View Full Version : Glenmorie Windfarm and rising constraint costs
ywindythesecond
25-Nov-12, 19:37
Glenmorie Windfarm and rising constraint costs
On Tuesday 27th November the Highland Council North Planning and Appeals Committee will meet to decide whether to support or oppose the Glenmorie Windfarm proposal. Planning officials recommend that the Council supports it. If the Councillors decide to oppose it, there will be a public inquiry. A public inquiry could cost the Council £20K so I am inclined to think that might have influenced the officials decision.
There are lots of good reasons not to have this windfarm but I want to talk about just one reason.
Glenmorie, is near Ardross and is north of the transmission hub at Beauly. Beinn Tharsuinn, Gordonbush and Kilbraur windfarms are north of Glenmorie. Between them they have been paid £4.2million to stop generating electricity when the wind is high and the grid can’t cope. We the consumers pay that. Baillie and Camster windfarms are under construction now, and when the conditions are such that the original 3 windfarms have to be shut down and paid, so will Baillie and Camster.
Stroupster, Wathegar, Causeymire Extension, Burn of Whilk, Strathy North, Bettyhill, all have planning permission and when built will have to be shut down and paid for as well.
Do we need yet another windfarm to shut down and pay for?
As well as these 3 windfarms in the north, Edinbane, Farr 1, Farr 2, and Millenium windfarms, all in Highland, have been paid another £6.8million, and across the rest of Scotland at least £20 million more has been paid out because the grid can’t cope., and there are lots more windfarms with planning permission but not yet built down there as well.
What is the sense of building and connecting windfarms so that they can be shut down from time to time and paid more for that than they get for their electricity, when you KNOW it will happen?
You end up paying for all this so if you think your councillor should not lumber you with the bill, let him know before Tuesday.
There is an excellent paper published today at http://www.communitiesagainstturbinesscotland.com/news-2/. There is a part which explains why payments to windfarms to shut down is different from the cost of balancing the grid.
When you saythe grid can't cope... what exactly do you mean... where exactly do you mean and isn't there a new cable to be laid in the sea to take all this excess leccy past the current cable network or have I mis understood and got this wrong...
Angel...
ywindythesecond
25-Nov-12, 23:37
When you saythe grid can't cope... what exactly do you mean... where exactly do you mean and isn't there a new cable to be laid in the sea to take all this excess leccy past the current cable network or have I mis understood and got this wrong...
Angel...
There are three main Scottish bottlenecks at the moment: Shetland to Beauly. Beauly to Central scotland. Scotland to England.
North of England to South of England is also a bottleneck for the future I believe.
The Dounreay to Beauly line is being upgraded at the moment. Shetland to Caithness is in the planning and there are plans for subsea cable to I believe Aberdeen or thereabouts. There are Plans for a connection from the Western Isles which will go through Beauly but it was recently found to be twice as expensive as estimated so it is in doubt. Beauly to Denny upgrade is under construction. The cross border Scotland to England capacity has been uprated from around 2 GW to around 3GW but it is still too little to carry present generation when wind output is high and demand is low. There are two subsea cables planned one on the west from Hunterston to Wales, and one on the east, from Scotland to England cant remember exacty where totalling 3.2GW. In both cases these will need landfall transmission upgrading to accept the electricity. The two subsea cables are unlikely to be complete within three years by which time the way we are going we will have so many more windfarms connected in Scotland that the problems we have just now will just be perpetuated.
Two things need to happen to solve the constraint cost problem. 1. The transmission system from Shetland to the Home Counties has to be upgraded to carry this electricity to the market, and 2. The people in the Home Counties have to agree that they are willing to pay the enormous cost of the upgrading so they can then buy expensive Scottish wind generated electricity (when it is available, not necessarily when they need it).
Do we need yet another windfarm to shut down and pay for?
Paying for power stations to shutdown for the purpose of grid balancing has been part of normal grid operations and economics since the grid was built and much before wind turbines were even constructed.
Currently only 10% of constraint payments are made to wind farms, the rest are paid to other generators including gas and coal. If wind farms are being shutdown in preference to other generators then that is because their operation characteristics make them ideally suited to do so, in other words, you just simply shut them off and they go off unlike big generators which may take hours to shutdown.
That is the truth of the matter, don't be sucked into the propaganda of the anti-wind farm brigade.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/faq/renewable_q9/renewable_q9.aspx
Paying for power stations to shutdown for the purpose of grid balancing has been part of normal grid operations and economics since the grid was built and much before wind turbines were even constructed.
Currently only 10% of constraint payments are made to wind farms, the rest are paid to other generators including gas and coal. If wind farms are being shutdown in preference to other generators then that is because their operation characteristics make them ideally suited to do so, in other words, you just simply shut them off and they go off unlike big generators which may take hours to shutdown.
That is the truth of the matter, don't be sucked into the propaganda of the anti-wind farm brigade.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/faq/renewable_q9/renewable_q9.aspx
Didn't ywindy say that paying a power station to shut down for the purposes of grid balancing is not the same thing as paying a wind farm to shut down because there isn't the infrastructure available to take the electricity to where it is needed?
He even posted a link to an article with an explanation why although I would have thought the differences would be obvious.
Didn't ywindy say that paying a power station to shut down for the purposes of grid balancing is not the same thing as paying a wind farm to shut down because there isn't the infrastructure available to take the electricity to where it is needed?
He even posted a link to an article with an explanation why although I would have thought the differences would be obvious.
you either believe ywindy and a group called Communities against turbines or you believe DECC and the National Grid, it is your choice. At the end of the day, it is not CATs and ywindy's head on the block if it goes pear shaped, they're just interested in stopping wind turbines because they don't like the look of them and they'll support anything to achieve that.
you either believe ywindy and a group called Communities against turbines or you believe DECC and the National Grid, it is your choice. At the end of the day, it is not CATs and ywindy's head on the block if it goes pear shaped, they're just interested in stopping wind turbines because they don't like the look of them and they'll support anything to achieve that.
Well no, I don't believe either, I find out the facts then I decide for myself.
In this case I looked at the facts and decided that shutting down a power station for the purposes of grid balancing is entirely different to shutting down a wind farm because there isn't the infrastructure available to take the power it generates to where it is needed.
they're just interested in stopping wind turbines because they don't like the look of them and they'll support anything to achieve that.
Or perhaps, like many who are growing cynical, they see the rapidly increasing costs of subsidising wind farms with energy companies increasing their profits and no prospect of any reduction in the cost of electricity for us hard pressed consumers.
Well no, I don't believe either, I find out the facts then I decide for myself.
In this case I looked at the facts and decided that shutting down a power station for the purposes of grid balancing is entirely different to shutting down a wind farm because there isn't the infrastructure available to take the power it generates to where it is needed.
The infrastructure is getting built, isn't it? Beauly-Denny? Beauly-Dounreay upgrade?
If it is the infrastructure that is at fault, and it is, then surely if we were to take ywindy's logic then we should be calling for a complete halt to all tidal generation developments in the Pentland firth and any further biomass etc.
Or perhaps, like many who are growing cynical, they see the rapidly increasing costs of subsidising wind farms with energy companies increasing their profits and no prospect of any reduction in the cost of electricity for us hard pressed consumers.
My opinon is that the cost of energy would go up faster over the longterm if no wind farm ever gets built. I accept that wind is currently marginally more expensive than coal and gas but it is just as cheap as new nuclear. Analysts are estimating that wind will become cheaper than coal in 2016 but that is because of the inclusion of the RO incentive, not despite it.
ywindythesecond
26-Nov-12, 23:07
The Scottish Governments Draft Energy Generation Policy Statement http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00389294.pdf (http://scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0038/00389294.pdf) is at the core of its energy policy. This was published in October 2012.
Go to:
“Transmission and Distribution
Delivering Scotland’s Future Transmission Grid
70.
Our vision is to connect, transport and export Scotland’s full energy potential. Scotland can and must play its part in developing onshore and offshore grid connections to the rest of the UK and to European partners – to put in place the key building blocks to export energy from Scotland to national electricity grids in the UK and Europe.”
At October 2012 the Scottish Government has a “vision” for a future Transmission Grid. Not a plan, a vision.
78. The ENSG’s updated Vision 202026, published in January 2012, identifies a range of grid reinforcement needed in Scotland It:
• reconfirms the scale of the need for reinforcement across Scotland;
• reiterates how important these grid upgrades will be to meeting Scotland’s renewables ambitions; and
In January 2012 a range of grid reinforcement needed in Scotland is “identified” and notes how important these upgrades “will be”.
79. The Vision 2020 report includes two cables (bootstraps) linking Scotland to the Southern part of the UK.
• a West Coast 1.8 GW High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) link between Hunterston and Deeside – work to build this link is underway and the target for commissioning is 2015; and
• an East Coast 1.8 GW HVDC link between Peterhead and Hawthorne Pit in Humberside - the target for commissioning this link is 2018/20.
These “bootstraps” are the key to the unblocking of the present Scotland/England border bottleneck. Improvement of transmission from Shetland and the Western isles and Beauly /Denny etc only serve to deliver electricity to the Central belt with no way out with only partial solution in three years time and up to 8 years to complete today’s upgrade plans which if the SG’s plans for windfarms are realised will be totally inadequate by that time.
Don’t worry too much about it, we will be bankrupt long before that happens.
I know I have cherrypicked to some extent, but read the whole Statement for yourself and you will see how insubstantial it is.
Then I would say that Glenmorie windfarm's fate should not be decided upon a lack infrastructure as upgrades are in progress.
ywindythesecond
27-Nov-12, 11:26
Then I would say that Glenmorie windfarm's fate should not be decided upon a lack infrastructure as upgrades are in progress.
Help me please Fred. I have lost the will to live. There are none so blind etc.......
Help me please Fred. I have lost the will to live. There are none so blind etc.......
You lost the will to live, what took you so long?
I've had jet fighter planes skimming my roof all week, each one burning raw paraffin and producing 75MW of power, that's on hell of a lot of windmills. Kinda makes me look at that funny looking light bulb I put in thinking I was saving the planet in a new light. It could use a new light, the one it's got isn't much use.
orkneycadian
27-Nov-12, 20:12
Didn't ywindy say that paying a power station to shut down for the purposes of grid balancing is not the same thing as paying a wind farm to shut down because there isn't the infrastructure available to take the electricity to where it is needed?
Nah, what Ywindy says is that windfarms don't produce any power of any significance. If thats the case, there should be no reason to shut them down if the network cant absorb the power they are not producing...... Hmmmm, something doesnt quite stack up here..... :confused
ywindythesecond
27-Nov-12, 21:26
Nah, what Ywindy says is that windfarms don't produce any power of any significance. If thats the case, there should be no reason to shut them down if the network cant absorb the power they are not producing...... Hmmmm, something doesnt quite stack up here..... :confused
Oh-oh. Troll 2 enters stage left. How and when will SiS make his big appearance?
My opinon is that the cost of energy would go up faster over the longterm if no wind farm ever gets built. I accept that wind is currently marginally more expensive than coal and gas but it is just as cheap as new nuclear. Analysts are estimating that wind will become cheaper than coal in 2016 but that is because of the inclusion of the RO incentive, not despite it.
Britain has committed itself to draconian cuts in CO2 emissions.
On the basis of the costings discussed, nuclear power and gas-fired CCGT were the preferred technologies for generating reliable and affordable electricity. On the basis of the evidence presented above, these two technologies are also the preferred technologies for reducing CO2 emissions.
Wind-power fails the test . It is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO
2 emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions.
(fossil-fuelled) capacity is placed under particular strains when working in this supporting role because it is being used to balance a reasonably predictable but fluctuating demand with a variable and largely unpredictable output from wind turbines.
Consequently, operating fossil capacity in this mode generates more CO2 per kWh generated than if operating normally."
Wind-power fails
It is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions.
In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO
2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on "normal windy days" in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines.7,8 Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power.
Nah, what Ywindy says is that windfarms don't produce any power of any significance. If thats the case, there should be no reason to shut them down if the network cant absorb the power they are not producing...... Hmmmm, something doesnt quite stack up here..... :confused
Much of the time I'm sure they produce nothing at all, like when there is no wind at all or there are strong winds. In between somewhere there is an optimum wind speed when they put out a lot of power, this is the power the distribution lines must be able to carry. As the power output is proportional to the cube of the wind speed half of optimum wind speed means an eighth of optimum power output.
In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO
2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on "normal windy days" in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines.7,8 Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power.
[/SIZE]
[/SIZE][/SIZE]
I remember debunking his crap earlier this year. His report has not been published in a proper scientific journal and has not been supported via a peer-reviewed process.
Oh-oh. Troll 2 enters stage left. How and when will SiS make his big appearance?
Well he has a point, but as always you want it both ways.
Oh-oh. Troll 2 enters stage left. How and when will SiS make his big appearance?
I take it that you are the chief troll [lol] away and hide under your bridge
Wind-power fails the test . It is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO
2
You want to be careful there because there were 11 issues submitted to the Advertising Standard Agency which were all upheld as misleading and which one of them was the same/similiar as the one quoted.
1. "Onshore wind turbines are a grossly inefficient way of producing energy and contribute nothing to combating climate change";
2. "A tourist's first view of approaching Anglesey would be an industrialised landscape rather than some of the finest views in Britain. The turbines will be easily visible from the top of Snowdon";
3. "A survey by VisitScotland concluded that over a quarter of tourists would be less likely to return to a turbinised landscape";
4. "Low frequency noise generated by turbines affects your health. The noise is felt as much as heard. Think of the thudding bass of the next door neighbour's stereo that always plays the same song and is never switched off";
5. "The flickering effect from reflected sunshine can cause headaches and seizures";
6. "Tubines [sic] do not create local jobs";
7. "Turbines reduce property prices";
8. "Television reception is affected in local properties causing ghosting and jittering on your TV picture";
9. "The energy industry receives huge subsidies from the government, paid for through all our electricity bills. (10% of your bill, contributing to fuel poverty)";
10. "the affected community receives nothing"; and
11. "Turbines are the most inefficient and expensive form of renewable energy".
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/11/Anglesey-Against-Wind-Turbines/SHP_ADJ_187258.aspx
emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on "normal windy days" in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines.7,8 Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power.
I don't think what happens in the Netherlands relates too much to what happens in Scotland, particularly the Highlands. Here we tend to use hydro for load balancing because it's a lot easier to control, pretty much instantaneous, automatic control systems can just open or close a valve as required.
Rheghead you stated that wind power is almost as cheap as nuclear.
Nuclear being very expensive, does your statement assert that wind is even dearer ?
ywindythesecond
28-Nov-12, 15:26
Rheghead you stated that wind power is almost as cheap as nuclear.
Nuclear being very expensive, does your statement assert that wind is even dearer ?
What makes you think nuclear electricity is expensive Lizz? 17% of our electricity in the last 24 hours came from our own nuclear plants and we bought another 10GWh of French nuclear electricity in a free market.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
LOL ywindy, if you factor in all the costs including decommissioning it must be a very expensive form of power generation.
ywindythesecond
28-Nov-12, 18:57
LOL ywindy, if you factor in all the costs including decommissioning it must be a very expensive form of power generation.
Its a case of "give a dog a bad name" Lizz. Yes, the cost of historic nuclear decommissioning is very high, but that shouldn't be laid at the door of new nuclear generation. The high costs for decommissioning are for plants built as long as 50 or 60 years ago when the technology was in its infancy and the mistakes that we learn from were still to be made.
70-odd% of French electricity is nuclear generated, and we (through our UK electricity supply companies) buy some every day to make up our energy requirement on a commercial basis because it is competetively priced and you can be sure that the French will have included future decommissioning costs in the price they charge us.
Rheghead you stated that wind power is almost as cheap as nuclear.
Nuclear being very expensive, does your statement assert that wind is even dearer ?
No, I am pretty sure my statement asserts that wind (including the cost of RO) is cheaper than new nuclear.
Its a case of "give a dog a bad name" Lizz. Yes, the cost of historic nuclear decommissioning is very high, but that shouldn't be laid at the door of new nuclear generation. The high costs for decommissioning are for plants built as long as 50 or 60 years ago when the technology was in its infancy and the mistakes that we learn from were still to be made.
70-odd% of French electricity is nuclear generated, and we (through our UK electricity supply companies) buy some every day to make up our energy requirement on a commercial basis because it is competetively priced and you can be sure that the French will have included future decommissioning costs in the price they charge us.
And the French are now committed to running down their nuclear fleet due to many factors including decommissioning costs. One plant has already sucked up 480 million euros of French taxpayer's money and the fuel hasn't yet been taken away and it a quarter of the French decommissioning budget of 2 billion euros.
No, I am pretty sure my statement asserts that wind (including the cost of RO) is cheaper than new nuclear.
But nuclear keeps on working even when the wind isn't blowing.
But nuclear keeps on working even when the wind isn't blowing.
I'm not sure that is correct. Load factors for nuclear in the UK are down to ~55%, Hunterston and Torness have been plagued by outages in recent years, one lasted for months and in one case, the cause was as silly as too many jellyfish.
I'm not sure that is correct. Load factors for nuclear in the UK are down to ~55%, Hunterston and Torness have been plagued by outages in recent years, one lasted for months and in one case, the cause was as silly as too many jellyfish.
I reckon if they weren't Duracell Bunnies they wouldn't keep putting them into submarines.
I reckon if they weren't Duracell Bunnies they wouldn't keep putting them into submarines.
Well you mentioned a jet fighter before, in 1999 an RAF Tornado crashed less than 1km from Torness power station yet they continue to object to wind farms.
Well you mentioned a jet fighter before, in 1999 an RAF Tornado crashed less than 1km from Torness power station yet they continue to object to wind farms.
And the Duracell Bunny isn't the only thing that goes on and on and on and on...
You want to be careful there because there were 11 issues submitted to the Advertising Standard Agency which were all upheld as misleading and which one of them was the same/similiar as the one quoted.
1. "Onshore wind turbines are a grossly inefficient way of producing energy and contribute nothing to combating climate change";
2. "A tourist's first view of approaching Anglesey would be an industrialised landscape rather than some of the finest views in Britain. The turbines will be easily visible from the top of Snowdon";
3. "A survey by VisitScotland concluded that over a quarter of tourists would be less likely to return to a turbinised landscape";
4. "Low frequency noise generated by turbines affects your health. The noise is felt as much as heard. Think of the thudding bass of the next door neighbour's stereo that always plays the same song and is never switched off";
5. "The flickering effect from reflected sunshine can cause headaches and seizures";
6. "Tubines [sic] do not create local jobs";
7. "Turbines reduce property prices";
8. "Television reception is affected in local properties causing ghosting and jittering on your TV picture";
9. "The energy industry receives huge subsidies from the government, paid for through all our electricity bills. (10% of your bill, contributing to fuel poverty)";
10. "the affected community receives nothing"; and
11. "Turbines are the most inefficient and expensive form of renewable energy".
http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/11/Anglesey-Against-Wind-Turbines/SHP_ADJ_187258.aspx
Scientists who supplied the data used by the Scottish Goverment to help judge applications have called for an end to developments on peatlands (where most are being built in Caithness/Sutherland)
Peatlands lock in carbon
In their letter the team say they believe building windfarms on peatlands is self defeating because of the disturbance and desiccation during the construction process.:grin:
Scientists who supplied the data used by the Scottish Goverment to help judge applications have called for an end to developments on peatlands (where most are being built in Caithness/Sutherland)
Peatlands lock in carbon
In their letter the team say they believe building windfarms on peatlands is self defeating because of the disturbance and desiccation during the construction process.:grin:
I'd like to see a qualiification of your statement that most are built on peat, how many and to what extent for each?
Peatlands do indeed lock in carbon but peatlands grow on average 1mm per year, I think you'll find that a wind farm will mitigate much more even in the event of full carbon loss.
Re. report, I think the devil is in the detail. Big assumptions and exaggerations throughout. The report said that each road would completely dessicate and oxidise each side to an arbitrary 50m and to a depth of 0.5 m.
Early in 2012 Ofgem announced the biggest upgrade of Scotland’s electricity infrastructure in
60 years, with up to £7 billion of investment from Scottish Power and SSEIt is not made clear that the £7 billion is ultimately paid for by the electricity consumer. If shared
across the UK, that works out at £112 per man, woman and child (£269 per household). If it had
to be paid for by Scottish consumers alone, then theper capita cost would be over £1,300 (£3,200 per household).
We have recently heard that the estimated cost of the Western Isles subsea cable link has doubled
to £750 million.
All overrun costs are also ultimately paid for by the consumer.
All this for an unreliable sorce of electricity and an obsession by the SNP.
We have recently heard that the estimated cost of the Western Isles subsea cable link has doubled
to £750 million.
That is bad news.
But the developer of the cable wanted to build this 8 years ago but it was politically poo-pooed by a campaign of loud nay-sayers. It should have been built then to save us money. The truth is that the anti-wind farm brigade has cost us dear by refusing to get on-message about the reality of climate change and the rising costs of fossil fuels.
In the big scheme of things, £7 billion is a drop in the ocean compared with the alternative. One nuclear power station cost £5 billion. :eek:
I don't think £7 BILLION is a drop in the ocean for anybody
It's a bit stange you have only highlighted part of my quote and missed out the part about who will pay for this, US the consumer.
The anti wind farm brigade must have had a lot of clout back then if it got the project stopped ?????
and yes 5 billion for a nuclear is a lot but at least it will keep the lights on whenever we need them.[lol]
I don't think £7 BILLION is a drop in the ocean for anybody
It's a bit stange you have only highlighted part of my quote and missed out the part about who will pay for this, US the consumer.
The anti wind farm brigade must have had a lot of clout back then if it got the project stopped ?????
and yes 5 billion for a nuclear is a lot but at least it will keep the lights on whenever we need them.[lol]
Well it is a drop in the ocean but for one person it isn't as you quite rightly say.
Strange you didn't support your statement that most Caithness wind farm sites are built on peat. We all know the reason why.
But anyway thay £7 billion is just a one off cost that should upgrade the system.
Nuclear power is prone to outages of the major unpredictable type, so no, I reject your idea that we can rely on it, in fact the Grid has 3GW of spinning reserve just to cater for such outages, very costly.
I give up!!!! CANT SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES COMES TO MIND. I am losing the will to live you seem to have this effect on a few people
I will try to get back to you on the sites on peat
I give up!!!! CANT SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES COMES TO MIND. I am losing the will to live you seem to have this effect on a few people
I will try to get back to you on the sites on peat
You need to see the forest before you see the trees.
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-12, 22:48
It's the usual issue Rheghead....
Someone posts rubbish about wind turbines, peat and CO2.
Their error is pointed out by someone more knowledgeable.
The error maker gets upset and starts ranting, in this case he starts posting in capitals to cover up his error.
ywindythesecond
08-Dec-12, 23:04
Nuclear power is prone to outages of the major unpredictable type, so no, I reject your idea that we can rely on it, in fact the Grid has 3GW of spinning reserve just to cater for such outages, very costly.
Not true Reggy.
STORR is “Short Term Operational Reserve Requirement” . It is the generation back up needed by National grid to cater for unexpected outages.
See http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/55610D9A-C53A-4E28-88C6-29AE5DF72EF2/42697/Future_Balancing_Services_Requirements_Reserve1.pd f
See this quote:
“With the currently planned arrival of larger generation units in 2019, the
largest credible generation loss increases from 1320MW to 1800MW. This
increases the response requirements significantly at that time. In order to
meet that requirement National Grid needs to be able to part-load responsive
plant, which sterilises the usable headroom on those units. Therefore STORR
increases at that time.
Wind generation output is more difficult to forecast accurately than
conventional generation. Hence STORR increases each year as more wind
generation connects to the system in order to cover the uncertainty in wind
output.
In addition, the range of wind output increases, and therefore the range of
STORR increases.
The maximum positive reserve requirements are caused by high forecast wind
output. Therefore the conventional stations that are forecast to be idle would
be available to meet the majority of this requirement.
Conversely, the minimum requirement is caused by low forecast wind output.”
So the largest current credible generation loss is 1320MW. So no need for 3GW spinning reserve for nuclear alone. Note also the highlighted parts.
Reggy is right in one respect. An outage from a nuclear plant can happen out of the blue. But only one plant at a time and only rarely.
We never lose all our nuclear generation. We never lose all our gas generation. We never lose all our coal generation. We never lose all our Hydro generation. We never lose all our electricity from waste generation. Etc.
We frequently lose all our wind generation.
If your milk was delivered as reliably as your wind generated electricity, you would change your milkman.
Not true Reggy.
STORR is “Short Term Operational Reserve Requirement” . It is the generation back up needed by National grid to cater for unexpected outages.
See http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/55610D9A-C53A-4E28-88C6-29AE5DF72EF2/42697/Future_Balancing_Services_Requirements_Reserve1.pd f
See this quote:
“With the currently planned arrival of larger generation units in 2019, the
largest credible generation loss increases from 1320MW to 1800MW. This
increases the response requirements significantly at that time. In order to
meet that requirement National Grid needs to be able to part-load responsive
plant, which sterilises the usable headroom on those units. Therefore STORR
increases at that time.
Wind generation output is more difficult to forecast accurately than
conventional generation. Hence STORR increases each year as more wind
generation connects to the system in order to cover the uncertainty in wind
output.
In addition, the range of wind output increases, and therefore the range of
STORR increases.
The maximum positive reserve requirements are caused by high forecast wind
output. Therefore the conventional stations that are forecast to be idle would
be available to meet the majority of this requirement.
Conversely, the minimum requirement is caused by low forecast wind output.”
So the largest current credible generation loss is 1320MW. So no need for 3GW spinning reserve for nuclear alone. Note also the highlighted parts.
Reggy is right in one respect. An outage from a nuclear plant can happen out of the blue. But only one plant at a time and only rarely.
We never lose all our nuclear generation. We never lose all our gas generation. We never lose all our coal generation. We never lose all our Hydro generation. We never lose all our electricity from waste generation. Etc.
We frequently lose all our wind generation.
If your milk was delivered as reliably as your wind generated electricity, you would change your milkman.
I think you will find that spinning reserve has always been ~3GW even before larger wind intrusion into the energy market, regardless of what the theoretical figures are needed. That is the difference between the theoretical world and the real world.
ywindythesecond
08-Dec-12, 23:18
It's the usual issue Rheghead....
Someone posts rubbish about wind turbines, peat and CO2.
Their error is pointed out by someone more knowledgeable.
The error maker gets upset and starts ranting, in this case he starts posting in capitals to cover up his error.
See post #16
"Oh-oh. Troll 2 enters stage left. How and when will SiS make his big appearance?"
Welcome Sis. How are you? Ready to give us some well thought out opinions supported by checkable references?
Here is something for you to rubbish;
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Routemap%20response.pdf
It is what Eos was quoting from. Remember to provide reliable sources for your criticisms. Unsupported opinion won't do.
ywindythesecond
08-Dec-12, 23:24
I think you will find that spinning reserve has always been ~3GW even before larger wind intrusion into the energy market, regardless of what the theoretical figures are needed. That is the difference between the theoretical world and the real world.
This is what you posted
Nuclear power is prone to outages of the major unpredictable type, so no, I reject your idea that we can rely on it, in fact the Grid has 3GW of spinning reserve just to cater for such outages, very costly.
You certainly seemed to be suggesting that potential nuclear power outages require 3GW of spinning reserve solely for potential nuclear power outages. If that is not what you meant, what did you mean and where did the 3GW come from anyway?
[/I][/B]You certainly seemed to be suggesting that potential nuclear power outages require 3GW of spinning reserve solely for potential nuclear power outages. If that is not what you meant, what did you mean and where did the 3GW come from anyway?
Yeah you certainly failed there. Only you seemed it, it seems.
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-12, 18:51
Yeah you certainly failed there. Only you seemed it, it seems.
How about answering this bit of my question Reggy:
"If that is not what you meant, what did you mean and where did the 3GW come from anyway?"
If there is to be a reasoned debate, you can't just pick and choose the bits you want to talk about and ignore the more difficult or touchy bits that other people want to talk about.
How about answering this bit of my question Reggy:
"If that is not what you meant, what did you mean and where did the 3GW come from anyway?"
If there is to be a reasoned debate, you can't just pick and choose the bits you want to talk about and ignore the more difficult or touchy bits that other people want to talk about.
Oh the irony! pot? kettle?
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-12, 19:54
Oh the irony! pot? kettle?
How about answering this bit of my question Reggy:
"If that is not what you meant, what did you mean and where did the 3GW come from anyway?"
How about answering this bit of my question Reggy:
"If that is not what you meant, what did you mean and where did the 3GW come from anyway?"
That was not what I meant, I didn't say spinning reserve is just for your precious nuclear when it stops, it is to kick in when any big generator fails suddenly. That 3GW was from my memory and what I thought was in that book that you borrowed from me, it appears that the real figure is about 1.5GW.
It seems that windaction, that anti-wind organization, erroneously reckons that spinning reserve is to back up wind power, any thoughts on that? Still, they are getting some propaganda out of it and its rising costs when it doesn't actually have anything much to do with wind.
ywindythesecond
09-Dec-12, 22:08
That was not what I meant, I didn't say spinning reserve is just for your precious nuclear when it stops, it is to kick in when any big generator fails suddenly. That 3GW was from my memory and what I thought was in that book that you borrowed from me, it appears that the real figure is about 1.5GW.
It seems that windaction, that anti-wind organization, erroneously reckons that spinning reserve is to back up wind power, any thoughts on that? Still, they are getting some propaganda out of it and its rising costs when it doesn't actually have anything much to do with wind.
Thanks for that Reggy. We must return the books we borrowed from each other. Another meeting at Checkpoint Charlie is in order.
Note what you say about National Windwatch but not sure exactly what you are referring to.
My quote at #44 was from National Grid, follow the link.
“Spinning reserve” is a term we don’t hear much nowadays. NG refer to it as the “Short term operational reserve requirement” STORR, and it is needed to do exactly what you say.
Have you any specific comments on these lines quoted by me at #44?
Wind generation output is more difficult to forecast accurately than
conventional generation. Hence STORR increases each year as more wind
generation connects to the system in order to cover the uncertainty in wind
output.
In addition, the range of wind output increases, and therefore the range of
STORR increases.
The maximum positive reserve requirements are caused by high forecast wind
output. Therefore the conventional stations that are forecast to be idle would
be available to meet the majority of this requirement.
Conversely, the minimum requirement is caused by low forecast wind output.”
http://www.clepair.net/europhysics201203.html
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.