. This is shown in FIGURE 6,
which reproduces the course of wind power feedin
during the Christmas week from 20 to 26
December 2004.
Whilst wind power feed-in at 9.15am on
Christmas Eve reached its maximum for the year
at 6,024MW, it fell to below 2,000MW within only
10 hours, a difference of over 4,000MW. This corresponds
to the capacity of 8 x 500MW coal fired
power station blocks. On Boxing Day, wind power
feed-in in the E.ON grid fell to below 40MW.
Handling such significant differences in feed-in
levels poses a major challenge to grid operators.”
They came close to crashing the German grid on Christmas 2004, and needed to bring onstream the equivalent of eight 500MW power plants in just 10 hours.
Diesel generation with instantaneous response is the most common wind backup, no? Double capacity installation is – what are the words? – not sustainable. It’s about time to tell the customers that the prevailing voters care not about reliable power availability so there won’t be any. Some of the customers will blame the generators and distribution companies because they will refuse to hold themselves accountable for their voting habits.
“@ur momisugly Roger
“manufacturing leaving California ….”
Not just manufacturing jobs. Jobs of all sorts. In an effort to keep employed after the nuke plant was closed, I started taking classes in environmental compliance classes at UC Davis (aka free republic of socialist Davis).
When I finally gave up and moved to the PNW, Cali lost 5% of jobs to other places but the governor did brag about conservation.
“From the hardware store standpoint, wing nuts are more easily removable. Can we apply this to governments?”
Not in my experience. The problem is that the parasites in society out number the producers. Productive people who live in rural areas like farmers, miners, and electricity get a great deal of satisfaction out of a job well done. Understanding science is important to sucess. Teachers provide an essential service but I have met very few who understand science. In rural areas, teachers have the opportunity to rub elbows with the producer class. Teachers in a big city, teach kids about about ‘dirty’ coal plants but have never seen one.
A personal example of a wingnut is a nice friend who is very good at teaching kids to read. See gives me lectures about vampire circuits because I leave my cell phone charger plugged in. At their house, they have a large freezer and three refrigerators. One in the garage is a dedicated beer fridge. Her husband and I can often be found drinking beer in the garage discussing the merits of a big garage (garagemajal). She is very happy with her vote for Obama. The rural county votes republican. We have low crime, clean air, good schools, low cost housing, and low property taxes. Our congressmen is very good on energy issues. On the state level, the governor and senators are democrats. To get elected they promise to tear out the dams, shutdown the coal and nuke plant. There never do and those voters never seem to notice.
There is another rule about renewable energy. Do not try to build it where the people who demand it can see it. The thing about ‘greens’ they are against every thing.
@Gunga Dinner
Poof reading what I writ is a curse. Rwed wine helps.
😎
Maybe, but the Red’s whines hasn’t helped US yet.
Karl writes
“@ur momisugly Kit — where do you live ?? In MD the per KWh cost is 15.5 cents not counting taxes
Disingenous”
“Grid Parity is defined ….”
I would say a self serving definition is disingenuous. A better word is scam. Lying also comes to mind.
http://www.pjm.com/
This link shows that power being sold to the Maryland market is ranging from $12-24/MWh which includes the taxes you do not see in your bill.
The point I want to make is that electricity is very cheap commodity to make. If you want to claim that PV will become widespread based on a false premise, it is not going to happen.
For the record, my wife live full time in a motorhome. We spend winters in the south and summers in the PNW. We do not have an electric bill. I make electricity with a gasoline generator. Also spent a lot of time making electricity with steam heated by fission.
Before that China. Electricity was free. Before that Virginia. Before that Washington State. Before that California. Before that Michigan. Should I go on.
“Google the study and refute the math.
WInd is ALWAYS blowing somewhere — …..It’s math and math don’t lie.”
Seth what do you do for a living?
I have read the study. Studies do not make electricity. The people who do these studies do not make electricity. They are just as clueless as Seth.
The thing to remember is that you have to convince the people who make electricity. One of the largest power companies that I used to work, is a leader in nuclear power, coal, natural gas, and wind when you look at key performance indicators.
I am not against wind in the right location.
When I read Seth’s original post I was thinking much the same. It isn’t that you can’t keep installing windmills at enough locations until you are creating all the power you want at any time you want.
But at what cost? You can’t even plumb that much electricity around the country and not lose 10%? 20%?
And then there’s all the mills they have to make and buy! The maintenance, and so one.
Sorry Seth, I think it was a post from Karl that I was thinking of.
“It isn’t that you can’t keep installing windmills at enough locations until you are creating all the power you want at any time you want.”
But you can’t. And why would you. The advocates of such polices have never built or operated anything. France demonstrated that you can be enough nukes to supply 75% of their needs.
If those concerned with CAGW were serious, we would be building nuke as fast as we can. When Obama uses Air Frorce 1 to dedicate wind or solar it is to show his base that he is doing something. These folks are being duped.
@Seth you quoted “LdB. I didn’t say it was a top cause of preventable deaths. I said that there were an estimated 13,000 people per year in the US.”
The issue is you give some biased witchdoctor estimates of 13,000 deaths … I GAVE YOU ACTUAL DEATHS. Your garbage is not accepted by anyone except you, and even if I accepted your number you pulled out the air it rates as low, when looking at preventable deaths.
So why would I spend money on your rubbish or care when I can spend money on other much higher and CONFIRMED preventable deaths. It’s a stupid argument that only plays to one audience.
“KIt – Pretty sure I am right because you are citing an unusual example.”
Allen you are wrong. You reference is old but I read it at the time. It is about concerns about the future. It is now 2016 and the concerns appear to be unfounded considering the lack of a problems.
When Columbia Generating Station senses a problem the turbine trips and 1200+ MWe is gone in an instant. The grid did fine. Conversely, the grid from Seattle to San Diego went down and Columbia Generating Station rode out the transient providing power locally. The grid went down because of smoke from wildfires caused a cascading failure. Not a lot of wind back then and BPA learned from the experience. Just like BPA has learned to manage wind.
Nor is BPA an unusual example. 1200+ MWe going away in seconds happens all the time. We run test during startup to make sure everything works right. It was my job. What fun!
Allen, stop inventing reasons to be against wind. Stop commenting on things you do not understand. If you have a question, ask it. It is my honor to serve.
Sorry Kit but I cannot accept your comments – you dismissed the E.On Netz Wind Report 2005 – the largest wind power generator in the world – when I cited an actual German event from Christmas 2004. You also dismissed their actual Substitution Capacity of 8% at that time, which two independent studies said would drop to 4% by 2020.
Many power generation alternatives can work when you have ~70% hydro in the generation mix, but that is an unusual situation. It does not apply in Germany, or in Great Britain, or in my home province of Alberta.
Here our government is hoping that grid-scale storage will solve the intermittency problem of wind and solar – but unfortunately we have no practical means of grid-scale storage in this province. All their proposed solutions are experimental, except for pumped storage, where we do not have adequate topography or river flows.
“Sorry Kit but I cannot accept your comments”
That is ok Allen. Just trying to reassure you. From what I have observed, Candian power producers like TransAlta are just as good as good utilities in the US.
One thing good utilities (this leaves out California) do is quietly educate those in government of what is needed to keep the juice flowing.
In Alberta, the electric power consumer is often misled by our governments – of both conservative and socialist stripes -and cheated by our utilities.
The Alberta conservative government just installed a multi-billion dollar DC line that is supposed to reduce line losses – but the AC-to-DC-to-AC conversion is about 5%, greater than the total line losses in our province, which average less than 3% – so a simple analysis concludes the DC line is uneconomic.
Alberta also re-routed power from existing power lines to fill up the DC line – otherwise it would only run at less than 10% capacity. Now this DC line is part of our rate base, and consumers will pay for many decades for this scam.
The next scam, this time from our new socialist politicians, is to retire our coal-fired plants that produce electric power for about 2 cents per KWh, and replace them with unreliable, un-dispatchable intermittent wind power – there is NO chance that this plan will work. Our current politicians claim the coal plants are dirty, but there is NO evidence to support that allegation – the air quality downwind is excellent. Our coal is low-sulphur and particulate emissions are cleaned up at the plant source.
We have frequent forest fires upwind of our populated areas, with smoke from Alberta, British Columbia and the NW states of the USA. One typical forest fire does much greater harm to our air quality in Alberta than the total air pollution from one YEAR of our coal-fired power plant emissions – but why let the facts get in the way of another good electric power scam.
The alleged “CO2 pollution” from our coal plants is demonized by the leftists, but beloved of carbon-based life all over our blue-water planet. Numerous studies conclude that 97% of all plants that live downwind of our coal-fired power plants are extremely happy, and support the continued operation of these plants into the indefinite future. 🙂
Regards to all, Allan