more wind turbines

[ywindythesecond]

I'm glad you acknowledge that. So 8% is a welcome addition to our security of supplies at peak winter demand. What about the other times of the year, in normal conditions other than Xmas day around 6pm?

I believe the security of supply goes down to 8% at very high percentage intrusions into the energy market. A bit to go yet.

Not sure what I am supposed to have acknowledged. The rest of the time valuable fossil fuels are squandered as back-up for wind, at greater or lesser degrees of course depending on time of year and other factors.

" A bit to go yet". It is not a case of pushing renewables till they really hurt and then stop. The Government and EU targets WILL force the construction of new thermal generation plant simply to back-up wind.

I can't keep up with the figures that are bandied about. Lets say we have a reliance on wind for 15% of our capacity. If an anticyclone covers the country at a time of peak winter demand, then we will be short of 92% of that ie 13.8%. At peak winter demand, all free reserves are used up, so only emergency reserves for plant failure is available. This emergency reserve will not be used for anything other than an emergency. So there will have to be selective shut down of power, power rationing.

If you are short of 13.8% of your requirement, then either you accept that there will be power outages when you need it most, or you have to build new plant just for that predictable situation.

It is not me that is saying this, it is generation professionals -see post 37, have you read it all yet?

[Rheghead]

Not sure what I am supposed to have acknowledged. The rest of the time valuable fossil fuels are squandered as back-up for wind, at greater or lesser degrees of course depending on time of year and other factors.

Please explain 'squandered', aren't they being used to produce electricity? Because I'm understanding from what your meaning is that the valuable fossil fuels are being 'squandered' in the absence of wind energy anyway because there are renewable alternatives like wind energy that can produce electricity instead.

squan·der (skwndr)
tr.v. squan·dered, squan·der·ing, squan·ders
1. To spend wastefully or extravagantly(using fossil fuels to back up existing fossil fuel generation); dissipate(waste heat into the atmosphere).
2. To fail to take advantage of( eg renewables ); lose a chance for (investment in renewable energy projects)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/squandered

It is not a case of pushing renewables till they really hurt and then stop. The Government and EU targets WILL force the construction of new thermal generation plant simply to back-up wind.

We don't need any more fossil fuel capacity we already have it, the only reason to build new thermal capacity is to replace the old.

Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work
Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.
Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.

It is not me that is saying this, it is generation professionals -see post 37, have you read it all yet?

I opened the first link and found a gross error, so it made me a tad doubtful about the rest.

[Kirdon]

funny think about the new road in construction, is not stopping at where three turbines are to be placed,but new road is going al the way to cause-a mere road,why ? more turbines

You may be right but I heard the new road was only going as far as the Camster road to provide access for the new Camster wind farm but as I say this was only hearsay.

[ywindythesecond]

So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire at a period of normal demand on the National grid. The turbines aren't turning but that doesn't matter because everyone has all the electricity they need, not a bit more not a bit less.
But then the wind gets up and the blades start turning. The chap in Pilochry whose job is to balance demand and supply minute by minute realises that he is in danger of having too much electricity. He has to take the power from wind turbines because that is the rule,so he needs to switch off another source. He looks down the list of generators and selects one to "constrain off" ie, tell to stop supplying power to the grid.

This will almost certainly be a coal fired station because the grid has to pay compensation to generators if it doesn't take contracted energy and coal fired power is cheapest. And this power station now has nothing to do because everyone is already getting their electricity from somewhere else, so it just sits and simmers until it is needed again.

Now this coal fired station has been providing electricity for about 3p a kwh, and it has been replaced with wind electricity at about 9p per kwh, but we have to add the amount the coal fired station is compensated by and this equals the normal price less any saving in fuel for ramping down the boilers, but the boilers need to be kept going to be able to come back on stream next time there is a requirement. So when we are using wind energy, we pay 3p for the power, 2p for the coal fired station and 6p in subsidies to developers shareholders and landowners, and all the time we are using coal for no return.

Not only that, the coal will be burning less efficiently (say75%) now producing a higher percentage of CO2 and that was what the windmill was supposed to save.

So if we have wind energy one third of the time at a cost of 11p a kwh
and coal for two thirds of the time at a cost of 3p per kwh, you can see that it costs us nearly twice as much for the electrity for one third of the time by wind than coal power for two thirds of the time. The amount of carbon saving is 25% of one third of the coal stations normal output, one twelfth, but we have used 75% of one third of normal fuel, that is one quarter, for no return whatsoever. And this minimal carbon saving has to be balanced against the carbon footprint of the windmill which started off as ore in some foreign country.

I would say the coal it was squandered.
And make no mistake we pay for this.
The annual subsidy for a 2.5MW turbine paid for by us through our bills is around £300,000. And for the privilege of paying this subsidy we pay 60% more for the electricity, and squander good coal resources.

I think you should persevere with the links Reggy.

[mccaugm]

COAL is going to run out. WIND as far as I can tell is not. Whatever the stats you come up with, the fact cannot be altered whoever is being told do what. Bring on the turbines. Clean and beautiful.

[Tilter]

Thanks for putting all that in layman's terms YWind. If that is so, and even I can understand it, why can't the powers-that-be understand what's going on?

[Tilter]

COAL is going to run out. WIND as far as I can tell is not. Whatever the stats you come up with, the fact cannot be altered whoever is being told do what. Bring on the turbines. Clean and beautiful.

McCaugm, it is my understanding that it will take very many, many years for coal to run out on this island and elsewhere in the world. Used with modern technology, surely it could provide us with supply safety until the govt. gets its act together regarding tidal, off-shore, fusion, and on and on, rather than the inefficient on-shore wind capability we have now.

[teenybash]

So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire at a period of normal demand on the National grid. The turbines aren't turning but that doesn't matter because everyone has all the electricity they need, not a bit more not a bit less.
But then the wind gets up and the blades start turning. The chap in Pilochry whose job is to balance demand and supply minute by minute realises that he is in danger of having too much electricity. He has to take the power from wind turbines because that is the rule,so he needs to switch off another source. He looks down the list of generators and selects one to "constrain off" ie, tell to stop supplying power to the grid.

This will almost certainly be a coal fired station because the grid has to pay compensation to generators if it doesn't take contracted energy and coal fired power is cheapest. And this power station now has nothing to do because everyone is already getting their electricity from somewhere else, so it just sits and simmers until it is needed again.

Now this coal fired station has been providing electricity for about 3p a kwh, and it has been replaced with wind electricity at about 9p per kwh, but we have to add the amount the coal fired station is compensated by and this equals the normal price less any saving in fuel for ramping down the boilers, but the boilers need to be kept going to be able to come back on stream next time there is a requirement. So when we are using wind energy, we pay 3p for the power, 2p for the coal fired station and 6p in subsidies to developers shareholders and landowners, and all the time we are using coal for no return.

Not only that, the coal will be burning less efficiently (say75%) now producing a higher percentage of CO2 and that was what the windmill was supposed to save.

So if we have wind energy one third of the time at a cost of 11p a kwh
and coal for two thirds of the time at a cost of 3p per kwh, you can see that it costs us nearly twice as much for the electrity for one third of the time by wind than coal power for two thirds of the time. The amount of carbon saving is 25% of one third of the coal stations normal output, one twelfth, but we have used 75% of one third of normal fuel, that is one quarter, for no return whatsoever. And this minimal carbon saving has to be balanced against the carbon footprint of the windmill which started off as ore in some foreign country.

I would say the coal it was squandered.
And make no mistake we pay for this.
The annual subsidy for a 2.5MW turbine paid for by us through our bills is around £300,000. And for the privilege of paying this subsidy we pay 60% more for the electricity, and squander good coal resources.

I think you should persevere with the links Reggy.

My hied is birlin'.........

Numbers aside...they confuse me..... Seriously though, we need to learn to work with the gifts of nature in a way that does least harm to the planet we live on and those we share it with. We all need to learn that our greed for energy, be household equipment, cars, throwaway consumer goods, food packageing etc has to be curtailed to a level that is not harmful. We also need to find ways to halt the destruction of the rainforests, that are the lungs of the world. Without them Mother Earth will choke and die and everything along with her...................

[badger]

My hied is birlin'.........

Numbers aside...they confuse me..... Seriously though, we need to learn to work with the gifts of nature in a way that does least harm to the planet we live on and those we share it with. We all need to learn that our greed for energy, be household equipment, cars, throwaway consumer goods, food packageing etc has to be curtailed to a level that is not harmful. We also need to find ways to halt the destruction of the rainforests, that are the lungs of the world. Without them Mother Earth will choke and die and everything along with her...................

I wish there was some chance of this happening. Too many things - the shops, the media - encourage people to believe that they cannot live without the latest gadget, they have to heat their homes rather than wear warm clothes, they cannot possibly move into a house and live with the existing kitchen/bathroom (all those tv programmes). More, more, more.

I wish everyone would visit Mary Ann's Cottage in Dunnet and see how it is possible to be happy, healthy, content and live to a ripe old age with very little - nothing ever wasted. Of course few people would want to live like that now but we could learn a lot from that lifestyle.

[Rheghead]

So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire at a period of normal demand on the National grid. The turbines aren't turning but that doesn't matter because everyone has all the electricity they need, not a bit more not a bit less.
But then the wind gets up and the blades start turning. The chap in Pilochry whose job is to balance demand and supply minute by minute realises that he is in danger of having too much electricity. He has to take the power from wind turbines because that is the rule,so he needs to switch off another source. He looks down the list of generators and selects one to "constrain off" ie, tell to stop supplying power to the grid t any great amount.

This will almost certainly be a coal fired station because the grid has to pay compensation to generators if it doesn't take contracted energy and coal fired power is cheapest. And this power station now has nothing to do because everyone is already getting their electricity from somewhere else, so it just sits and simmers until it is needed again.

Now this coal fired station has been providing electricity for about 3p a kwh, and it has been replaced with wind electricity at about 9p per kwh, but we have to add the amount the coal fired station is compensated by and this equals the normal price less any saving in fuel for ramping down the boilers, but the boilers need to be kept going to be able to come back on stream next time there is a requirement. So when we are using wind energy, we pay 3p for the power, 2p for the coal fired station and 6p in subsidies to developers shareholders and landowners, and all the time we are using coal for no return.

Not only that, the coal will be burning less efficiently (say75%) now producing a higher percentage of CO2 and that was what the windmill was supposed to save.

So if we have wind energy one third of the time at a cost of 11p a kwh
and coal for two thirds of the time at a cost of 3p per kwh, you can see that it costs us nearly twice as much for the electrity for one third of the time by wind than coal power for two thirds of the time. The amount of carbon saving is 25% of one third of the coal stations normal output, one twelfth, but we have used 75% of one third of normal fuel, that is one quarter, for no return whatsoever. And this minimal carbon saving has to be balanced against the carbon footprint of the windmill which started off as ore in some foreign country.

I would say the coal it was squandered.
And make no mistake we pay for this.


I think you should persevere with the links Reggy.

Have you just made all that up or have you got some reference? You say that the coal fired has just stepped down in power and you say it is burning more CO2 in percentage terms? From my understanding of generation and fuel/power curves, coal fired are baseload generators and they are put on steady power and left there at 40% capacity, if they were to go to a reduced burning capacity then they would actually be burning fuel at the linear part of the fuel/power curve, no percentage increase in CO2 at all. They aren't put on idling as they take days to get full power, and anyway, they aren't used to balance the grid. But they will be the form of generation that will be eventually retired.

The Grid pays to have up to 8.5 GW of additional capacity available to start immediately but not running, referred to as “warming” or "hot standby", that is ready to be used at short notice which could take half an hour to 2 hours to bring on line. Generally, there will be more of such "hot standby" capacity whenever there is a large amount of expected disturbance on the system. The cost of fuel or tonne of CO2 emitted by keeping such plant warm is tiny in comparison with the amount of fuel used to generate power, maybe equivalent to the fuel used to produce a quarter of a MW compared to a full load fuel demand for a large set of 1,800 MW. Often quoted talk about the high costs of standby spinning reserve are misleading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseload
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control...onal_Grid_(UK))

Gas fired power stations are used to balance the Grid, hence that is why BWEA are now using 0.43 tonnes of CO2 per MWh to demonstrate fuel savings for windfarms rather than 0.96 tonnes of CO2 per MWh which equates to coal generation.

The annual subsidy for a 2.5MW turbine paid for by us through our bills is around £300,000. And for the privilege of paying this subsidy we pay 60% more for the electricity, and squander good coal resources.

Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6.

Sources of intermittency on the UK National Grid
The largest source of intermittency on the UK National Grid is the power stations; in fact, the single largest source is Sizewell B nuclear power station. Whenever Sizewell B is operating the entire 1.3GW output is liable to stop at any time without warning. Its capacity is 2.16% of the national grid maximum demand, making it the single largest power source and therefore the largest source of intermittence. Despite this issue, NGT readily copes with it. An industry wide rate of unplanned scrams of 0.6 per 7000 hours critical, means that such a shut down without warning is expected to happen about once every year and a half. However, no matter how low the rate of unplanned scrams, this is largely irrelevant - what matters is the fact that it can and does happen, and measures have to be in place to deal with it.

In a recent case, both Sizewell and Longannet power stations, both stopped unexpectedly within minutes of each other, in fact causing widespread power failures, as sub stations were tripped of using prearranged under frequency relays.

Paradoxically, although wind power is inherently intermittent and variable it is in fact much more reliable than conventional plant. Consider a 660 MW plant, which could be replaced by perhaps 900 x 3MW wind turbines to give the same annual output of energy. On a day when wind strength is enough to give a total output of 600 MW, then these simply cannot all fail simultaneously, since a drop in wind would not affect all stations equally at the same time.

Furthermore, the most reliable form of wind forecasting is to simply look at the total output of the wind turbine themselves – in all probability, what they are producing at one point in time, is likely to be produced one hour later, or only a small change from that. If this prediction window is decreased – 20 minutes, 10 minutes 5 minutes, the difference in total national wind power output becomes less and less, and even at 5 minutes, that is ample time to raise or lower spinning reserve accordingly. There is thus ample time to cope with these changes by calling up or standing down more or less plant. If the 5 minute estimates are wrong then the Frequency Service and Reserve Service diesels will clearly have the resilience to cope with it.

However, I think EON may change their assessment on that 8% if they had known about a study carried out in the US which suggested 30% could be relied upon.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tpo112107.php

[Angel]

Woohoo... the statue is rotating... My mistake... its been stationary for at least 7 weeks...

So you build a wind turbine and it costs A.
A = Somebody debt.

Then the thing produces energy B
B = Watts per annum.

Watts per annum has a value of C
Watts X £?

This Pays off A until A is cleared, then we are left with D
D = Benifit to our electric bill

What is their life expectancy
Are there any maintainance costs...
When beakdown occurs who pays who what

When does D actually happen?

Angel

[joxville]

I'm now confused-think I'll take an 'E'.

[Welcomefamily]

Does the cost really matter when we are talking about the future of the planet.

[Angel]

The cost does not matter in the long term with regards to saving the planet... but knowing takes one a little closer to the truth... as there are other methods I believe which may be more cost as well as carbon effecient if you want to be trendy... Just because its in your face does not make it the best option...

Angel

[Welcomefamily]

Such as ? Angel

I have a lovely animated butterfly gif if you want it.

[sandy01]

Just to throw in another thought.
What about the carbon cost of the turbines?
First you have the carbon cost of producing the materials, then all the assembly etc,
transporting to the site.
Then we come to the site itself. How about the carbon cost of all the trucks, running back and forth with the hardcore for the road, and the machines doing the digging and levelling, not forgetting the machines etc in the quarry digging the rock.
Then you have the concreting of the bases.
How big is the carbon footprint sofar??
How about the destruction of the greenery etc, that removes carbon from the air.
And then there is the maintenence vehicles to keep them working.
Need I go on?
Last question, Will these turbines ever pay back their own carbon footprint????

[Rheghead]

Just to throw in another thought.
What about the carbon cost of the turbines?

http://www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_c...udit-Guide.pdf

But one thing to bear in mind is that in this study, they have asserted that 100% oxidation of the peat occurs over the lifetime of the turbines without any justification. No peat cutter worth his salt could claim the same thing occurs near to peat banks that have been unexcavated over the last 25 years, so the report is biased against wind energy in that sense. It goes without saying then that this oxidation is claimed to amount to 66% of the carbon cost.

[Angel]

that's one of the things I was trying to say sandy about the construction of it all...

I would love the animated gif "Welcomefamily"... I am not a scientist but other feilds of developement are in experimental stages I believe... something to do with plasma... as well as solar stuff... as well as all this lots of stuff now runs on 12v anyway even if you plug it into the mains...
What I am saying is I don't believe these wind turbines even cover their own costs...

Angel

[Welcomefamily]

Yes I will agree windmills dont have to be the be all and end all, if some thing better comes along then they can all come down. They might sell me one it would look nice in my back garden with a climbing honeysuckle growing up it.

[ywindythesecond]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond
So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire

Reggy said;“Have you just made all that up or have you got some reference?

No I haven’t made it up, much of it comes from OFGEM’s Report Transmission investment for renewable generation -Final proposals December 2004 288/04
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf

This is OFGEM’s rationale for supporting the Beauly/Denny pylon upgrade and essentially they argue that windfarms being so profitable they are bound to be built in the Highlands, and if the grid is not capable of taking their output, then the compensation payable to the generators will be much more than the estimated £332M for the upgrade.

So Reggy, back to your post. What you say is sound engineering, but the energy business is no longer run on sound engineering principles, it is run for the benefit of shareholders, and really strange decisions are made. In the OFGEM report, this is said:

3.24. For the interconnector, the analysis of the likely savings in constraint costs is
particularly sensitive to the assumptions about how the existing conventional
power stations in Scotland will be operated.

Figure 5 compares project and constraint costs assuming that the two main conventional power stations,
Longannet and Cockenzie, either close (or operate only when wind generation is idle) or continue to operate according to their historical pattern of outputs.

OFGEM clearly acknowledges the prospect of coal-fired power stations being used for wind back-up, and indeed also nuclear.

Just as the energy business has been hijacked by the profit motive, so has the Green Movement. I applaud the profit motive generally but the ROCs system and other market mechanisms have turned us into milk cows and the damage to our economy, energy supply, ecology, and the lives of thousands of people, are being sacrificed for profit and greed. And I am a life-long Tory.

It is no longer possible to apply sound engineering principles to the way energy is run.

Reggy Quote :
Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW).

But additional Conventional back-up would be required. Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nations electricity needs. So after 10%, all additional wind power relied upon to provide “our nation’s electricity needs” requires additional conventional back-up.

Reggy Quote:
Sources of intermittency on the UK National Grid
The largest source of intermittency on the UK National Grid is the power stations; in fact, the single largest source is Sizewell B nuclear power station. Whenever Sizewell B is operating the entire 1.3GW output is liable to stop at any time without warning. This is an interesting use of “intermittency”. A shutdown every 18 months doesn’t describe what most people would consider intermittent.

Paradoxically, although wind power is inherently intermittent and variable it is in fact much more reliable than conventional plant. Consider a 660 MW plant, which could be replaced by perhaps 900 x 3MW wind turbines to give the same annual output of energy. On a day when wind strength is enough to give a total output of 600 MW, then these simply cannot all fail simultaneously, since a drop in wind would not affect all stations equally at the same time.

Firstly, consider that 900 3MW turbines are required to give the same annual output as one conventional power station. And occasionally they don’t give any power. And occasionally they give lots of power when it is not needed. Mostly they give an amount of power, but nobody knows what it will be, nor when. That seems to sum up “intermittent” to most people.


Secondly, consider that wind power is “ much more reliable than conventional plant”
because it fails gradually, not suddenly. This is basically the same argument that a stopped watch is more reliable than one which is two minutes slow because the stopped one at least is right twice a day but the slow one is never right.

Furthermore, the most reliable form of wind forecasting is to simply look at the total output of the wind turbine themselves – in all probability, what they are producing at one point in time, is likely to be produced one hour later, or only a small change from that. If this prediction window is decreased – 20 minutes, 10 minutes 5 minutes, the difference in total national wind power output becomes less and less, and even at 5 minutes, that is ample time to raise or lower spinning reserve accordingly.

So spinning reserve has to be able to cope with the worst case scenario. It doesn’t always have to be spinning, but it has to be available. At the level of wind generation proposed, there just aren’t enough conventional power plants, so we need to build more.

There is thus ample time to cope with these changes by calling up or standing down more or less plant. If the 5 minute estimates are wrong then the Frequency Service and Reserve Service diesels will clearly have the resilience to cope with it.

What are these?

However, I think EON may change their assessment on that 8% if they had known about a study carried out in the US which suggested 30% could be relied upon.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tpo112107.php
__________________
A Convenient Solution

EON based their evidence to the House of Lords on available hard facts. The link you gave did not suggest 30% could be relied on. The relevant quote is:
They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power.

They didn’t report the minimum. Arithmetic says 19%. Commonsense says less.