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 GHung » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 16:22:09

"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
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby NWMossBack » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 16:25:01

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:
Attachments
Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (42.48 KiB) Viewed 1818 times
To a man with a bunker, every problem looks like Armageddon.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 16:51:07

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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby NWMossBack » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 17:30:29

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
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 17:57:03

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
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 18:10:05

The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 18:25:16

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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 18:57:46

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.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 464
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 19:13:40

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
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 19:39:58

"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
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1775
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 19:46:39

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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 20:07:41

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
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 11:14:50

k - "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." Ignoring the insignificant numbers of systems currently in operation wouldn't grid scale battery storage represent the ideal "baseload". The UK utility is currently investing $125+ million in 8 such systems that can respond in less then one second to supply shortages. Rather difficult for a coal/NG plant to respond that quickly. Of course the magnitude of the shortage is critical. But if that need is relatively small a fossil fuel plant can't shut down in less then a second either.

But if the ultimate shortage is too large for the battery system they can potentially cover the need until the fossil fuel plants can kick in. And while the battery systems could be beneficial to alt intermittent problems they can also be charged by fossil fuel plants as they cycle down due to sudden demand decreases.

But such possibilities will require a lot of grid battery build out. In the US if it happens it will probably be in Texas first. Given our independent grid and the czar like control of ERCOT it should be more easily adapted here then in the two national grids. And we already have E.ON building such a system in Texas today. And since those German's are profit motivated if the numbers prove out we might expect a rapid expansion of grid storage. Especially with solar beginning to boom in Texas and its obvious intermittent issue.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 11:34:01

coffee - Valid points...for today. But how true when NG goes from $3/MCF to $6...or $9? Or when domestic coal prices double as they recently did in Australia? As the politicians in Georgetown, Texas pointed out: the town is willing to pay more INITIALLY for wind and solar power to meet its goal of 100% renewable. But it has nothing to do with "saving the planet" and everything to do with long term economics and supply.

They may prove wrong in the next 10 years. Or be proved to be some of the smartest politicians in the country. Time will tell.

Also I wouldn't be surprised to see E.ON add grid storage (if it does prove to be profitable) to the wind and solar providers of Georgetown. If they fall short of demand they'll have to buy from the spot market. And that could be a big money loser for as long as that period lasts. They might cut E.ON a bigger piece of the pie initially as insurance.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 11:51:42

If the price of fossil fuels increase in the future then the value of the electricity produced by wind and solar will also increase so that is pretty much a self balancing equation. As to the need of "base load" power any utility will have some users on line at any given time of the day and the utility has to deliver that load. Call it base load or minimum load or any other name you care to call it you still have to produce it and that amount can be pretty well predicted based on recent demands for the same time of day and day of week. The utility of course tries to produce that minimum from it's cheapest sources and only use more expensive power sources for topping off to peak demands.
A utility here in Vermont got criticized for not using wind power when the wind was blowing because they had a cheaper source leaving the wind power producer with no market.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 12:53:59

vt - "If the price of fossil fuels increase in the future then the value of the electricity produced by wind and solar will also increase so that is pretty much a self balancing equation." If by "value" you mean the price the consumer will pay then that's not true. For instance in the long term contract Georgetown signed with the solar and wind providers the price schedule is fixed for the next 20 years. IOW if the price of NG sourced electricity increases say 4X the Georgetown consumers will still pay the same price as per the contract. And I believe that holds true for other companies, like Google and Amazon, that have signed long term contracts with alt energy providers. Essentially why both sides sign such contracts in the first place: to guarantee long term prices and revenue.

But you're correct about govt incentives: it can actually allow wind power producers, thanks to absolute control by ERCOT, to sell power into the grid at a negative price. Yes: sell for a negative charge. Complicated explanation so here's the short version.

Back in 2015 a very strange thing happened: The so-called spot price of electricity in Texas fell toward zero, hit zero, and then went negative for several hours. Power producers were paying the state’s electricity system to take electricity off their hands. At one point, the negative price was $8.52 per megawatt hour.

ERCOT has set up the grid in such a way that it acquires a large amount of power through continuous auctions. Every five minutes, power generators in the state electronically bid into ERCOT’s real-time market, offering to provide chunks of energy at particular prices. ERCOT fills the open needs by selecting the bids that are cheapest and that make the most sense from a grid-management perspective—i.e., the power is being fed into the grid at points where the distribution and transmission systems can handle it. Every 15 minutes, the bids settle.

This gives wind-farm owners a great incentive to lower their prices. The data show that the clearing price in the real-time market went from $17.40 per megawatt-hour for the interval ending 12:15 a.m., to zero for the interval ending 1:45 a.m. Then it went into negative territory and stayed at zero or less until about 8:15 a.m. For the interval ending 5:45 a.m., the real-time price of electricity in Texas was minus $8.52 per megawatt-hour.

It cost very little to keep turbines moving once they’ve been built. But wind operators have another advantage over generators that use coal or natural gas: a federal production tax credit of 2.3 cents per kilowatt-hour that applies to every kilowatt of power produced. And that means that even if wind operators give the power away or offer the system money to take it, they still receive a tax credit equal to $23 per megawatt-hour. Those tax credits have a monetary value.

One of the reasons the wind and solar providers cut Georgetown consumers a good deal: if they have excess power they can sell into a high priced spot market: big profits. And if they have to sell into an over supplied spot market: fat tax credits.

So thanks to ERCOT's control of the isolated Texas grid, our growing electricity demand, decreasing infrastructure costs, E.ON building out grid scale storage and some govt incentives Texas alt seems likely to keep growing big time.

And again all the more interesting being done in the largest petroleum producing state in the country. Where ERCOT can provide a big advantage to alt producers over petroleum producers. So much for the power of those fossil fuel producers.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 13:21:27

ROCKMAN wrote:Ignoring the insignificant numbers of systems currently in operation wouldn't grid scale battery storage represent the ideal "baseload". The UK utility is currently investing $125+ million in 8 such systems that can respond in less then one second to supply shortages. Rather difficult for a coal/NG plant to respond that quickly. Of course the magnitude of the shortage is critical. But if that need is relatively small a fossil fuel plant can't shut down in less then a second either.

But if the ultimate shortage is too large for the battery system they can potentially cover the need until the fossil fuel plants can kick in. And while the battery systems could be beneficial to alt intermittent problems they can also be charged by fossil fuel plants as they cycle down due to sudden demand decreases.

But such possibilities will require a lot of grid battery build out.
Well I'm not sure how much longer the term baseload will be relevant. But in the traditional sense, batteries are not a good fit for baseload. Too expensive and too short a cycle life. Batteries are more valuable for their flexibility. So I think they would function better in the role of things like ancillary services, peak shaving, complementing intermittent renewables, etc.

And I am not sure if grid storage batteries today are standing on their own merits or are merely being propped up by subsidies, mandates, cheap loans, etc.
Looking forward, however, limits to this trajectory are apparent. The PJM frequency regulation market may soon be saturated, and in other wholesale markets, technologies other than batteries may be more cost-effective for providing ancillary services. FERC recently opened a proceeding to explore barriers to greater participation of energy storage in wholesale markets. But the slow pace with which its 2011 orders have been implemented suggests that its leverage may be limited.

Most of these other applications are not yet cost-effective, although specific projects in specific locations, such as at the distribution level in dense urban areas, may be. Stacking multiple services on a single storage system may also bring more projects within reach at today’s battery prices. But the “levelized cost of storage,” to use the terms of Lazard’s recent analysis, is generally higher than the alternative in every use case. Similarly, Hittinger and Lueken argue that falling natural gas prices have adversely affected the revenues of U.S. energy storage projects since 2009, because they must compete with gas turbines for peak shifting purposes.

The biggest drivers of the next phase of grid-scale battery deployment are likely to be state mandates, rather than markets. Most notably, California utilities are required to procure 1.3 GW of storage by 2020 (none of which is yet recorded in the DOE Global Storage Database), provide incentives for customer-sited storage resources, and include storage among preferred resources for distributed generation and demand management. Arizona, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington are among the other states that are mandating or subsidizing electricity storage on a reasonably large scale.51 (See Figure 21.) Given the difficulties of siting pumped hydro and CAES as well as the growing experience with batteries, it seems highly likely that such mandates will led to growth in the grid-scale battery market.
Deployment of Grid-Scale Batteries in the United States

Look what happened when PJM changed the rules in their frequency regulation market. The energy storage companies started howling bloody murder.

Changes in PJM's frequency regulation have soured the market for battery storage there. After an initial boom that began to overwhelm PJM’s frequency regulation market, the RTO put the brakes on battery storage installations. PJM quickly followed up by changing the parameters of its frequency regulation signal and then proposed further changes in how it calibrates the relationship between fast response resources, such as batteries, and conventional resources, such as gas turbines. Those changes were met with howls of protest by energy storage developers, some of who are contesting the changes at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

By mid-year 2016, PJM had about 265 MW of grid-connected storage projects, of which about 160 MW were installed in 2015, and with about 700 MW more under construction or in development. The rush of projects also exposed some flaws in the design of PJM’s frequency regulation market. Sometimes a battery providing fast ramping frequency regulation service would be depleted and go from discharge to charging mode, burdening the grid instead of supporting it. “The RegD signal would sometimes move in the opposite direction of the area control error [ACE], exacerbating the frequency regulation problem.” When that would happen, PJM would in effect be paying for RegA in order to cancel out the draw of RegD resources on the system. RegD resources respond quickly to ACE signals, but are time limited. RegA resources respond to signals more slowly but do not have duration limits, so the technical trick is to find the optimal mix of RegD and RegA on the system. RegD has more value for quick response needs, but too much RegD and that benefit would be reversed and could even harm the grid.

Project margins reduced 75%
In a July letter to PJM, AES Energy Storage said it designed its 20 MW Tait storage facility in Ohio and its 32 MW Laurel Mountain facility in West Virginia with PJM’s 15 minute design specifications in mind. AES says PJM’s December and January changes to the RegD market have reduced the 2016 margins for those projects by 75% compared with 2015 margins. In addition, AES says operating under the new rules “has greatly reduced the expected useful equipment life and seriously threatens the continued viability of these batteries.” Those batteries are now “doing twice the work for half the revenues while shortening their remaining life,” AES said in the filing. In the ESA complaint filed with FERC, Damien Buie, with EDF Renewable Energy, said the company’s 20 MW McHenry storage project in Illinois “has been significantly and detrimentally impacted by PJM’s January 9, 2017, decision.”

Storage projects dropping out
The result, said Finn-Foley, is that storage projects are dropping out of the interconnection queue. “We are seeing a handful drop off every quarter.”
Is the bloom off the RegD rose for battery storage in PJM?

This could just be growing pains though where we haven't found the right mix of regulations, price signals, etc.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4013
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Tue 07 Nov 2017, 13:58:51

Remember that every twenty EVs or so will amount to a megawatt of battery storage assuming fifteen of the twenty will be plugged in at any given time. I'm sure some clever engineer will find a way to vary the charging rate of these cars to smooth out demand and keep voltage and cycle speed in line.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8028
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 09:21:52

k - Yep, perhaps backup is a better term then "baseload" with respect to the alts. A couple of winters ago wind saved Texas from blackout when a polar vortex knocked out 2 NG fired plants. But envision a day when wind/solar provide half the "baseload" as it comes close to doing on some nights in Texas. Now jump one more leap forward and consider when the alts produce more the 50% of daily demand and that excess charges battery systems. So at that point what is providing the "baseload"...fossil fuels or the alts? Granted we are a long way from that day on a national level...maybe never get there. But there is the potential for Texas.

After all there are numerous countries that have 80% to 100% of their "baseload" supplied by alt sources. Granted those sources are hydro which also eliminates the battery issue. But regardless they are doing OK without a ff sourced baseload thanks to their geography.

And let's face it eventually every country currently dependent on fossil fuels for its baseload will have to build out the alts. Or burn a lot more coal...at least till it runs out.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10626
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby jawagord » Wed 08 Nov 2017, 09:43:17

NYT article says Renewables are not doing the job in lowering CO2 intensity, despite spending trillions on wind and solar. If the goal is to lower CO2 emissions, this is a massive failure given the amount of money and effort spent over the past 20 years since the Kyoto Accord. Going to be an economic mess in 10-15 years for the countries that have gone in big on expensive wind and solar as the aging wind turbines and solar panels wear out and need replacing. The Red Queen is coming for wind and solar generation. And Cloggie what's up with the Netherlands, pretty low on the totem pole of countries using renewables, too flat for hydropower?

"............the world’s carbon intensity of energy.
The term refers to a measure of the amount of CO2 spewed into the air for each unit of energy consumed. It offers some bad news: It has not budged since that chilly autumn day in Kyoto 20 years ago. Even among the highly industrialized nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the carbon intensity of energy has declined by a paltry 4 percent since then, according to the International Energy Agency.

Over the past 10 years, governments and private investors have collectively spent $2 trillion on infrastructure to draw electricity from the wind and the sun, according to estimates by Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Environmental Progress, a nonprofit that advocates nuclear power as an essential tool in the battle against climate change, says that exceeds the total cost of all nuclear plants built to date or under construction, adjusted for inflation."


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/busi ... ables.html
jawagord
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon 29 May 2017, 09:49:17

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: baha, Yahoo [Bot] and 15 guests