Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 13:59:37

NWMossBack wrote:That is not how EROEI is calculated. (40:1 is a preposterous claim for wind!) You might want to read the EROEI For Beginners link I posted, or this one for a more detailed treatment of the topic:

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf
Actually, you might want to read it. it's the very first equation given:

The EROI of a power plant, R, is the ratio of the usable energy ER the plant returns during its lifetime to all the invested energy EI needed to make this energy usable, R := ER / EI
Energy intensities, EROIs, and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants

R = EROI. ER = all energy returned during the power plants lifetime. EI = all of the energy needed to make the energy usable. In the paper I linked to, they added up all of the energy it takes to make a wind turbine, cradle to grave. They then compared that to the energy output of the wind turbine:

A 2.0 MW wind turbine would generate 6.12 GWh per year, assuming a 35% capacity factor. Analysis revealed that energy payback time would be 0.43 years and 0.53 years for model 1 and model 2, respectively
Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines

input energy for turbine model 1 = 0.43 years * 6.12 GWh/year = 2.63 GWh
input energy for turbine model 2 = 0.53 years * 6.12 GWh/year = 3.24 GWh
output energy = 6.12 GWh/year * 20 years = 122.4 GWh

Plugging these values into the equation in the paper you gave me gives us: 122.4 GWh / 2.63 GWh = 46.5:1 for turbine 1 and 37.8:1 for turbine 2.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 14:13:57

k - Interesting debate you and NW are having about the EROEI of wind farms. Especially since the decision to build a wind farm (just like drilling an oil/NG well) has never and will never be based on the EROEI. The economics of such projects will determine if the investment is made. I doubt such projects with an EROEI of 20+ would be undertaken if the ROR is less then 5%. OTOH if the ROR were a solid 15% and the EROEI were 5 then I have no doubt an investor would jump on it.

But carry on with the debate: interesting from a purely academic point of view.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 14:25:20

You're all wasting your time. Its all Enron until this happens after the lights go out: ...and the stupid authors solution to fake money? Fake money, of course.

http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle ... 77322.html

Image
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 14:51:31

pstarr wrote:Net energy analysis is notoriously flaky, especially when it is based on embodied energy accounting. No one is ever in agreement where the boundaries should be established. So if we debit the energy consumed in smelting the aluminum/steel/plastic must we also do the same for the energy consumed by the draglines and monster trucks the deliver the feedstock to the smelter. Lest we forget that Spindletop (under lithostatic pressure for an eroei of 100:1) pumped itself into the pipelines and the refinery.

This is precisely why a thermodynamic model (Cutler J. Cleveland, 1981) that models exergy, and the slope toward a known null net-energy (using reserve size and well depth) is really the only useful model. I'll leave it to your imagination to discover other comparable models lol
Let's keep the debate about wind shall we? I don't want to see another thread derailed with that nonsense.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby StarvingLion » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 15:13:27

The Brits have done it. They have just released a 100 page report on saving themselves from Mad Max 2. The solution is Ponzi Everywhere and Windmills Everywhere. Bird Choppers R Us

The new strategy should be designed to meet six strategic goals.

Ensuring adequate investment in infrastructure
Decarbonisation of the energy economy
Developing a sustainable health and social care system
Unlocking long-term investment
Supporting high-value industries and building export capacity
Enabling growth in all parts of the UK


http://industrialstrategycommission.org ... ission.pdf

http://industrialstrategycommission.org ... ommission/
Outcast_Searcher is a fraud.
StarvingLion
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 18:59:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 16:00:33

Here's some more on Wind's EROEI:

The EROI of wind turbines depends on invested energy in the turbine, produced energy and life span of a turbine. In the scientific literature EROIs normally vary between 20 and 50.
Energy returned on energy invested

3.2 Net energy production, harvest factor and energetic payback time
As the main differences between the scenarios are the wind conditions, the net energy production varies accordingly. At the inland-site there is a net energy production of 101,990 MWh, at the near-coast-site 117,500 MWh and at the coastsite 147,000 MWh. Based on this, the harvest factor for the inland-site is 35.4, for the near-coast-site 40.8 and for the coast-site 51. That implies that at the different sites under assessment the WEC feeds between 35.4 and 51 times more energy into the grid than it consumes primary energy throughout its life cycle.
Fully parameterized LCA tool for wind energy converters

For reference, the average wind turbine being installed in the U.S. today has a nameplate capacity of almost 2,000 kW, and nearly all utility-scale wind turbines in the U.S. and around the world have capacities greater than 750 kW. As the study notes, the EROI significantly increases as turbines get larger, with the study noting that even at 750 kW the EROI is around 40.
Setting the record straight about wind’s lifecycle emissions and return on energy invested
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 16:40:18

Kub

Just curious ... did you read Gail Tverberg's analysis on this stuff? (It was posted on this site several weeks back).
No one can accuse ol' Ms. T of vying for the title "Ms. Oil Patch 2017" for being a staunch proponent of fossil fuel consumption.

I dunno, methinks her sceptical appraisal should give pause to the Zephyr worshippers.

I am firmly in the camp of RM in that "show me the money" indicates where the serious players place their bets.

European nations continue to rely upon whirleys. US companies continue to build and utilize massive CCGT sourced power and will therefore achieve an insurmountable economic advantage for decades to come.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 17:15:08

Well coffee if you are in the "show me the money camp" you should be even more in favor of wind. That's because wind(and solar) benefit from a positive learning curve: they get cheaper as time goes on. This is in contrast to nuclear power which gets more expensive as time goes on and fossil fuels which have depletion issues.

Two renewable-electricity-generating technologies that advocates hope will one day power much of human society—solar and wind—have both plunged in price in recent years. According to a recent report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, on-shore wind is competitive with fossil-fuel-burning plants in many parts of the world. And if you factor in coal’s devastating public-health costs, it’s already much more expensive than solar or wind.

Two main forces have driven the price of wind in the past five years. First, it’s cheaper to produce wind turbines than ever before. Second, wind turbines are much more efficient than they used to be.

There was a large plunge between 1980 and 1996, as manufacturers figured out how to better build the technology. Then, from 2000 to 2008, “there was actually a plateau period. From 2004 to 2008, prices even start to increase. That was really driven by a shortage of turbines in the market,” she said. Between 2008 and 2012, the demand for turbines turned into a supply glut. “People produced a ton of turbines, there was too much capacity, and the market didn’t grow as fast as people were expecting.” Since then, the price of building turbines has been brought down by a “learning curve”—that is, manufacturers have gotten better at building turbines better, cheaper, and faster. “For wind, we’ve seen a 9 percent drop in the cost of an actual turbine, for every doubling of installed capacity.”

But the falling cost of turbines is not the only factor driving down the price of wind. Manufacturers have also gotten better at making individual turbines produce more energy. Wind turbines can now be mounted higher, so they reach more powerful breezes; and their rotors can be bigger, so they capture more air. Utilities have also gotten better at deciding where to place turbines, and they’re more reliable, so they don’t break down as often.

The two great mechanisms pushing along renewables—competition and ever-improving technical know-how—are likely to keep chugging along. The only question is how fast they’ll move, and how soon they’ll be definitively cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels.
How Solar and Wind Got So Cheap, So Fast

As for Gail, are you referring to this article?
The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” Delusion

I just quickly glanced through the article. Most of the article is ripping apart the case of "all renewables all the time". I am not proposing that. Why do people do this? "If renewables can't provide 100% of our energy forget it." This is binary thinking and so far flung from reality it's not even worth debunking. We can increase the amount of wind in the grid without going 100% renewable. As for the one paragraph talking about wind EROEI, there were no numbers given so I can't comment on that either.

And as for your US vs Europe comment, the US is installing more wind than any country in Europe:

The United States ranked second[behind China] for [wind] additions (8.2 GW), for cumulative capacity at year’s end (82.1 GW) and for wind power generation (226.5 TWh; only 6% below China) during 2016. Wind power accounted for one-fourth of newly installed US power generating capacity, ranking third after solar PV and natural gas for gross capacity additions, and second for net additions. US utilities continued to invest strongly in wind power, with some
going beyond state mandates based on favourable economics. The cost-competitiveness of wind power also drove corporate and other purchasers, with a diverse range of new companies entering the market. Non-utilities accounted for 39% of more than 4 GW contracted in 2016.

Germany again was the largest European market, increasing operating wind power capacity by almost 5 GW for a total of 49.5 GW (45.4 GW onshore and 4.2 GW offshore). Five other EU countries had a record year for new installations, including France (adding 1.6 GW), the Netherlands (0.9 GW, mostly offshore), Finland (0.6 GW), Ireland (0.4 GW) and Lithuania (0.2 GW).
RENEWABLES 2017 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 17:22:09

"This is binary thinking and so far flung from reality it's not even worth debunking."

Here, here! I was about to make the same comment on another thread where people were packed into two totally different groupings. As they say around here; 'that makes as much sense as tits on a boar hog."
Damned frustrating to try and deal with binary thinkers.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby NWMossBack » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 17:25:01

kublikhan wrote:Here's some more on Wind's EROEI:


I post peer reviewed academic articles and your response is Wikipedia and obscure industry blog posts? :lol:
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
To a man with a bunker, every problem looks like Armageddon.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 17:51:07

NWMossBack wrote:I post peer reviewed academic articles and your response is Wikipedia and obscure industry blog posts?
Uhh, your "Wind has an EROEI of 5:1" came from a blog as well, not an academic article. And as far as wikipedia goes, I chose that because it had the terminology you seem to favor(EROEI). I did immediately follow up with the link to the academic article the numbers came from.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby NWMossBack » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 18:30:29

This is an academic paper, not a blog post. The conclusion on wind is 4:1.

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf
To a man with a bunker, every problem looks like Armageddon.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 18:57:03

NWMossBack wrote:This is an academic paper, not a blog post. The conclusion on wind is 4:1.

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf


The conclusion is not a "conclusion". It is an analysis of a specific installation.
Scanning the section on wind turbines, it seems you cherry-picked the absolute lowest 'buffered' EROI. EROI (EROEI) can go much higher depending on numerous factors. This doesn't give me much confidence in your assessments.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 19:10:05

The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 19:25:16

GHung wrote:
NWMossBack wrote:This is an academic paper, not a blog post. The conclusion on wind is 4:1.

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf
The conclusion is not a "conclusion". It is an analysis of a specific installation.
Scanning the section on wind turbines, it seems you cherry-picked the absolute lowest 'buffered' EROI. EROI (EROEI) can go much higher depending on numerous factors. This doesn't give me much confidence in your assessments.
The study itself has fundamental flaws. It's written by nuclear engineers to extol the virtues of nuclear, falsely assumes only renewables need buffering while the rest of the grid doesn't, uses decades old data, etc.

A new study by nuclear researchers finds that the need for storage and backup makes the EROI of renewables too low. In general, the authors seem keen on tweaking the calculation in order to make nuclear look better – and renewables worse.

buffered” indicates the energy payback of a technology within a supply system, the assumption being that solar and wind (and apparently hydro) require storage and backup capacity, both of which further reduce the “unbuffered” EROI, which only measures, say, the energy put into and gotten from a solar panel. This is where the argument begins to unravel, for the assumption is untrue. Germany has pumped hydropower storage capacity, but none of it was built for solar or wind. The largest such facility in Germany is in Goldisthal, where construction began in 1997. At present, Germany has 10 percent wind power and seven percent solar, none of which requires storage because the country has never had more than 75 percent renewable power, a record set in August. German researchers have found that the need for storage is not relative to wind + solar anyway, but to the combination of inflexible baseload along with wind + solar.

Likewise, France may run its nuclear plants as close to maximum capacity as possible, but it idles a gigantic fleet of backup capacity for much of the year to cover rare peaks in demand specifically because those nuclear plants cannot be ramped up above 63 GW.

The paper portrays fossil and nuclear plants as entailing no backup costs, which is clearly untrue. Furthermore, the authors assume that “new and refurbished nuclear plants” have service lives of “even more than 60 years.” As an average, that figure flies in the face of facts. No nuclear plant has ever been in service for 60 years. The oldest one in the world right now is Beznau-1 in Switzerland, which turned an impressive 45 on September 1.

Other assumptions for solar and wind are hair-raising. The study puts the EROI of solar at 3.9, compared to 6.8 in the study cited on Wikipedia. The authors also dismiss thin-film solar, claiming that “there is not even a fraction of the needed Indium or Tellurium available in the Earth crust.”

For tellurium, this was news to me. An NREL study from 2013 (PDF) found that “the current global supply base of tellurium would support <10 GW of annual traditional CdTe PV and manufacturing production” but also found “significant upside potential.” Keep in mind that 10 GW is five times the amount of CdTe PV manufactured in 2013. The market is not yet even asking for the amount of tellurium apparently available.

While the researchers’ estimate of wind power’s EROI (16) is not as surprisingly low as solar’s, the paper – which elsewhere complains about “outdated material databases” – uses Enercon’s E-66 turbine in its estimates for wind power (see their chart above). The E-66 was sold from 1995 to 2005; the paper was submitted for publication in 2013. Only the authors know why they used a turbine nearly two decades old.
Renewables K.O.-ed by EROI?
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 19:57:46

kublikhan wrote:Likewise, France may run its nuclear plants as close to maximum capacity as possible, but it idles a gigantic fleet of backup capacity for much of the year to cover rare peaks in demand specifically because those nuclear plants cannot be ramped up above 63 GW.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. Given the high capital costs of nuclear, it would not make any sense to build enough nuclear to handle peak loads. You would at most build enough nuclear to handle your base load and keep the reactors running all the time. You need other types of generation to handle peak loads but that is in no way "backup" for nuclear. Wind and Solar on the other hand definitely need backup as they are intermittent sources.

kublikhan wrote:The paper portrays fossil and nuclear plants as entailing no backup costs, which is clearly untrue. Furthermore, the authors assume that “new and refurbished nuclear plants” have service lives of “even more than 60 years.” As an average, that figure flies in the face of facts. No nuclear plant has ever been in service for 60 years. The oldest one in the world right now is Beznau-1 in Switzerland, which turned an impressive 45 on September 1.


You are not going to find any commercial power reactors that have been in operation for 60 years because that technology is less than 60 years old. The earliest power reactors had relatively short service lives as they were built primarily to prove the concept was viable and were not large enough to be cost effective. For example, the NPD (Nuclear Power Demonstrator) reactor which was the first CANDU power reactor only produced 20MW. I believe the oldest reactor still in operation is the NRU reactor at Chalk River, Ontario. Originally built as a research reactor it spent most of its life producing medical isotopes. It is scheduled to be shutdown next year after 61 years of operation.
"new housing construction" is spelled h-a-b-i-t-a-t d-e-s-t-r-u-c-t-i-o-n.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 920
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 20:13:40

Kub

The techniques of strawman arguements and ad hominems seem to constitute 90% of online discourse, nowadays.
Those, and the increasing useage of "higher authority' to attempt to sway issues.

I'm pretty agnostic on all that stuff, but I can offer a possible glimpse of future power production - in the US, at least - that has a high probability of playing out.

Forget US renewables.
As the tax credit window shuts, virtually no more plants will be built.

Transmission lines.
Important (crucial) aspect that will encounter increasingly ferocious pushback.

Your saying that the cost of wind is declining is both accurate and somewhat beside the point.
The cost of CCGT electricity east of the Mississippi will always beat out whirleys.
More governments are starting to say - to partially use your reasoning of economics - "No need for more subsidies if they are so cheap".

I make no bones whatsoever that I am a staunch advocate of ff extraction and consumption.
The more situations that arise such as South Australia and New England during the coming cold snaps, the more the foes of renewables will be blasting the megaphone blaming wind/solar for epic shortfalls.

You guys are facing continuing uphill battles that may prove insurmountable.
coffeeguyzz
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 326
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 20:39:58

"You guys are facing continuing uphill battles that may prove insurmountable."

Yep. Pumping billions of tons of CO2 into our air does that.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3093
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 16:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 20:46:39

yellowcanoe wrote:That's an apples and oranges comparison. Given the high capital costs of nuclear, it would not make any sense to build enough nuclear to handle peak loads. You would at most build enough nuclear to handle your base load and keep the reactors running all the time. You need other types of generation to handle peak loads but that is in no way "backup" for nuclear. Wind and Solar on the other hand definitely need backup as they are intermittent sources.
The inflexibility of nuclear is itself an issue:

German researchers have found that the need for storage is not relative to wind + solar anyway, but to the combination of inflexible baseload along with wind + solar.
If it can't ramp up and down like natural gas can than it's value to the grid is lower than flexible sources like natural gas.

Myth: “Baseload power is necessary to a well-functioning electric grid”
Reality: As new reports from the Brattle Group and the Analysis Group show, “baseload” is an outdated term. It does not refer to any electricity system values or services, and it is not equivalent to reliability. While the term “baseload” can have several different meanings, it historically functioned as shorthand for a category of resources that provided relatively low operating-cost electricity to meet minimum round-the-clock electricity demand levels. The term is reminiscent of a time when coal and nuclear power plants were viewed as essential for supplying power to meet customer needs and few if any viable alternatives existed.

In today’s electricity system, however, using “baseload” to describe a particular type of power plant or resource no longer serves any practical purpose. The price competition from renewable energy and natural gas is far stronger it was in the past, meaning that it no longer makes sense to default to inflexible coal and nuclear units, which can’t be quickly ramped up and down, to serve the bulk of load. Instead, as many already are doing, decision makers should focus on a framework that: (a) effectively and efficiently defines electric system and public policy needs (e.g. operational flexibility, greenhouse gas abatement) and (b) develops tools, markets, and methodologies that draw upon the broad range of available resources that can cost-effectively and reliably meet those needs. This framework rewards coal and nuclear plants only where they are truly needed, but prioritizes other resources when it is more cost-effective to do so.

Myth: Renewable energy resources like wind and solar undermine grid reliability
Reality: The record shows time and time again that wind and solar power contribute to a dependable power supply and help prevent blackouts and other grid problems. Just one of many examples: the California grid operator, which manages a grid with nation’s highest levels of solar power, confirms that solar energy can provide many grid reliability services like voltage support and frequency response, both of which are necessary to ensure a constant and stable power flow. In fact, renewable resources often can provide reliability services better than conventional natural gas or coal resources. We also know that high penetrations of renewables can be managed reliably. For example, wind energy in Texas often provides more than 30 percent or even 40 percent of the state’s daily power needs throughout the entire day.

Myth: Wholesale power markets should discriminate in favor of “baseload” resources
Reality: “Baseload” is not equivalent to reliability or any other system needs, and for that reason resources should not be compensated solely on the basis of their status as “baseload.” Instead, grid operators and planners should focus on valuing needed services, like flexibility – the ability to ramp up or down quickly to meet changing demand. Resources like coal and nuclear are often limited in their ability to provide flexibility services.
Debunking Three Myths About “Baseload”

yellowcanoe wrote:You are not going to find any commercial power reactors that have been in operation for 60 years because that technology is less than 60 years old. The earliest power reactors had relatively short service lives as they were built primarily to prove the concept was viable and were not large enough to be cost effective. For example, the NPD (Nuclear Power Demonstrator) reactor which was the first CANDU power reactor only produced 20MW. I believe the oldest reactor still in operation is the NRU reactor at Chalk River, Ontario. Originally built as a research reactor it spent most of its life producing medical isotopes. It is scheduled to be shutdown next year after 61 years of operation.
Exactly. So you should not be using 60+ year lifespans for your equations.

coffeeguyzz wrote:Your saying that the cost of wind is declining is both accurate and somewhat beside the point.
The cost of CCGT electricity east of the Mississippi will always beat out whirleys.
That's great for as long as gas is cheap. Less we forget less than 10 years ago gas was more than triple what it cost today. We will probably have cheap gas for many years to come. But eventually prices will rise again. Do we really want to retool the majority of our power grid to be overwhelmingly natural gas? What happens when prices go back up? There is something to be said for diversity.

Natural gas prices are projected to increase
• In the Reference case, the natural gas spot prices at the U.S. benchmark Henry Hub in Louisiana rise because of increased drilling levels, production expansion into less prolific and more expensive-toproduce areas, and demand from both petrochemical and liquefied natural gas export facilities.
Annual Energy Outlook 2017

And let's not forget that the world is bigger than our own back yard. Low gas prices might make gas the preferred method of generating electricity in your neck of the woods. But elsewhere in the world, gas is much more expensive.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 21:07:41

The grid of tomorrow is going to require more flexibility than baseload plants have provided traditionally.

Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Jon Wellinghoff has stated that “baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism” and that no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States. This fact sheet explains why baseload power is an obsolete concept in a world where a variety of other resources can provide the three commodities needed by the power system – energy, capacity, and flexibility – at competitive prices. A combination of a large amount of renewable energy, combined with flexible natural gas plants and demand-response and efficiency, can ensure that our electric system has sufficient energy, capacity, and flexibility, and operates cost-effectively and reliably.

There Is No Inherent Need for "Baseload" Power
Reliable and cost-effective operation of the electric grid requires a mixture of three types of resources: energy (electricity), capacity (ability to generate electricity at a certain point in time), and flexibility (ability to "turn up" or "turn down" electricity generation as needed). Each of the various types of power plants that generate electricity – nuclear, coal, gas, hydroelectric, wind and others – may specialize in providing one or two of these attributes, but no power plant excels at providing all three.

Baseload plants, a term typically applied to nuclear or coal-fired power plants, provide energy and some capacity. Interestingly, other types of power plants can provide these resources, often at costs competitive with baseload plants. Wind plants can produce energy just as well or better than nuclear or coal plants, while natural gas plants can provide capacity at lower cost than nuclear or coal plants. Thus, despite claims to the contrary, there is no inherent need for baseload power. Moreover, baseload power plants provide almost zero flexibility, even though flexibility is a power system need that is just as essential as energy or capacity. In contrast, wind energy makes very valuable contributions towards ensuring that the grid has the right mixture of energy, capacity, and flexibility.

As the table illustrates, wind excels at providing energy, as its fuel source is free. Wind also provides some capacity, typically in a ratio of about one unit of capacity for every two units of average energy output. A wind plant’s exact amount of capacity varies depending on a number of site-specific factors, as well as the time horizon being considered. Wind plants can also rapidly and precisely reduce their output on command, giving them excellent flexibility for reducing supply. Flexibility to increase power supply is much more difficult for wind plants, as doing so requires holding the plant below its potential output, sacrificing a significant amount of energy that could have been produced for free.

Coal and nuclear plants have very little flexibility -- it is difficult for them to increase or decrease their output in response to commands from the grid operator. Changing the output of a nuclear or coal plant requires changing the amount of heat traveling through the plant’s steam system. The resulting temperature fluctuations can cause thermal stress to plant equipment, significantly increasing maintenance expenses and causing safety concerns.

However, gas plants, particularly combustion turbine (CT) plants, do excel at providing capacity and at changing their output rapidly. Combined-cycle (CC) natural gas plants are more efficient and thus have lower operating costs than combustion turbine plants, but the tradeoff is that they are generally less flexible. Gas plants are also stellar for providing capacity whenever it is needed, with a plant’s capacity value typically many times higher than its average capacity factor. Coal and nuclear plants are used predominantly to provide energy, while natural gas plants specialize in providing capacity and flexibility.

Hydroelectric plants are capable of being used for energy, capacity, or flexibility, but there are tradeoffs between these that limit any one dam from providing significant amounts of all three. For example, an increase in the dam’s energy and capacity output causes a decrease in its flexibility, and vice versa. In addition, there are also tradeoffs between energy and capacity, because using up the water stored behind the dam to provide energy limits the ability to provide capacity at a later time.
Wind and reliability: baseload power
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 5002
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 42 guests