From the “twice as expensive, half as reliable” department comes this paper from SPRINGER where they seemed to have figured out (finally) that wind and solar just isn’t all that good for reliable power. Their solution? Overbuild. To me, that’s laughable, because regional weather patterns (such as a rex block high) can easily shut down not just dozens, but thousands of wind systems over a large area. Likewise, a persistent low pressure system (such as a cutoff low) can make clouds and rain over a wide area for an extended period, making solar power next to useless. It doesn’t matter how many wind and solar plants you build, weather will still make it unreliable at times. – Anthony
100 percent renewable energy sources require overcapacity
To switch electricity supply from nuclear to wind and solar power is not so simple
Intermittent sources are, by definition, unsteady. Therefore, a back-up system capable of providing power at a level of 89% of peak load would be needed. This requires creating an oversised power system to produce large amounts of surplus energy. A day storage to handle surplus is ineffective because of the day-night correlation of surplus power in the winter. A seasonal storage system loses its character when transformation losses are considered; indeed, it only contributes to the power supply after periods with excessive surplus production.
The option of an oversized, intermittent renewable-energy-sources system to feed the storage is also ineffective. This is because, in this case, energy can be taken directly from the large intermittent supply, making storage superfluous. In addition, the impact on land use and the transformation of landscape by an unprecedented density of wind convertors and transmission lines needs to be taken into consideration. He also warns of the risk that it will intensify social resistance.
###
Reference:
F. Wagner (2017), Surplus from and storage of electricity generated by intermittent sources, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 131: 445, DOI 10.1140/epjp/i2016-16445-3
For more on the health problems turbines bring, the dissatisfaction with wind turbines, see…. http://www.EPAW.org…..European Platform Against Windfarms……to see just how much Europe hates its wind turbines, with its health effects, hates the damage wreaked on their countries.
Here in the U.S., the Washington and Oregon wind turbines, with capacity of 4780 MW, and I refer to the entire system of 46 windfarms, produced no power whatsoever for, on average, 9 days each month in the first half of 2015. In 2014, from January 5 to January 29, the wind turbines produced no power whatsoever for 25 days straight. I have written that wind power offers up seven (7) fatal flaws. Building more will not overcome these.
Countries are going bankrupt for renewables, Spain, Italy, Germany cites a threat of “deindustrialization”, UK is building power it cannot afford. If Obama were still in charge the US would continue blind, headlong into this madness as well.
For more bad news about wind power, a short list:
“Human Rights and Wind Energy Projects” -Peter Mitchell, March 2016
“A problem with wind power” – Eric Rosenbloom, at http://www.aweo.org
“Speaking truth to wind power” – Michael Trebilcock, SPPI Reprint Series, April 2009, explains reasons this green act is anything but green for Ontario
“Electricity costs: The folly of wind-power” – Ruth Lea January 2012, Civitas, info@civitas.org.uk
“Wind energy: Facts and fiction-A half truth is a whole lie” – J.A. Halkema, electrical engineer
“Wind report 2005” from E.ON, a German electricity company, cited by Halkema, that operates 7000 turbines provides insight into its almost unsolvable problems caused by Germany’s extensive use of wind energy.
This doesn’t surprise me. The left’s answer to problems cause by government has always been more government,
+10
Unicorn: The unicorn hitch is a three horse hitch, with a pair behind a single horse. This is a very difficult hitch to drive.
“twice as expensive, half as reliable”
Wait a second, you can’t just cast that as a negative, on a positive note that philosophy has been very effective in getting democrats elected. Well maybe not lately…but it worked for quite awhile.
It also tastes great and is less filling.
Have you ever tried “fat-free” half-and-half in the dairy products section of your grocery store?
If you do, also buy a real one as a replacement for when you throw it out in disgust.
Just had a discussion about the “solution” of the intermittent energy sources: connect whole Europe with each other and the problem is “solved”.
In theory, indeed the probability of a European wide none wind is quite low, but even then there are many hours that the wind is less than 10% of average capacity (not nameplate capacity, which is much worse) in whole Europe. Solar in winter is ~10% of production in summer and peak hours are after sunset…
Two interesting works on that:
http://www.sauvonsleclimat.org/images/articles/pdf_files/etudes/131120_Flocard_FoisonnementEolienTexte.pdf
in French, but Fig.5 gives the difference between 1 country and 6 interconnected countries.
From Euan Mearns, a similar work, including solar:
http://euanmearns.com/the-wind-in-spain-blows/
Thus to fulfill the needs of whole Europe you need a 10-fold of real capacity in every country and a network that can have loads as high as what near all Europe needs, as the overcapacity may be generated e.g. in Scandinavia and must be distributed via all countries, which all need some part of it down to Portugal, or reverse. Or from Ireland to Bulgary or reverse…
The current target of Europe is that the interconnections between countries gets up to 10% of what a country needs…
Some interesting simulation taking into account all possible failures in the European countries and the probabality of a real shortage/blackout can be read here:
https://www.entsoe.eu/Documents/SDC%20documents/MAF/MAF_2016_FINAL_REPORT.pdf
Anothet hhing to consider though is Population Densities. You could fairly easily power a rural location from Solar Panels using strictly Roof Top mounted devices with extremely limited (but still necessary) interties to Grid Power. But, If you were to try it with Manhattan Island, due to Population Density you would require an area that is 4 to 8 times the area of Manhattan Island to repower that city. Likewise for many other population centers.
Transporting electricity over long distances means much of it lost in transmission.
MarkW,
Most long distance transport and in under sea anyway is done by high voltage DC lines, as these have much less losses through capacitance with the surroundings. China is building UHVDC lines over thousands of km westward and maybe reach Europe in a decade or so to sell their surplus (coal!) power to Europe… Even with a loss of around 30% over such a distance, it still can be profitable…
See the infocommercial of ABB:
http://tdworld.com/sponsored-articles/uhvdc
Food for thought re long-distance undersea interconnects:
All nations with an extensive sea-power, and quite a few others, are feverishly developing remote underwater technologies. Ponder for a moment what that means for any nation which relies upon undersea interconnects to supply industry and household power.
If they think that they can use windmills/solar arrays on one side of the country to power the other side depending on what regions are getting wind/sun today, then they are forgetting about the huge losses involved in trying to send electricity long distances.
Naw, They will just Fed-Ex it
Days like this there would be no wind powered energy for all practical purposes in the continental US.
http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o25/techtipmail/usa.jpg
Important as needed.
How much to overbuild wind or solar can never be fully satisfied.
If a given area assumes that it will acquire power from an adjacent area if its wind stops, then that adjacent area has to overbuild sufficiently to supply both its own power and the first area. And the first area must do the same. But what if wind outage could extend over many adjacent areas? Then each area would have to overbuild to supply power to all other areas. To be 100% secure the overbuilding would have to be tremendous.
I can answer that question, the overbuild ratio is 25, that is to provide secure 24 x 7 reneweable energy with 5 days ride through you need 50 times the nameplate. Put another way once you provide for the intermittency a 200 Watt Nameplate Solar supply can be relied upon to deliver just 4 Watts at something approaching grid equivalent reliability. Wind can’t be used to generate grid equivalent reliability at all because it can be becalmed for months.
The unspoken issue though is that weather conversion schemes like Solar and Wind need to be exposed to – well – the weather. That means Cyclones, Floods, and Sand Storms. The risks of widespread catastrophic failure of weather exposed generation can’t be understated. Coal/Gas generation can be built anywhere and protected from the weather.
oops 50 not 25
What’s that phrase? “Don’t throw good money after bad.”
What that phrase doesn’t include is “the middleman”.
My guess is “the middlemen” are behind this. 😎
My vote for low CO2 “other generation” is nuclear. It seems to me that if you believe CO2 is a real problem (as I do) then the problems associated with nuclear energy (which we have been operating quite successfully for decades) pales into in significance. France has used nuclear for decades and has had no problems on a “global crisis” scale.
I find it very frustrating when “greens” try to prohibit nuclear. I am a believer in science and evidence. The evidence strongly points to CO2 being a big problem and nuclear energy being a very small problem on a global scale.
The economics of nuclear is another issue, but nuclear power should not be discouraged on environmental grounds.
Seaice1, even if CO2 is a big problem in the distant future, we should take the time to move to 4th gen from the present 3rd gen. Fourth gen isn’t just passive safety, it is about spent fuel and operating efficiency and capital cost. Get the TransAtomic Power white paper for a thoughtful example analysis. Suggests envineering problems rather than needed inventions. Five year engineering moonshot program, then build and test a ‘standard’ pilot, then roll out. In current nuclear environment, no private company can do that without gov assistance.
Seaice1. Good to see your level headed approach to the ‘problem’ but why is not every other ‘green’ promoting this as a viable solution, short or long term? Many others see nuclear power, being so cheap and effective at maintaining the status quo, allowing humans to still thrive, expand and consume. They want us to dial back, reduce, in some cases fade away. If you can answer why nuclear is not promoted widely to resolve this CO2 issue, I think this will lead you to the heart of the problem argued here.
As well, it is counter productive to the ‘green’ values, as history has shown when any society or country has cheap, reliable power, birth rates are reduced and with an excess of time and money, this is spent on improving the quality of the environment (quality of life) as everyone is not just concerned with their next meal, killing endangered animals to eat or cutting forests to cook.
I was a Star Trek fan, with Warp Reactors, aka unlimited energy, there may come a time what we don’t even care if we get paid. Money is a unit of energy, if you can synthesize food (or anything) with energy, no need for money.
seaice, I am impressed with your approach. I’ll post a link to talk which I believe you will find both interesting and troubling as soon as I get to my computer. I didn’t know you could engage as more than a troll and am impressed.
Duncan. “but why is not every other ‘green’ promoting this as a viable solution, short or long term? ”
I don’t know, it seems common sense to me. There is anti science on all sides. Anti GMO activists also abuse science. There may be problems with GMO but they are not the ones promoted by many activists. I believe we should follow the evidence and not let ideology cloud our judgement.
Hunter; I am disappointed that you view my alternative views as trolling. I had thought I was engaging in occasionally productive discourse.
Seaice..I don’t believe we will all die tomorrow (not saying you do) due to CO2. I see cheap, reliable, energy as the fix for all man ‘sins’, regardless of your/their CO2 concerns. Imagine the farmer in Afghanistan forced to grow poppies (heroine) to feed his family. Imagine if he could get enough energy to send his daughters to school, irrigate his fields to grow alternative crops, the internet for education, excess money to pay for a police force. Energy will fix many of these problems. He will no longer be held hostage to sustenance living. Drug addiction, Taliban taxes, etc. fade away. Unfortunately depriving these people of energy, hydrocarbons or otherwise just perpetuates many of the problems we see today.
To Hunters “non-troll” comment, take it as a compliment.
seaice, the earlier comment was meant as a compliment and I should have worded it more diplomatically.
So when the clouds roll in and the winds die, you can have four times as many idle generators…
boondoggle – noun (North American; informal)
Work or activity that is wasteful or pointless but gives the appearance of having value.
Well by the laws of inverse squares if you build twice as many wind mills, it’s only half as calm on a windless day. And if you build twice as many solar panels, it’s only half as dark at night. We’re talking economies of scale, man! This will be as effective as spending our way to prosperity. I really hope President Trump gets these climate fraudsters shut down hard.
Second week of low/no wind energy production at BPA. https://transmission.bpa.gov/business/operations/wind/baltwg.aspx
“A slight chance of flurries and freezing drizzle after 10pm. Patchy fog before 10pm. Patchy freezing fog. Otherwise, cloudy, with a low around 31. Calm wind.
Saturday”
“…AIR STAGNATION ADVISORY THROUGH MONDAY MORNING…”
We are snow birds. Currently our RV in the Mojave desert. Summers will be in the PNW sailing.
However, the wind in the PNW is also unreliable on hot summer days. Breakout the 500 hp ski boats and beer.
Link to the actual paper:
http://epjb.epj.org/images/stories/news/2017/10.1140–epjp–i2016-16445-3.pdf
Also, the text in the article here is the press release from European Physical Journal, and is not part of the paper.
Here is the source for the text presented here.
http://epjb.epj.org/epjplus-news/1186-epjplus-highlight-100-renewable-energy-sources-require-overcapacity
[no, not quite – Eurekalert is the source, most all science press release come from there https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-01/s-1re012517.php -mod]
“Eurekalert is the source, most all science press release come from there”
You may have got it from Eurekalert, but the original source is the European Physical Journal. Nobody at Eureakalert wrote any of that text.
I believe that it is good practice to provide references to primary sources.
Sounds to me like a classic example of diminishing returns. Like trying to keep an old car on the road, eventually, it becomes cheaper to buy a new one.
No reason to get nasty about old cars. Since wind and PV does not work very, the value of power does not justify fixing them.
strange world we live in now, those claiming they want to use “green” energy oppose putting co2 into the air which makes the earth GREENER, and promote less co2 in the air which makes the earth LESS GREEN.
‘the wind is always blowing someplace’
Usually out of the mouth of idiot college professors at places like Stanford based on a study done by students. What do you want to hear professor to get a good grade?
It just seems that the wind power proponents think that the future for humanity is a constantly changing minute to minute wishing dependency on hoping that the weather is beneficent enough to let us have, oh please, some power today because I need to, oh please, charge my heart p,a,,c,,e,,,r. . . .
You need a reliable storage for electrical power. And you need a mix of different resources. (wind, solar, biogas, natural gas, coal, oil) That’s all. In Germany we produce about 30% electricity by wind. Not 100 % and nobody calls for 100% wind. Believe me it works well! We don’t have blackouts as i.E. the USA. That’s because of the advanced grid we use.
Marty: May I suggest you take a read of Pierre Gosselin’s blog post on German wind.
marty, Merkel and the greens appear to have fooled you. Wind on a really really perfect day might produce 30% for a small period of time. Additionally, what can possibly be considered “green” about something that destroys so many square kilometers of the environment to make so little unreliable energy?
“First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?”
S.R. Hadden, “Contact”, 1997
This requires creating an oversised power system to produce large amounts of surplus energy.
Wouldn’t an “oversized” power system be even better?
Re above: France shutting nuclear plants down, looking at their power outputs, I do not think France will be shutting any nuclear plant anytime soon.
They are currently producing 76% of their electrical output using nuclear, with hydro and gas making up most of the remainder. It would cost an inordinate amount of money too denuclearize their system.
for no positive benefit.
See:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/
uk grid here:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
Well you are wrong: French policy is to reduce nuclear and increase renewables. They are facing an enormous bill to keep their nuclear plant running -it is all reaching its design limit at the same time.
Not really,Griff.
steverichards, never underestimate the stupidity if the arrogant greens.
My local Council is promoting the installation of two large solar farms in fields near my village. One of the Councillors for the scheme had the gall to tell our local press that he welcomes the solar farms as a means of ‘slashing fuel bills and poverty’ and telling them that the ‘[community] should benefit from this plan [with lower bills]’. I cannot think of a more technologically illiterate statement from a person who was voted in to office in order to help and support his constituents. Needless to say, a sharp letter has been sent to the local press on the subject.