Archive for Wind Energy

Note – Claverton is not anti or pro nuclear energy, wind power, ccs etc.  It is a neutral discussion forum for  energy experts.

This article has been copied from the Guardian for comment – it is felt the article is significantly defective in its treatment of the subject.

Fall of 7.5% in power obtained from wind, hydro and other renewable sources blamed on dry winter with low wind speeds

Britain’s renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other “clean” sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal. Read More→

Popularity: 3% [?]

Comments (4)

Extract from Claverton Energy Group Archives, by Paul Frederik Bach, ex director Danish Western National Grid.
On 12 May 2010 21:13, Paul-Frederik Bach <pfbach@profibermail.dk> wrote:
Dear all,
The debate on the economy of wind power seems to be never ending. Observations of wind power output and spot prices indicate that wind power creates low prices during periods of high wind. It is a simple and popular interpretation that wind power has caused reduced spot prices and thus contributed to reduced consumer prices of electricity.The effect of wind power on spot prices is supposed to contribute significantly to the competitive position of wind energy. It has been claimed that this effect is about to outweigh the subsidies for wind power.Several analyses have been made in order to quantify the effect. Now Pöyry has presented a review of works in a report for EWEA with the neutral title: Wind Energy and Electricity Prices.
The price effect has been estimated by six of the references. The results vary from 3 to 23 €/MWh. I think that the variation indicates the uncertainty of the estimates.
There is no uncertainty in the heading on EWEA’s home page: Wind energy reduces electricity prices, says independent study.This is a good story, and it is natural to EWEA to emphasize this message. My story is less simple and less interesting.My work for Renewable Energy Foundation in London last year (  Wind Power and Spot Prices: German and Danish Experience 2006-2008.  See http://www.ref.org.uk/Publication/0/1  ) showed that spot prices depend on several other factors than inflow of wind power, primarily electricity demand, grid transfer capability, congestion management policy and large power companies with dominating market power.An electricity market must be carefully monitored and controlled. The spot market stability may be weak due to insufficient transmission grid capacity. In weak markets there is the risk that a few large suppliers can execute market power by demanding too high prices. Another risk is that a large share of wind power causes price volatility leading to very high and very low market prices.
The question is if price volatility is good or bad. Price reductions are supposed to be good for consumers, but extreme variations are risky to market participants and they may prefer bilateral trade. Reduced participation in the spot market will disturb the optimal allocation of resources and thus be harmful consumer interests.
I am convinced that for wind energy shares exceeding about 20% new types of flexible electricity demand will be required in order to maintain reasonably stable spot market prices and to guarantee the best possible utilisation of the wind power. Otherwise increased subsidies from the electricity consumers will be required.
Regards,
Paul-Frederik

Popularity: 1% [?]

We weren’t blinkered in the CEGB. We were well aware that wind energy CAN be credited with firm capacity [see Swift-Hook, D. T., 1987   “Firm power from the wind” Wind Energy Conversion, Ed. J. M. Galt, (MEP : London) p. 33] and that the cost of off-setting the variability of wind is modest, see attached by David Milborrow.
We had started well before the 1980s. I got together with Stephen Salter on wave power back in 1974, [see for example Swift-Hook, D. T., Count, B. C.,  Glendenning, I. and Salter, S.) 1975   “Characteristics of a rocking wave power device” Nature, Vol. 254, p. 504. Brian Count subsequently became Chairman of the London Electricity Board, by the way].  At the same time, we contributed to Chris Cockerell [of hovercraft fame] in developing his wave power  raft, which also did not succeed.
Garry Hammond’s 1978 paper in Physics in Technology [which I was editing around that time] looked pretty sick just a couple of years later. Not his fault but the Government’s. They had wrapped up the Severn Barrage and all Wave Power research but had increased the total funding considerably, mainly on wind.
The ¼MW machine at Carmarthen Bay was built by James Howden of Glasgow who pulled out of wind power 2 or 3 years later when they secured the contract for a large borer to bore the English half of the Channel Tunnel.  [It’s tough trying to pick winners.]
And it’s tricky trying to say what would have happened if we had put more money in than was enough to support just one large megawatt-sized machine. The Americans put in enough to build a dozen or more of them, their 2-bladed Mod series, very much the type which we ourselves would have built if money had been forth-coming, and that whole part of the US programme failed i.e failed to get anything into commercial production.
Their big success was to pour money into subsidies designed to  encourage commercial wind farms  -  the Californian wind rush  -  but most of that money landed up in the pockets of Danish manufacturers. It did not stimulate US manufacturing industry at all. Its fair to say that the US ceded the lead to the Danes with full Government support.
Even being wise after the event is not easy!
Prof Donald T Swift-Hook, Visiting Professor, Kingston University,
MA, MSc, PhD, CEng, FIET, CSci, FEI, CPhys, FInstP, CMath, FIMA, MInstD,
Bourne Place, Horsell Common Road, WOKING, Surrey  GU21 4XX,  UK
Tel:   0(044)8448 123 902; Mob: 0(044)7921 153 902; Fax:  0(044)8448 123 903

We weren’t blinkered in the CEGB. We were well aware that wind energy CAN be credited with firm capacity [see Swift-Hook, D. T., 1987   “Firm power from the wind” Wind Energy Conversion, Ed. J. M. Galt, (MEP : London) p. 33] and that the cost of off-setting the variability of wind is modest, see attached by David Milborrow. Read More→

Popularity: 4% [?]

Cash boost for alternative energy

The level of UK Government spending on
development of alternative sources of energy is to
increase by 60%. In a White Paper last month
the Government announced plans for P6m-worth of
research and development, to supplement PlOm
already committed. Almost half of the extra
money (P2.9m) will go on wave power, and a
quarter (415m) will go on detailed studies of the
feasibility of Severn Barrage tidal schemes. Read More→

Popularity: 2% [?]

Comments (1)

This note argues that environmentalists will have to recognise that part (and a small price) of the price we pay for creating significant additional capacity of intermittent / variable renewables is the continued existence of coal fired plant, operating at a very low capacity factor.

(And of course it will make us less vulnerable to Vladimir Putin. The fact that we get little gas from Russia does not reduce his ability to screw up our supply. Part of the deal would be that the coal stations should keep significant coal stocks on hand.

Arguably it would be perfectly acceptable to keep this old and polluting coal maintained and ready to run for the few weeks per year of anticyclone (when clearly there would not be enough wind in a very high wind generation scenarios.

Thus there is no need  to de commission these old stations.

It matters not a jot that they are polluting for a few weeks per year, because clearly by having a massive wind component of generation, in the extreme case, you would have reduced the annual output of filth by these stations by a factor of say 3 weeks / 41 weeks (say) ie 1/13th in this  high wind scenario.

Hence, the cost of back up to a very large penetration of wind is going to be very low – since you are relying on plant that would otherwise have been closed.

No one in the Claverton group, has  as yet come up with any evidence or calculations to refute this line of argument.

People who used to run power stations agree with this point of view, and have pointed out that investment decisions will be taken by the owners soon as to whether or not to let them go to rack and ruin – ie do no or little maintenance so that when they are forced to close they are  economic write offs.

Thus it is argued, the situations  needs a clear signal from the government that these old plant will be rewarded with some form of capacity payment otherwise we will lose perfectly usable plant.

If we build enough wind, which we can do if we have some central planning and targets we can meet our carbon targets and have security of supply.

Popularity: 2% [?]