Wind Power - yet again

bonkey

Saw this in this months Sci Am. Havent bothered checking to see if the article is available online or not :

A Yarmouth, Mass. company plans to build America's first offshore wind farm by the end of 2005. Cape Wind Associates has slated construction of a 420-megawatt wind project on a shallow sandbar known as Horseshoe Schoal, located five miles off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard. It would be the world's second largest, after Ireland's recently proposed 520-megawatt farm

I know this was mentioned in the big energy thread a month or so ago, but I think its worth looking at this on its own - especially now that there's a lot more info around on the proposed Irish plant.

From National Geographic, we can see that Europe leads the way in wind-generation, with Germany, Denmark and Sweden leading the way. Denmark, incidentally, has a target of 50% by 2020.

Although the demographics would be expected to be different, because of its size, it is interesting to note that the US has less than 1% of it generation coming from wind-based plants, and it is considered an aggressive target to raise that to 5% or 6% by 2020.

Why? Why can some European nations target 50% by 2020, when the US can only target 5%? Is it that we are more eco-conscious? Possibly, but thats not the full story.

America is big. Its not the largest nation on earth, but it is very, very large. Because of the way power generation has evolved in the US, there is no concept (nor need for one) of a national grid. Therefore, wind power (at the moment) can only be used relatively near to where it is generated. Even still, given that winds are generally more steady and reliable over water, surely the US can build offshore platforms like Horshoe Bay in more locations? They probably can, but lets look at the math. The estimate is that the 420MW station in Horshoe Bay will provide power to in and around 500,000 homes. Taking the 2.2 average family, thats just over a million people, or .5% of the US domestic demand. So - we would need 100 stations of comparable size to supply 50% of the domestic demand, not to mention the industrial requirements. Does the US have 100 suitable sites, with most of these located around the coast? It probably does not.

So - it is probably not feasible for the US to reach the same wind-generation percentages as smaller European nations with good locations, but on a state-by-state basis, there is good reason to believe that some states could reach these figures.

However, this to me is not the major problem. The major problem is that the cost of building almost any clean-source power stations is vastly higher than the cost of building good ol' thermal. Even nuclear, which is expensive, would make more economic sense, and with the new plant designs on the way, it will become safer and cheaper (albeit still with the problem of waste).

Add to this the fact that the European governments subsidise clean energy to a far greater extent than the US government, and we end up with a situation where there will be relatively few states in the US who will go down this road, purely on an economics basis. Power generation is a private industry, and while the aim is to make money, the most cost-effective solution will win out.

I'm glad to see Ireland catching up with some of its European neighbours, but I am disheartened to see the willingness of the Bush administration to expand its natural-resource exploitation program in order to meet energy demands, rather than funding more universally palatable clean-generation techniques. This, to me, is the true worry - that while Bush is talking on one hand about promoting more efficient use of traditional resources, he is still talking about the use of these scarce resources to bolster economic growth, rather than looking at the cleaner alternatives.

Maybe I'm doing the US an injustice. Perhaps the cost of wholesale rapid takeup of this approach is prohibitive, but surely it should be more encouraged than at present - even if only to put it on par with fossil-fuel and nuclear generation from a subsidy level.

I was most worried by a comment in that linked National Geo article :

Swisher agrees: "We could supply 6 percent of the energy needs by 2020, and that's a conservative estimate assuming the current growth rate continues and it's business as usual.

"And we could easily do twice as much if environmental issues become more of a concern," said Swisher.

Kind of says it all really, doesnt it.

jc

Chaos-Engine

What is most worrying is the fact that the people of ireland are objecting to Wind farms even more fercly than say perhasp an expansion at Money point or new peat plants... Why?
Jobs perhaps. Wind farms are a farly capital intensive industry. Unlike Coal, Peat, Gas and Oil.... Perhaps a European directive allowing the over-riding of most planning objections would be benefical...

bonkey

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
What is most worrying is the fact that the people of ireland are objecting to Wind farms even more fercly than say perhasp an expansion at Money point or new peat plants... Why?

The are objecting because they dont want these "monstrosities" in their back yard. Even at several miles offshore, the masts will not be below the horizon, and rise (IIRC) a couple of hundred feet.

Basically, you will have massively vocal resistance from the locals who dont want the natural beauty of their locale spoiled, but who couldnt care less what happens in other counties. Expand the thermal stations - sure - that wont happen in their locale - ergo its a better solution.

Isnt it funny - fighting to preserve your locale's "natural beauty" at the expense of the overall ecology.

jc

davros

Originally posted by bonkey
The major problem is that the cost of building almost any clean-source power stations is vastly higher than the cost of building good ol' thermal

To me the major problem is what happens when the wind is not blowing. If somebody on this board can tell me, I'd love to know.

Suppose Ireland generates 10% of its electricity from wind. In general, you cannot store electricity so it must be generated as it is used. Suppose the wind dies down and 10% of our capacity goes offline. Would we not need an equivalent capacity in traditional generating plants to compensate?

Now, you cannot just switch these oil/gas turbines on and off. They will have to be kept spinning just in case the wind disappears. How do we (or Denmark!) plan to get around that?

bonkey

Originally posted by davros
To me the major problem is what happens when the wind is not blowing. If somebody on this board can tell me, I'd love to know.

Well, its not an unreasonable question, but think about this....

what happened when Ireland had that really long, hot, dry summer some years back? Did we have massive powercuts due to the loss fo hydro-generation (because it was running at massively low levels for quite some time).

Ireland has quite a lot of hydro, and a drought can seriously affect it. Yet, somehow, it doesnt affect us that much, due to the notion that our thermal stations do not typically spend their days running at 100% capacity, and that we have the advantage of a site such as Turlough Hill which is the only effective way of "storing electricity" on a large scale.

So - what does happen when the wind stops blowing? Well - for a start, you need to talk about the wind *stopping*. Not blowing gently, but a complete dead calm. These turbines are designed to produce a minimal set of output in even the lightest of winds. I think you would find that the sites chosen have an average wind availability far higher than you might suspect - in excess of 99%.

Remember that the best location for a wind platform is just offshore, because you have the advantage of sea-based winds (which are *almost* constant in this neck of the woods), coupled with the thermal difference from being reasonably close to the land/sea border, which in turn will supply some small amount of breeze in the quiet days.

Suppose Ireland generates 10% of its electricity from wind. In general, you cannot store electricity so it must be generated as it is used. Suppose the wind dies down and 10% of our capacity goes offline. Would we not need an equivalent capacity in traditional generating plants to compensate?

Absolutely. However, the actual percentage contributed from any station is generally not considered by ESB as its maximum capacity, but rather as its expected output, or perhaps in some cases, its average output.

Now, you cannot just switch these oil/gas turbines on and off.

Thats where pure hydro and "battery" sites like Turlough hill come in. Despite the age-old mindset that you cant let water flow without using it for generation, at the end of the day, its only water.

In short, you could base the Irish system off a small core of thermal stations, backed by a mix of hydro and wind. Ensure that there is enough spare capacity from either hydro or wind to cover most eventualities.

Add Turlough Hill's storage to this, and you're mostly covered.

Add the expected international buying/selling of power which will become available in at least a limited capacity in the near future, and you're looking at a situation where if you have a shortage, you can always look and ask your neighbours if they have a surplus, and buy the neccessary.

Its not a foolproof system, but its not far from one either. Resource management, intelligent maintenance schedules (do it in the summer), excess maximum capacity, etc. all go into these calculations. These guys know what they're doing. Honesly

Hope this answers at least part of your concerns.

jc

Gargoyle

Bonkey, the simplest explanation is that the cost of energy in Western Europe is much higher than in the United States. This, combined with the fact that the weather patterns of western europe would allow it to generate more energy and more reliable energy from its wind farms than the US could means that wind power is far more economically viable in Europe than in the US.

Most of the research in the US on energy generation focuses on breaking free of the power grid and having localized energy because of the distance and expense involved in bringing energy to rural areas. Europe doesn't need to be concerned with this nearly as much. Along those lines, fuel cells are probably getting the bulk of the scientific investment at the moment as well as solar.

Typedef

I would have to differ with Gargoyle here. I think you could make a very strong case for usage of Solar power in parts of the United States as it posesses vast deserts and even the biggest Solar power station would be a minor blot on the landscape when speaking of such vast continental distances.

Interestingly enough Ireland is set to build the worlds biggest windfarm which is not only a source of national pride but hopefully points towards this island's government's commitment to renewable energy which is to be encouraged.

In short, you could base the Irish system off a small core of thermal stations, backed by a mix of hydro and wind. Ensure that there is enough spare capacity from either hydro or wind to cover most eventualities.

Add Turlough Hill's storage to this, and you're mostly covered.

This is the ideal I should think, a totally clean electricity generation policy.

In any case I would have to say that the policy of renewed dependance on fossil fuels of the US is extremely worrying as the US itself produces nearly one quarter of all greenhouse gases and under it's current plans will not 'impose' green policies on it's economy merely 'encourage' business through financial incentives to clean up it's act. For me such a policy is insufficient ascription and implementation of the Kyoto protocol without ambiguity is in my view the bare requisite on this particular issue.
Recently a massive shelf of ice broke off from the Antartic an area of some 3500 square kilometers, in a region that experiences nearly 100% ozone layer loss the size of the USA in a kind of deadly oscillation.

Wind power has the advantage of being abundant and totally renewable, essentially so long as there is an atmosphere and a water cycle, there will be wind, thus it is an ideal, if not the ideal source of renewable energy and what's more it is currently available, a developed and ostensibly proven technology.

davros

Thanks, bonkey, for the info. Cleared some things up for me. The comments below are minor.

Originally posted by bonkey what happened when Ireland had that really long, hot, dry summer some years back? Did we have massive powercuts due to the loss of hydro-generation (because it was running at massively low levels for quite some time).

I would guess, since we don't use airconditioning in this country, that electricity demand was lower anyway.

site such as Turlough Hill which is the only effective way of "storing electricity" on a large scale.

I have the impression (I could be wrong) that Turlough Hill doesn't store that much energy. It is there to allow spikes in demand to be managed. In other words, the ESB can turn on Turlough Hill in seconds and run that while they spin up another turbine in, say, Moneypoint.

Add the expected international buying/selling of power

Ah yes, I completely forgot about that. That should take care of the worst-case scenario.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Typedef
I would have to differ with Gargoyle here. I think you could make a very strong case for usage of Solar power in parts of the United States as it posesses vast deserts and even the biggest Solar power station would be a minor blot on the landscape when speaking of such vast continental distances.

Did you not see that I mentioned solar power in my post? And yes, I think in the southwest, solar power could be made more use of and probably will when it becomes more cost effective. Its all a matter of economics.

There are homes right now in Phoenix that have solar power whose meter runs backward sometimes, so yes, it can be done. Very expensive initial investment, however.

bonkey

Originally posted by davros
I have the impression (I could be wrong) that Turlough Hill doesn't store that much energy. It is there to allow spikes in demand to be managed. In other words, the ESB can turn on Turlough Hill in seconds and run that while they spin up another turbine in, say, Moneypoint.

I dont have the figures to hand, but I *think* it can output at peak capacity for approx 30 minutes. Given its 200+MW size - thats a pretty decent amount of storage.

In winter, when meeting normal evening peaks, it doesnt necessarily run at full power - it can supply a smaller amount of surplus for longer to meet scheduled demand increases.

When needed, however, it can come online, at full capacity, really really fast. But when would this capacity be needed. Well - thats quite interesting in and of itself.

The biggest spikes in Irish demand are almost exclsively domestic in origin, are usually related to television, and are short in nature.

IIRC, the biggest spike in the last 20+ years was when Ireland had that penalty shootout in the world cup (90?). Once that ended - people got up, put on the cooker, the kettle, the lights (going to the loo) and so on. Scary - but true - a soccer match running late caused the largest sudden demand for electricity in the lifetime of most people on these boards.

Fortunately, ESB learned their lesson way back (some royal wedding being televised I think) and have someone who's job it is to look and see if a major televised event is running late

The funny thing about all of these things is that the spike is very short in duration - it peaks really really quickly, and then decays over the next 30 minutes - which happily can suit the Turlough Hill model perfectly

It does supply "short term relief" for demand while other gennies spin up (or go to full load from a lower setting), as you said but this is actually less of its purpose now than was originally forseen.

I could, of course, be wrong on that

jc