China's Wind Farms Come With a Catch: Coal Plants

[phantom power]

China wants renewable energy like wind to meet 15% of its energy needs by 2020, double its share in 2005, as it seeks to rein in emissions that have made its cities among the smoggiest on Earth. But experts say the country's transmission network currently can't absorb the rate of growth in renewable-energy output. Last year, as much as 30% of wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy.

In addition, officials want enough new coal-fired capacity in reserve so that they can meet demand whenever the wind doesn't blow. This is important because wind is less reliable as an energy source than coal, which fuels two-thirds of China's electricity output. Wind energy ultimately depends on wind strength and direction, unlike coal, which can be stockpiled at generators in advance.

Further complicating matters is poor connectivity between regional transmission networks, which makes it hard for China to move surplus power in one part of the country to cover shortfalls elsewhere.

...

State Grid Corp., China's monopoly power distributor in all but five provinces, says it wants to build a nationwide "strong smart grid." But while it is investing heavily in grid improvements, its immediate focus is the construction of ultrahigh-voltage lines linking China's coal production and hydropower centers in inland areas to the densely populated east.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125409730711245037.html

[madokie]

1. I've a question, help me out here

wouldn't any energy they get from wind be good no matter the make up energy source?

[kristopher]

3. Not necessarily.

Looking at electricity supply and demand over a large geographic area it is helpful to think of it like a large pond or reservoir where generating and demand are coordinated minute by minute to maintain the level of the reservoir within a very narrow range. For example, if demand drops outside that narrow range, the amount generated must also drop or there will be lines that become overloaded, shutting the system down.

Our system capacity is HUGE in relation to China's, so if we add 10GW of wind, the variability that goes with it barely causes a ripple in the reservoir. China, on the other hand, is adding wind at a pace that makes it a much, much larger factor in the way their reservoir behaves.

The best way to meet this issue is with storage, the next best is natural gas. The article brings coal into the picture largely as a justification for building power lines that will also be used to transmit wind power. Since no one has built grid like China is now trying to do, it is very hard to separate the actual need for central thermal generation in a renewable grid from their desire to just proceed balls to the wall on all fronts.

[madokie]

4. But wouldn't energy from wind be good?

any that they can get irregardless of the make up source for when they aren't getting any. I don't doubt what you're saying mind you but what you're saying here really is not an answer to my question, is it? 'splain me

On edit I don't believe anything i read that comes from anything wsj either. :-)

[kristopher]

6. Have you ever used a flashlight with a bad connection inside?

One that only works a few minutes and then you have to bang it because it dimmed or when out?

Steady supply is essential to the way electric devices function. Storage is the best answer for wind and solar. The reason it isn't needed with fossil is that all fossil fuels are already a form of stored energy. The quality we are looking for is called dispatchable power. For a grid to function there must be some amount (the best, actual ratio will depend on a lot of factors) of dispatchable power to fill in the gaps.
There is also a strategy that is built around the fact that overall intermittency is decreased a great deal when you have lots of wind turbines distributed over a large geographic area.

There are some applications where you could use whatever is available, but generally most of them are actually some form of storage (for example a mechanical driven pump attached to a wind turbine would not be adversely affected by precisely when the wwind blows as the water can be stored above ground for use when the wind isn't blowing.

I hope that helps.

[madokie]

7. So as it stands now wind is not a good idea?

Can't you just answer whether or not wind is a good idea as it stands today?

[kristopher]

9. There are two different situations we are talking about

China and the US are totally different so I was trying to deal more with concepts that are applicable to both. Wind power is good in both cases but adding lots of new wind capacity is going to have different consequences for China than it does for the US.

For some reason my children's favorite expression is the one about asking the time and learning how to build a watch...
:shrug:

[kristopher]

2. I don't believe anything from the WSJ on energy or climate

This article is designed to stoke resentment. I doubt very seriously if it is a valid representation of the facts as they are or as they will be. For example, they write "Last year, as much as 30% of wind-power capacity wasn't connected to the grid. As a result, more coal is being burned in existing plants, and new thermal capacity is being built to cover this shortfall in renewable energy."

How does that "as a result" get in there? In fact coal generation is a lousy way to meet the grid integration issues associated with wind. It is far too unresponsive shifting load and far too expensive in relation to natural gas be the best choice.

I don't like "shoot the messenger" fallacies, but when the messenger is a known liar in the pocket of a fanatic like Murdock, it isn't a fallacy.

[phantom power]

5. Coal would be terrible, for all those reasons. Coal makes NG look good by comparison.

I guess we'll see what they actually do. It wouldn't be the first time somebody took an otherwise good idea and fucked it up with a really terrible implementation.

[kristopher]

11. I agree.

Command and control economies have some big advantages when it comes to taking quick action, but when they go wrong, they can seriously screw things up.

But I guess we have little room to criticize...

[joshcryer]

13. The report does talk about coal liquefaction or gasification.

The take-home message is that China has a whole lot of coal, put online the equivalent of 2 500MW (coal) reactors a week, and may not actually meet their energy needs any other way without *extensive* changes to their infrastructure.

The report is here: http://www.pwchk.com/home/webmedia/633881021606123396/cn_greentech_report_sep2009.pdf

Hard for me to conceive of so many coal plants coming online.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

12. Page 123 of the report talks about it but their source isn't clear.

http://www.pwchk.com/home/webmedia/633881021606123396/cn_greentech_report_sep2009.pdf

They cite '3' as their source but I'll be damned if I can find it.

Read a bunch of the report. Left me depressed. Coal for China's long term future. We're so fucked. *sigh*

[kristopher]

14. I briefly looked over the report...

But before that a small point: I understand that quite a number of those coal plants are replacing older, much less efficient coal plants, so that is a thin silver lining to that particular dark cloud.

First the important point - The notes section of the summary explains
"the following sources are applicable to the executive overview edition of the report.
additional sector-specific sources are included in the full version of the report."

"3" is probably a "sector specific" note from a part of the original full report that was just cut and pasted into the summary available for download.

This report is typical of many I've read from a wide variety of sources. It is important to understand that there are two basic assumptions to choose from when you begin such an effort - do you assume that the status quo will dominate or do you assume that there will be meaningful policy action that alters the trajectory in a given way. This report looks at first blush to assume that the status quo will persist.

It could go either way. China's leaders aren't stupid nor are they callous about the needs of the people. In a country that size it is inevitably going to produce a lot of horror stories but I've meet a number of visiting Chinese scholars (most of them in government) and they are as concerned about the issue of climate change as we are. My personal opinion is that what has been missing is leadership from the United States. We have been the fly in the ointment; conducting negotiations in a way designed not only to prevent action in the US, but to obstruct as much as possible meaningful action anywhere in the world.

A report using an alternative assumption where China rejects coal would look radically different, don't you think? I think there is a solid case to be made that it is in China's interest to do that, but I wouldn't expect them to sign on to mandatory numbers that will impress anyone. I'm not sure that is very important anyway except as it is a clear market signal. Just as we have been following the Treaty on the Law of the Sea for decades without signing onto it, they can exert full efforts to make an agreement work while maintaining the stance of an outsider.

If the climate issue is as dire as we believe it is, then they should have strong motives for action.

Perhaps we will see some startling developments in the next year.