http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VSS-4TP7H64-1&_user=1082852&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2008&_alid=1288265142&_rdoc=5&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_cdi=6270&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_ct=43&_acct=C000051401&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1082852&md5=68fd110fa08c3e60aa29d928b874808e">The Electricity Journal Volume 21, Issue 8, October 2008, Pages 46-50
Note that by citing this article, I do not imply that I
agree with everything in it. For instance, I favor the immediate phase out of dangerous fossil fuels, and the author claims that fossil fuels are OK when integrated with wind energy. Examining ideas involves something called "critical thinking," and "critical thinking" in turn means that when examining literature,
even literature published in peer reviewed journals, one should not
assume that what is written is true, or wise, or irrefutable.
Most people, but certainly not
all people who read literature understand this, as we can see here at the E&E forum.
Now I will do some fun cherry picked quotations from this paper, published in a peer reviewed journal that serves the electricity industry, about the economic value of wind energy about which one can, um, critically think.
A central question is whether wind farms can reliably deliver power during peak demand periods. A common assumption has been that wind power and load are uncorrelated. Data now exists to show that there is correlation and it can be negative. Many utilities are summer peaking, that is, the greatest demand for electricity occurs during the summer and is driven by air conditioning load. During July 16–24, 2006, California experienced a heat storm. The contribution of the wind resources at the time of peak was less than 5 percent of the total wind installed capacity.1 Figure 1 shows wind energy production a time of peak load as measured by the California Independent System Operator.2 During days of peak demand wind farms averaged only 5.3 percent of rated power. ‘‘We absolutely need other types of generation to guarantee
the reliability for system for peak hours.’’3
Of course, we will have dumb people vociferously object to the claim that California burned gas energy during a "heat storm" because the "heat storm" occurred when the wind farms were almost completely useless. The reference for the last quotation, which is available on line, comes from sworn testimony before the California Public Utilities Commission by the person who is responsible for, um,
dispatching electricity to consumers. If David L. Hawkins does a poor job in California, the, um, light go out.
The link is here:
http://www.caiso.com/184f/184f93f91b9e0.pdf">REPLY TESTIMONY OF DAVID L. HAWKINS ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR
Of course, we will hear the claim that he is nowhere near as knowledgable as lightweight bloggers who only hear what they
want to hear.
David L. Hawkins says that California will need
gas fired units to continue to use wind power. I favor banning dangerous natural gas, mining dangerous natural gas by permanently destroying the cap rock of the continent, or dumping dangerous natural gas wastes into the favorite dump of the gas industry, earth's atmosphere. Thus I would claim that if California
needs gas to have wind, that wind blows, and I'm not speaking in a meterological sense of the word.
Now let's return to the cited article in The Electricity Journal.
It has been reported that the country Denmark gets over 20 percent of its electricity from wind today. There are times when the country gets over 100 percent of its electricity from wind. Also, there are calm days when there is little or no wind and it is necessary to rely mainly on conventional coal-fired generators.
By the way, when you
start a shut coal fired plant, you need to invest energy not only in running the turbine, but in heating the water in the boilers from ambient temperatures to operating pressures. When you shut the boiler down because the wind is blowing you
lose all this energy. Still the author claims that you use
less dangerous fossil fuels when you have wind capacity, at least in Denmark.
I consider an alcoholic who drinks
less beer, but still a lot of beer, to still be an alcoholic, but that's just my opinion about which one can critically think, should one so desire.
I note that Denmark continues to invest heavily in the mining and use of dangerous fossil fuels; and is, in fact, a dangerous fossil fuel
exporting nation that has advocated the destruction of Sweden's dangerous fossil fuel free infrastructure.
Wind turbines do not allow the country to reduce its dependence on conventional generators, which are necessary to carry full peak load when there is no wind.
System cost consists of fixed capital costplus variable operating cost. Wind turbines do not allow the utility to reduce conventional fixed cost (mainly interest on capital investment) but do reduce
operating cost (mainly fuel).
Wind turbines by themselves save fuel. Denmark reduces its dependence on coal by 20 percent.
The whole electrical system has both conventional power plants plus wind turbines, each of which can satisfy demand. The consumer is now paying fixed costs for two redundant generators, wind turbines for when the wind is blowing, and coal plants for when the wind is not blowing.
When the wind is not blowing and Denmark draws on the European grid for electricity, it is shifting intermittency costs to the rest of Europe.
So it seems that Germany is subsidizing Danish wind energy, not that Germany doesn't subsidize it's own wind energy, accounting for its non-competitive electricity rates, near the highest in Europe, since Germany has committed not to phasing out dangerous fossil fuels, but rather its largest, by far, source of climate change gas free infrastructure. Wunderbar!
Assume the wind farm is installed at a site with a 25 percent average power capacity, 0 percent demand capacity. The wind farm is sized so that at rated power it provides 100 percent of the constant load. Annualizing the cost of wind farm assumes a 10 percent discount rate, no special renewable incentives, and a capital cost of $1.43/W.7 Adding the wind farm does not
change the 4.5 ¢/kWh conventional fixed cost. The utility must still provide 100 percent of peak load without wind. The wind farm cuts coal cost by 25 percent, or about $0.8 ¢/kWh. The wind farm adds an additional capital carrying charge of 1.6 ¢/kWh (6.4 ¢/kWh with 25 percent utilization results in a blended rate of 1.6 ¢/kWh). The net result is to increase consumer costs from 7.7 to 8.5 ¢/kWh.
Um, so the
cost of the redundancy is
higher than the cost of the saved fuel, not that, in my opinion,
any money spent on coal is acceptable and Denmark's refusal to consider participating in a dangerous fossil fuel phase out, um, blows.
No wonder Denmark's electricity prices are the highest in Europe.
The main conclusion of Figure 2 is that wind farms compete with the cost of fuel, in this case coal. They do so at the expense of redundant generating capacity. For the assumptions used in this example, wind loses the competition and increases overall system costs.
I n a well-constructed market, wind turbines would have the greatest value at locations or market nodes where they compete against high fuel costs, as in Hawaii. Wind turbines would have the least value at locations where they compete against lowfuel- cost electricity as with hydro or nuclear.
I note that Hawaii has had wind plants since the 1980's and some of them are
abandoned and rotting, unattended, in fields. There is no intrinsic reason that Hawaii could
not build nuclear plants, particularly since Hawaii has access to the ocean and could in fact, if it desired, use the cooling water in combination with desalination systems, if necessary.
Have a nice day.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
