View Full Version : Gordon Brown wants 10,000 more wind turbines
ywindythesecond
11-Jul-08, 22:40
Just when I thought he had actually had a policy for energy, we now have this:
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842
On June 26th the Government announced plans to give the green light for up to 10,000 new wind turbines to be erected across Britain.
I'm sure the number was closer to 4000 onshore turbines and 3000 off shore when Brown made his announcement. Mind you, all that hot air he speaks about rising fuel bills due to renewable energy subsidies do sound rather hollow when the latest increases are almost entirely to do with the market prices of fossil fuels.
changilass
11-Jul-08, 22:48
~If he pays for it and sorts out planning permission he can shove one in my back garden
Can they fit that many in Downing Street?
changilass
11-Jul-08, 22:51
They don't need them there, they just need to find a way to harness all that hot air
Maybe outside the Houses of Parliament?
Just when I thought he had actually had a policy for energy, we now have this:
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842
http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/progress.gif
Another thing that Tony lodge says is that wind energy is not reliable and it needs back-up by other forms of generation. He's right. The thing that he isn't aware of is that the more the windfarms are geographically diverse, then they need less back up. Secondly, he fails to recognise that all forms of energy generation needs back-up, not just wind turbines. In fact, the Grid is legally bound to keep a substantial amount of fossil fuel generation on standby just to back up other fossil fuel generators. Total climate change madness.
Neil Howie
12-Jul-08, 10:49
We have vast acres covered by trees in Caithness.
Why not burn them up in some kind of biomass heat exchange electricity generation thingy (i.e. lets not wait until it gets to coal stage) for
a) nearly zero carbon emission
b) increase local job production
c) minimal environmental damage
!
We have vast acres covered by trees in Caithness.
Why not burn them up in some kind of biomass heat exchange electricity generation thingy (i.e. lets not wait until it gets to coal stage) for
a) nearly zero carbon emission
b) increase local job production
c) minimal environmental damage
!
Wasn't that what went wrong with the heating scheme in Wick? They planned to use local trees but as soon as the landowners heard of it they put the price up.
btw - there's a single turbine for sale on the .org :eek: Love to know why the owner is selling it after such a short time.
Wasn't that what went wrong with the heating scheme in Wick? They planned to use local trees but as soon as the landowners heard of it they put the price up.
btw - there's a single turbine for sale on the .org :eek: Love to know why the owner is selling it after such a short time.
No i believe they went bust. They are apparently asking the council to buy them out...or so the grapevine says as we were supposed to get it..
As for turbines, would love one in my garden, i dont see what problems everyone has with them, its a resourse that should be used especially in windy caithness.
Just when I thought he had actually had a policy for energy, we now have this:
At the moment I suspect he is willing to say anything which he thinks will make him popular. (As any politician will when they are in a panic)
He is changing his mind with the wind(excuse the pun). It isn’t too many weeks ago that he was creating a new Quango with power over Planning Permissions with the obvious intention of avoiding any local problems over the building of new Nuclear Power Stations.
As far as his idea of thousands of Wind Turbines, on or off shore, I read somewhere that there is a problem at the present time with demand far outstripping supply and that with the best will in the world the suggested time-table for bringing them on-line is hopelessly impractical.
I suspect that Brown has made the grand political announcement for it’s effect without having bothered to do any background checks to see if it is feasible.
He’s not the first politician to do that by any means and certainly won’t be the last.
No i believe they went bust. They are apparently asking the council to buy them out...or so the grapevine says as we were supposed to get it..
As for turbines, would love one in my garden, i dont see what problems everyone has with them, its a resourse that should be used especially in windy caithness.
Well there you are then Justine - go look at the For Sale section :) . I wouldn't mind a small turbine if I thought it would be any use, which generally they're not, and would not annoy the neighbours. Think if you lived near a windfarm you might see the problem.
Cinderella's Shoe
12-Jul-08, 22:06
Scotland are well ahead of their renewable energy targets and commitments. Aren't these 10000 turbines for England and the coast?
ywindythesecond
13-Jul-08, 00:28
[quote=JAWS;406589]
As far as his idea of thousands of Wind Turbines, on or off shore, I read somewhere that there is a problem at the present time with demand far outstripping supply and that with the best will in the world the suggested time-table for bringing them on-line is hopelessly impractical.
quote]
You are right Jaws. I think you might have read about it here.
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842
You are right Jaws. I think you might have read about it here.
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842
I've read the article.
Importantly wind farms perform well if their average output reaches as much as 35% of their generating capacity, but this rarely happens. Evidence shows that, throughout Europe, wind turbines have produced on average less than 20% of their capacity in recent years. In comparison coal fired plants run at about 75% capacity and nuclear plants can operate as high as 92% capacity. This level of consistent baseload supply helps keep prices down.
And his logic doesn't seem to hold true according to you, as you said it is bad to compare load factors across different technologies. Incidentally, the windfarms that do achieve 35% consistently are those in the far north. Lodge must be taking those in the South into consideration.
The challenges now facing Government, local planners, wind farm companies and consumers are considerable. They are only likely to grow if the Government is to reach the EU’s target. They include:
· For central government, a substantial increase in the subsidy given to wind companies through the Renewables Obligation.
There is no indication that windfarms are to receive more RO subsidy than they are already doing so. However, there is talk of raising it to X1.5 or X2 per MWh for marine technologies.
And yet Tony Lodge is singing tidal energy its praises without addressing the huge technological (intermittance and low load factors) and financial drawbacks(Ro and effect on fuel blls) that marine energy faces, as shown below.
A renewable energy source which should be better examined and supported is undoubtedly tidal, as David Cameron set out last week. Tidal is not environmentally intrusive and can provide more reliable and sustainable renewable energy. It does not blight our precious landscape and our 11,000 miles of coastline and severe tidal ranges offer huge potential. Importantly, one British tidal company, Lunar Energy, has already had to go to Korea to develop its technology as the support framework there is substantially more advanced than in Britain.
A poor article and not very joined up thinking in my opinion.
Hi I thought you would like to know wind farms are in the South and going to be in London as well. Not all wind farms are up north :-) Here is the web site about it http://www.londonarray.com/category/press-releases/
ywindythesecond
13-Jul-08, 20:33
Hi I thought you would like to know wind farms are in the South and going to be in London as well. Not all wind farms are up north :-) Here is the web site about it http://www.londonarray.com/category/press-releases/
Hi Scout
Up here in Caithness we used to think we were being picked on for windfarms because we were remote and fairly sparsely populated. To some extent that is true, but lots of areas of the country are also being targeted. Work you way through the list on Country Guardian, and you get a picture of communities throughout Britain under siege from windfarm development. http://www.countryguardian.net/Campaign%20Windfarm%20Action%20Groups.htm (http://www.countryguardian.net/Campaign%20Windfarm%20Action%20Groups.htm)
I looked up the London Array website, and I was struck by this :
The wind farm would be constructed in phases, and when fully complete would generate up to 1,000 MW of electricity. This is enough to meet the electricity needs of 750,000 homes – around a quarter of Greater London or all of the homes in Kent and East Sussex.
The big problem with statements like this is that they are part correct. 1000MW of electricity probably would do what is claimed, but London Array won’t provide it. On average it might provide 20%. And you don’t know when you will get it. And you need to get it from somewhere else when London Array can’t provide it.
That is what this article is about http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842 (http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842).
The utter folly of reliance on windpower, offshore or onshore, to provide baseload electricity.
A good read, don’t necessarily take it all on board, but it is food for thought.
I particularly was struck by the statistic that to achieve Gordon Brown’s offshore target, we needed to be installing two marine turbines per day until 2020, starting two weeks ago. And Gordon hasn’t grasped the 20% average bit yet.
Ywy2
The big problem with statements like this is that they are part correct. 1000MW of electricity probably would do what is claimed, but London Array won’t provide it. On average it might provide 20%. And you don’t know when you will get it. And you need to get it from somewhere else when London Array can’t provide it.
From my calculations, the figures that are produced by the London array do actually take into account of the expected load factor percentage. So approximately 750,000 homes will actually be supplied by the London Array.
ywindythesecond
13-Jul-08, 23:46
From my calculations, the figures that are produced by the London array do actually take into account of the expected load factor percentage. So approximately 750,000 homes will actually be supplied by the London Array.
All the time?
Can we see your calculations please?
ywy2
No energy technology supplies energy all the time.
According to the DTI (or whatever it decides to call itself these days), an average home uses 4700kWh per year.
Which means 750,000 homes require 3.52 billion kWh per year.
A 1000MW windfarm at max would produce 8.76 billion kWh per year.
That means the load factor used in the London Array calculations is 3.52/8.76 = 40.1% which is a reasonable estimation for an offshore windfarm.
You only have to look at the 'Bilbster three' wind turbines to see how unreliable they are. It is very rare for all three to be going at once. This morning, for instance, only one was working.
I would like to know what their output is recorded as, it must be well below the 30+ percent that Caithness windfarms are supposed to achieve.
ywindythesecond
14-Jul-08, 21:46
No energy technology supplies energy all the time.
According to the DTI (or whatever it decides to call itself these days), an average home uses 4700kWh per year.
Which means 750,000 homes require 3.52 billion kWh per year.
A 1000MW windfarm at max would produce 8.76 billion kWh per year.
That means the load factor used in the London Array calculations is 3.52/8.76 = 40.1% which is a reasonable estimation for an offshore windfarm.
Thanks for that Reggy.
If you can get a load factor of 40% close to the point of consumption, why build windfarms in the north of Scotland with a load factor of about 30%, also needing huge investment in distribution infrastructure ?
This is another interesting article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029551/A-load-hot-air-Why-spending-100bn-windfarms-EU-Labours-greatest-act-lunacy.html
All good reading, but this is just one paragraph:
"In fact, as the Government knows, there is not the remotest chance that we can meet that EU target, which is why it talks about building only 10,500 new turbines - 7,000 offshore, another 3,500 across our countryside."
Nearly 10% of Brown's planned 3500 EXTRA onshore wind turbines were already in the planning system for Caithness before he upped it. What will happen when Gordon puts the pressure on?
the charlatans
14-Jul-08, 22:42
You only have to look at the 'Bilbster three' wind turbines to see how unreliable they are. It is very rare for all three to be going at once. This morning, for instance, only one was working.
I would like to know what their output is recorded as, it must be well below the 30+ percent that Caithness windfarms are supposed to achieve.
They aren't in full working order yet Olivia. I was wondering that myself and asked 'someone who knows'.
Wind turbines take a while to be commissioned - i.e. make sure it all works correctly and safely and on stream with the Grid. It looks like its taking forever but i'm told this is normal. Once everything is 'honkey dorey' then they should all go at once and have a proper output to whatever they are built for. It would then be appropriate for one to be stopped every now and again whilst the machinery is tested and maintained as we see at the Causeymire etc.
Thanks for that Reggy.
If you can get a load factor of 40% close to the point of consumption, why build windfarms in the north of Scotland with a load factor of about 30%, also needing huge investment in distribution infrastructure?
Probably because greater geographical distribution means increasing reliance for baseload energy supply and less need for back up from fossil fuels.
ywindythesecond
15-Jul-08, 08:09
Probably because greater geographical distribution means increasing reliance for baseload energy supply and less need for back up from fossil fuels.
Good point, but how does that square with this quote from the Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029551/A-load-hot-air-Why-spending-100bn-windfarms-EU-Labours-greatest-act-lunacy.html)?
Earlier this month, Paul Golby, the chief executive of the German-owned E.ON (one of our largest electricity companies), came up with the shattering admission that the back-up needed for our new wind turbines would amount to 90 per cent of their capacity.
This alone would mean building scores more gas and coal-fired power plants, to guarantee continuous supply during those times when the wind is not blowing and therefore the turbines are not generating any electricity.
Good point, but how does that square with this quote from the Mail article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1029551/A-load-hot-air-Why-spending-100bn-windfarms-EU-Labours-greatest-act-lunacy.html)?
Earlier this month, Paul Golby, the chief executive of the German-owned E.ON (one of our largest electricity companies), came up with the shattering admission that the back-up needed for our new wind turbines would amount to 90 per cent of their capacity.
This alone would mean building scores more gas and coal-fired power plants, to guarantee continuous supply during those times when the wind is not blowing and therefore the turbines are not generating any electricity.
It is not Paul Golby's words but an article written by an antiwind campaigner, however, he doesn't say how the Chief Executive gets his figures from (and I've googled to get from a neutral source and failed). His statement means that we just need more flexibility in how we derive our energy sources, it isn't anything earth shatteringly new. We don't need extra capacity to deal with the back-up. If windfarms have a load capacity of ~30% what is the business or technical case for backing them up to 90%, is that a 20% over capacity? I don't think so, the energy will get used anyway, you can neither make energy or destroy it, so I'm taking that there is a difference between supplying a demand and balancing out an intermittent energy source. Indeed, some coal generators will be running at lower capacity at more fuel efficient areas of their power curves thus providing the rest of its spare capacity as back up, thus improving carbon emissions even further. Either way, the energy from windfarms will mitigate fossil fuel energy MWh per MWh. Again, a smarter use of fossil fuels in a low carbon economy is backing up renewable energy with fossil fuel energy rather than backing up coal and gas with more coal and gas which happens now.
No one is denying that there is huge technical difficulties to come as we go towards a low carbon economy, windfarms are not the only energy source that is intermittent or random. If the figures are correct then tidal and wave also need 90% back up, in the form of spinning reserve or idling capacity. But to put things into context with regards reacting to a random effect, the intermittent and random consumer demand on the grid has been a problem that the energy companies have been well accustomed to dealing with for years, and renewable energy intermittence is no where near as fluctuating.
From what I can derive from other experts in this field, we have nothing to worry about in terms of intermittance until 2020 when we are supposed to have ~20% energy coming from renewable sources. Going by the backlog of windfarm schemes, we haven't got a lot to worry about for a long time to come if objections manage to overturn much needed renewable energy sources.
Fluctuating Unpredictable Output and Standby Capacity
The output of some renewable technologies, such as wind, wave, solar and even some CHP, is naturally subject to fluctuation and, for some renewable technologies, unpredictability relative to the more traditional generation technologies. Based on recent analyses of the incidence and variation of wind speed, the expected intermittency of the national wind portfolio would not appear to pose a technical ceiling on the amount of wind generation that may be accommodated and adequately managed. However, increasing levels of such renewable generation on the system would increase the costs of balancing the system and managing system frequency.
It is a property of the interconnected transmission system that individual and local independent fluctuations in output are diversified and averaged out across the system. Moreover, the interconnected system permits frequency response and reserves to be carried on the most cost effective generation or demand side service provider at any particular time. These properties of the transmission network permit intermittent/variable generation to be used with lower standby and frequency control costs than would otherwise be the case.
The proportion of conventional generation needed to be retained in the electricity market, given the variable and unpredictable nature of some renewable technologies such as wind, such that current levels of security of supply are not eroded is the subject of the published paper: “A shift to wind is not unfeasible”, by Dale, Milborrow, Slark & Strbac, Power UK Issue 109, March 2003.
For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25GW of wind only 5GW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production. It follows that the electricity market will need to maintain in service a larger proportion of conventional generation capacity despite reduced load factors. Such plant is often referred to as “standby plant”.
http://www.bwea.com/media/news/articles/antiwind_report_peddles_myths.html
They aren't in full working order yet Olivia. I was wondering that myself and asked 'someone who knows'.
Wind turbines take a while to be commissioned - i.e. make sure it all works correctly and safely and on stream with the Grid. It looks like its taking forever but i'm told this is normal. Once everything is 'honkey dorey' then they should all go at once and have a proper output to whatever they are built for. It would then be appropriate for one to be stopped every now and again whilst the machinery is tested and maintained as we see at the Causeymire etc.
Thanks for that charlatans, seems to take an awful long time to commission them, but at least we know now! I had heard a rumour that they keep burning out cables (?)
ywindythesecond
15-Jul-08, 21:44
[quote=Rheghead;407416]It is not Paul Golby's words but an article written by an antiwind campaigner, however, he doesn't say how the Chief Executive gets his figures from (and I've googled to get from a neutral source and failed).
I was quoting from a newspaper article not Paul Golby, but I couldn't find the source either.
His statement means that we just need more flexibility in how we derive our energy sources, it isn't anything earth shatteringly new.
Not sure how you come to this conclusion if we can't actually confirm he said it.
We don't need extra capacity to deal with the back-up. If windfarms have a load capacity of ~30% what is the business or technical case for backing them up to 90%, is that a 20% over capacity? I don't think so, the energy will get used anyway, you can neither make energy or destroy it, so I'm taking that there is a difference between supplying a demand and balancing out an intermittent energy source.
The national Grid is obliged to take renewable energy when it is being produced. A surge in wind generated energy means switching off a conventional power source to balance it. The conventional generator still runs, still consumes fuel, just continues doing what it did before switch off, but the fuel consumed doesn’t supply anyone with electricity.
Indeed, some coal generators will be running at lower capacity at more fuel efficient areas of their power curves thus providing the rest of its spare capacity as back up, thus improving carbon emissions even further. Either way, the energy from windfarms will mitigate fossil fuel energy MWh per MWh. Again, a smarter use of fossil fuels in a low carbon economy is backing up renewable energy with fossil fuel energy rather than backing up coal and gas with more coal and gas which happens now.
How can you equate "a low carbon economy" with a requirement for fossil fuel back-up?
No one is denying that there is huge technical difficulties to come as we go towards a low carbon economy, windfarms are not the only energy source that is intermittent or random. If the figures are correct then tidal and wave also need 90% back up, in the form of spinning reserve or idling capacity. But to put things into context with regards reacting to a random effect, the intermittent and random consumer demand on the grid has been a problem that the energy companies have been well accustomed to dealing with for years, and renewable energy intermittence is no where near as fluctuating.
Lets examine "intermittent and random". No generation source operates at 100%. Conventional sources operate generally at known load factors. Planned maintenance is known well in advance. Low levels of water in our hydro schemes don't happen suddenly. People’s habits form a trend which is inherently reliable and predictable. Industry works to a pattern. The grid balances its requirements by bringing on and turning off generators with whom it has a contract to do so. A reserve is always maintained for such occurences as major plant outages, weather disruptions, football matches running over time on telly etc. If this reserve is allocated to balancing windpower, then it is not available for the purposes for which it is designed. So when the reserve is used up balancing windpower, there is no reserve left to back up conventional generation. So it requires an increase in back up from conventional generation.
From what I can derive from other experts in this field, we have nothing to worry about in terms of intermittance until 2020 when we are supposed to have ~20% energy coming from renewable sources. Going by the backlog of windfarm schemes, we haven't got a lot to worry about for a long time to come if objections manage to overturn much needed renewable energy sources.
We don't need renewable energy sources unless they reliably and predictably displace conventional generation.
Fluctuating Unpredictable Output and Standby Capacity
The output of some renewable technologies, such as wind, wave, solar and even some CHP, is naturally subject to fluctuation and, for some renewable technologies, unpredictability relative to the more traditional generation technologies. Based on recent analyses of the incidence and variation of wind speed, the expected intermittency of the national wind portfolio would not appear to pose a technical ceiling on the amount of wind generation that may be accommodated and adequately managed. However, increasing levels of such renewable generation on the system would increase the costs of balancing the system and managing system frequency.
It is a property of the interconnected transmission system that individual and local independent fluctuations in output are diversified and averaged out across the system. Moreover, the interconnected system permits frequency response and reserves to be carried on the most cost effective generation or demand side service provider at any particular time. These properties of the transmission network permit intermittent/variable generation to be used with lower standby and frequency control costs than would otherwise be the case.
The proportion of conventional generation needed to be retained in the electricity market, given the variable and unpredictable nature of some renewable technologies such as wind, such that current levels of security of supply are not eroded is the subject of the published paper: “A shift to wind is not unfeasible”, by Dale, Milborrow, Slark & Strbac, Power UK Issue 109, March 2003.
For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25GW of wind only 5GW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production. It follows that the electricity market will need to maintain in service a larger proportion of conventional generation capacity despite reduced load factors. Such plant is often referred to as “standby plant”.
Where did this quote come from?
So 80% of conventional capacity must be retained. Quite close to Paul Goldby’s reported 90% comment.
Check out this link.
http://www.bwea.com/media/news/articles/antiwind_report_peddles_myths.html
It is true there is no subsidy from the public purse, it is paid for directly by the electricty consumer.
The national Grid is obliged to take renewable energy when it is being produced. A surge in wind generated energy means switching off a conventional power source to balance it. The conventional generator still runs, still consumes fuel, just continues doing what it did before switch off, but the fuel consumed doesn’t supply anyone with electricity.
From what I understand, conventional generators need not be switched off, they just may only need to be backed off according to what the renewable sources are producing, but they still produce energy at a lower capacity, the difference between their now operating capacity and maximum becomes the standby capacity. The performance won't be the same because the fuel consumption will be a lot less.
How can you equate "a low carbon economy" with a requirement for fossil fuel back-up?
Because I'm not referring to a 'zero' carbon economy, and nobody else is either.
Lets examine "intermittent and random". No generation source operates at 100%. Conventional sources operate generally at known load factors. Planned maintenance is known well in advance. Low levels of water in our hydro schemes don't happen suddenly. People’s habits form a trend which is inherently reliable and predictable. Industry works to a pattern. The grid balances its requirements by bringing on and turning off generators with whom it has a contract to do so. A reserve is always maintained for such occurences as major plant outages, weather disruptions, football matches running over time on telly etc. If this reserve is allocated to balancing windpower, then it is not available for the purposes for which it is designed. So when the reserve is used up balancing windpower, there is no reserve left to back up conventional generation. So it requires an increase in back up from conventional generation.
An increase in standby generation is only required when we have over 20% penetration into the energy market, in ~2020. By then, we will have other renewable forms of energy that will be operating and helping to balance the grid. But increasing reserve isn't equated to increased carbon emissions and neither is the aim of a low carbon economy to shutdown conventional power generators permanently, as it is required to have spare capacity on paper to come onstream when needed. Peak demand is about 57GW and we have ~78GW national capacity, not all available at any one time mind. A night time demand may be as low as 25GW as the national average is 44GW. The biggest hurdle is keeping this spare capacity in business whilst not being used.
We don't need renewable energy sources unless they reliably and predictably displace conventional generation.
I disagree as the national grid states that there is effectively no ceiling to how much wind can be incorporated into the energy market although higher balancing costs will be needed to be incurred. But higher costs will be incurred if we stick to fossil fuels so that is a saving if we go renewable.
Fluctuating Unpredictable Output and Standby Capacity
The output of some renewable technologies, such as wind, wave, solar and even some CHP, is naturally subject to fluctuation and, for some renewable technologies, unpredictability relative to the more traditional generation technologies. Based on recent analyses of the incidence and variation of wind speed, the expected intermittency of the national wind portfolio would not appear to pose a technical ceiling on the amount of wind generation that may be accommodated and adequately managed. However, increasing levels of such renewable generation on the system would increase the costs of balancing the system and managing system frequency.
It is a property of the interconnected transmission system that individual and local independent fluctuations in output are diversified and averaged out across the system. Moreover, the interconnected system permits frequency response and reserves to be carried on the most cost effective generation or demand side service provider at any particular time. These properties of the transmission network permit intermittent/variable generation to be used with lower standby and frequency control costs than would otherwise be the case.
The proportion of conventional generation needed to be retained in the electricity market, given the variable and unpredictable nature of some renewable technologies such as wind, such that current levels of security of supply are not eroded is the subject of the published paper: “A shift to wind is not unfeasible”, by Dale, Milborrow, Slark & Strbac, Power UK Issue 109, March 2003.
For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25GW of wind only 5GW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production. It follows that the electricity market will need to maintain in service a larger proportion of conventional generation capacity despite reduced load factors. Such plant is often referred to as “standby plant”.
Where did this quote come from?
So 80% of conventional capacity must be retained. Quite close to Paul Goldby’s reported 90% comment.
The National Grid, its been there on their website for quite a number of years, so it is nothing new.
ywindythesecond
20-Jul-08, 19:30
Gordon brown wants 10,000 new turbines.
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842
The house of Lords wants to check if this is a good idea.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/renewables.doc (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/renewables.doc)
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn250408ea.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn250408ea.cfm)
E.ON Confirms it isn't. E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EA311%20-%20Supplementary%20evidence%20from%20Eon.doc (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EA311%20-%20Supplementary%20evidence%20from%20Eon.doc)
It is not me that said that, it is one of the largest windfarm owners in the world. E.ON is a commercial company with its primary duty to its shareholders. That is why they continue to follow political and commercial opportunity, but they are honest in their appraisals.
Check out other respondees.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm)
Sir Donald Miller is well worth a look.
Gordon brown wants 10,000 new turbines.
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842
The house of Lords wants to check if this is a good idea.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/renewables.doc (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/renewables.doc)
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn250408ea.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn250408ea.cfm)
E.ON Confirms it isn't. E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EA311%20-%20Supplementary%20evidence%20from%20Eon.doc (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EA311%20-%20Supplementary%20evidence%20from%20Eon.doc)
It is not me that said that, it is one of the largest windfarm owners in the world. E.ON is a commercial company with its primary duty to its shareholders. That is why they continue to follow political and commercial opportunity, but they are honest in their appraisals.
Check out other respondees.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm)
Sir Donald Miller is well worth a look.
Can you quote the E.ON source with reference links that substantiates the statement "E.ON Confirms it isn't. E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve."?
From what I am taking from the statement is nothing new from I already know to be true. We already have the capacity, normal plant depreciation matters put to one side. We don't need to build a whole new 92% of mixed portfolio of thermal capacity to back up the wind energy or any other renewables ftm, that is ridiculous.
Tubthumper
20-Jul-08, 22:34
[quote] As far as his idea of thousands of Wind Turbines, on or off shore, I read somewhere that there is a problem at the present time with demand far outstripping supply and that with the best will in the world the suggested time-table for bringing them on-line is hopelessly impractical.[quote]
If there's a worldwide lack of production capacity for these turbines, why has there been no attempt to establish a manufacturing capability here in Caithness? Surely we have the technical expertise here, and surely there would be grant aid available from a number of sources.
Seems an opportunity is going begging.
ywindythesecond
21-Jul-08, 00:50
Can you quote the E.ON source with reference links that substantiates the statement "E.ON Confirms it isn't. E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve."?
From what I am taking from the statement is nothing new from I already know to be true. We already have the capacity, normal plant depreciation matters put to one side. We don't need to build a whole new 92% of mixed portfolio of thermal capacity to back up the wind energy or any other renewables ftm, that is ridiculous.
This is about a target of 20% energy from renewables by 2020, not the current situation.
Para 10 To assess the extent to which investment in wind capacity will be able to replace thermal plant on the system while ensuring that peak demand can be met at the same level of reliability, we need to assess how much wind capacity on the system can be relied on to meet peak demand at a dependability of 95%. Our assessment of winter wind generation data in 2007 indicates that the system operator could rely on 8% of total UK wind capacity to meet winter peak demand at the same level of dependability as thermal plant. On this basis, if the UK required, say, 40000MW of wind capacity to meet its renewable target by 2020, only 8% of this renewable capacity (3600MW) could be relied on to meet winter peak demand. This would avoid the need to build 3600MW of new thermal plant but the remaining 36400MW of renewable capacity would need to be ‘backed-up’ by thermal plant to meet winter peak electricity demand in 2020.
This is about a target of 20% energy from renewables by 2020, not the current situation.
Para 10 To assess the extent to which investment in wind capacity will be able to replace thermal plant on the system while ensuring that peak demand can be met at the same level of reliability, we need to assess how much wind capacity on the system can be relied on to meet peak demand at a dependability of 95%. Our assessment of winter wind generation data in 2007 indicates that the system operator could rely on 8% of total UK wind capacity to meet winter peak demand at the same level of dependability as thermal plant. On this basis, if the UK required, say, 40000MW of wind capacity to meet its renewable target by 2020, only 8% of this renewable capacity (3600MW) could be relied on to meet winter peak demand. This would avoid the need to build 3600MW of new thermal plant but the remaining 36400MW of renewable capacity would need to be ‘backed-up’ by thermal plant to meet winter peak electricity demand in 2020.
E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve
That is not what is meant.
It doesn't mean that extra new thermal capacity needs to built to match and back up new wind generation because we already have it. What he means is that some existing thermal capacity can be retired so doesn't need to be built/replaced when it comes to the end of its life.
[quote] If there's a worldwide lack of production capacity for these turbines, why has there been no attempt to establish a manufacturing capability here in Caithness? Surely we have the technical expertise here, and surely there would be grant aid available from a number of sources.
Seems an opportunity is going begging.
I'm not certain of my facts here, but I think the hold-up in turbine manufacture is due to a shortage of steel. The likes of China and India who are putting up windfarms like mad are taking it all I believe. I think manufacturers are also prioritising and if you have a windfarm approved for say, three turbines, you are less likely to get yours than an order for 100. Causeymire has another three turbines approved by no signs of them being built yet.
[quote=Tubthumper;409408]
I'm not certain of my facts here, but I think the hold-up in turbine manufacture is due to a shortage of steel. The likes of China and India who are putting up windfarms like mad are taking it all I believe. I think manufacturers are also prioritising and if you have a windfarm approved for say, three turbines, you are less likely to get yours than an order for 100. Causeymire has another three turbines approved by no signs of them being built yet.
Yes you are correct in saying that there is a shortage of steel, however they still produce turbine towers here in the UK to send out to the rest of Europe and more so America. About three years ago America stepped up there wind turbine portfolio meaning that they were swallowing up all the US turbine manufactures (Clipper, G.E. etc) turbines they could produce and came looking to Europe for more turbines from the likes of Vestas, Siemens, Gamesa, Acciona, Nordex, RE Power, etc. You now have Mitsubishi putting focus back into wind turbine production (they produced some turbines over 15 years ago) and have there first European site in Bulgaria just recently gone operational, and should start now start to sell in to the rest of Europe once there new product has proved its self for reliability, serviceability and parts supply to the big utility companies and developers like E.on, Scottish Power, DONG Energy, SSE/Airtricity, RES etc.
The other supply problem at the moment would be gearboxes and there internals specifically the bearings as these are a wearing part which requires replacement after set amount of years running within the gearbox's.
There is no reason why a UK company could not start up again producing large capacity wind turbines as we certainly have the skills and knowledge to do so!
The parts of a typical wind turbine are mainly out sourced like the gearboxes coming from Flenders, Hansen, etc. generators from ABB, etc. Hydraulic stations from Parkers, Vickers etc. Blades from LM etc. Transformers from various suppliers. The PLC systems and control modules are also outsourced. So you would be looking at a design using these components then build a bed plate for it all to sit on and a fiberglass nacelle to house it then a tower to raise it up in the sky and a computer network to control the lot.
The hard bit has been done by companies like Vestas, Siemens, etc by proving that certain components work better than others and that it is now possible to get megawatts not just kilowatts from wind turbines.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.