ELCC - Does your generator deliver?

[OVERKILL]

Recently got into a great discussion as a bit of a tangent on one of my twitter posts about Ontario's wind turbine output. An energy analyst asked me what the ELCC for Ontario's wind fleet was and I didn't have an answer, as Ontario's IESO doesn't provide that figure. Luckily, he provided me with a way to calculate it and the results were not spectacular, as expected.

ELCC is "Effective Load Carrying Capacity" and is essentially a generator's ability to deliver in the periods where output is required. Wind output in Ontario tends to be out of phase with demand, which my tracking of it clearly demonstrates, so my expectations of its ELCC, which for some markets can be upwards of 20%, were not high, and the results did not disappoint.

To calculate a generator's ELCC you take the top 50 hours of demand for the year and the generator your are concerned with's output for each of those hours and calculate the CF for those hours, averaged.

Ontario's 4,486MW wind fleet has an ELCC of 10.7% for 2020; an average output of just 480MW.

The graphs that prompted this exchange, which I produce bi-weekly are as follows, including the output of our publicly owned Darlington Nuclear generating station for comparison:

 

[Donald]

We need to get to Fusion.

 

[kschachn]

We need to get to Fusion.

Last time I looked it's only about 10, maybe 15 years away

 

[OVERKILL]

We need to get to Fusion.

Fission is fine for now. We have a lot of 4th gen designs that can consume existing spent fuel stores for example, making the issue of running out of Uranium a non-issue for the next few hundred years at least. Fusion of course is the holy grail.

 

[kschachn]

And we already have fusion of course, we got to it in 1952.

Oh you mean for electrical power generation. That's different

 

[JHZR2]

Its not immediately clear to me what point is trying to be made here. The fact that renewables are sporadic and often out of phase with demand is not a new concept. The necessity for dispatchable storage (which is also useful for other frequency regulation functions) to support renewables has long been established (and the lifecycle cost function properly assessed).

To compare something that one has zero control over (wind) versus something that is intrinsically controlled (nuclear fission) is apples and oranges. Doesnt make renewables intrinsically bad, or the nuke plant intrinsically good. Each has its own physics and basis of employment... and challenges.

Margin is built into any good design, the assessment that wind needs a lot more design margin has been understood, this gives a value for an area of the world with a wind profile that may or may not be conducive...

 

[OVERKILL]

Its not immediately clear to me what point is trying to be made here. The fact that renewables are sporadic and often out of phase with demand is not a new concept. The necessity for dispatchable storage (which is also useful for other frequency regulation functions) to support renewables has long been established (and the lifecycle cost function properly assessed).

I think we've discussed the scale of storage necessary to firm wind for Ontario in a previous discussion.

The point is that wind is often championed as an effective emissions reduction mechanism without much, if any attention given to its viability in that role in a given location. Ontario had industrial wind turbines foisted on us by successive governments through the "Green Energy Act" (or GEA) which drove up consumer rates massively while it provided fixed-rate contracts to private generators as well as compensation for curtailment.

In a market that already had significant low emissions generation in the form of nuclear and hydro, this whole pursuit was wholly unnecessary and did nothing but punish ratepayers, coining the phrase "heat or eat" as rural Ontarians were forced to pay thousands a month to heat their homes.

This was the choice of, and tone-deaf championing of ideology over effective policy that had already proven its worth.

To compare something that one has zero control over (wind) versus something that is intrinsically controlled (nuclear fission) is apples and oranges. Doesnt make renewables intrinsically bad, or the nuke plant intrinsically good. Each has its own physics and basis of employment... and challenges.

But they are compared all the time. ideologues constant push the wind and solar utopia as being a far better path than nuclear, despite their inability to function without massive amounts of high emissions gas backup to cover for periods in which they do not produce. Nuclear doesn't have that problem. When it's hot, overcast and not windy, like yesterday, what's keeping our emissions low isn't our absent wind fleet or solar, it's the nuclear plants and hydro electric dams.

Margin is built into any good design, the assessment that wind needs a lot more design margin has been understood, this gives a value for an area of the world with a wind profile that may or may not be conducive...

A lot more design margin? In Ontario, using the figure in the OP, we'd need 42,000MW of wind to deliver an average output of current nameplate, which represents less than 20% of demand during our highest demand months and STILL need backup gas capacity! Then, during the spring and fall, we'd be paying them to idle because excess capacity has no place to go. It is the poorest possible fit for our summer peaking grid.

If you've got a predominantly fossil grid, wind can be an effective tool for reducing the average emissions intensity to a point. If you've got a majority hydro and/or nuclear grid, wind presents a much lower value, if any at all and may in fact be a detriment, requiring idled fast-response gas plants to step in for it where more dispatchable low emissions baseload could have filled that role.

So, to bring this back around to the OP, if you have a specific source installed in your grid at lower levels and want to see how it might scale, if you calculate the ELCC you can determine the appropriateness of that source for increased penetration. If that had been done in Ontario early on, we could have avoided this gong show.

 

[Andrew1972]

I think we've discussed the scale of storage necessary to firm wind for Ontario in a previous discussion.

You should reference it then instead of presenting random but valid information to give context.

 

[Cujet]

The necessary introduction of peaker plants to cover renewable energy's variable output seems to completely offset the CO2 savings of renewables.

 

[JHZR2]

The necessary introduction of peaker plants to cover renewable energy's variable output seems to completely offset the CO2 savings of renewables.

Thats why you wouldnt do it that way. Integrated storage coupled with renewables is necessary. Creation of long-lived storage systems, particularly if inertia-based, is feasible - as feasible as a long-lived generator. Batteries have challenges, Ive spoken to those many times. But they are getting much better - the recent Dalhousie analyses related to Tesla battery chemistry longevity is a good example.

At the end of the day, peaker plants and fuel is cheaper. The question in the context of this thread, becomes what is the level of useful renewables (note the 44MWh of installed if going off of the estimated performance level - thats likely impractical; what is the objective real number that would have benefit and high utilization), and what is the long-term business prospect of delivering and supporting across its lifecycle x MWh of nuke, or y MWh or wind/something else.

 

[OVERKILL]

Thats why you wouldnt do it that way. Integrated storage coupled with renewables is necessary. Creation of long-lived storage systems, particularly if inertia-based, is feasible - as feasible as a long-lived generator. Batteries have challenges, Ive spoken to those many times. But they are getting much better - the recent Dalhousie analyses related to Tesla battery chemistry longevity is a good example.

At the end of the day, peaker plants and fuel is cheaper. The question in the context of this thread, becomes what is the level of useful renewables (note the 44MWh of installed if going off of the estimated performance level - thats likely impractical; what is the objective real number that would have benefit and high utilization), and what is the long-term business prospect of delivering and supporting across its lifecycle x MWh of nuke, or y MWh or wind/something else.

My caveat to that would be "where appropriate". Solar works decently well with a summer peaking grid to depress daytime demand, driving down peaking requirements. Coupled with storage to cover the morning/evening ramps you are only looking to buffer a few hours at a time, versus trying to buffer what can be weeks with wind, which is arguably not a viable strategy.

Where the ELCC of wind is significantly higher than here in Ontario, pursuing wind may make more sense.

It would be nice if the folks planning these systems were given the leeway to look at this sort of information and perform the necessary analysis. What typically happens is that a government chooses a favourite and runs with it, ignoring any evidence to the contrary or advice telling them to slow-up. Here in Ontario, somewhat amusingly, the government created the OPA (Ontario Power Authority) as a guiding body who was supposed to analyze what was going on, what was being considered, and then present a consensus on how to proceed. The government then completely ignored them because their guidance didn't align with the narrative the government had already invested in

 

[4WD]

Saw a new wind farm a couple weeks back … it came up surprisingly fast and only about 5 miles from an older dual reactor plant that took many years to build. About 10 miles north of there sits an 8 GTG plant built in the last 5 years …
A short distance from the GTG’s sits a field of solar panels … a few miles from that a fossil fuel plant is engaged in sequestering for EOR with injection into a very old oilfield … Look over there, a modular plant being tested to make GTL fuel at the wellhead … And man … the huge fields of ethanol corn where I once saw brush & weeds …
Personally … I’m glad to see the mix …

 

[OVERKILL]

You should reference it then instead of presenting random but valid information to give context.

Here you go: https://www.bobistheoilguy.com/forums/threads/ontario-nuclear-update-shes-back.326841/post-5430329

 

[JHZR2]

My caveat to that would be "where appropriate". Solar works decently well with a summer peaking grid to depress daytime demand, driving down peaking requirements. Coupled with storage to cover the morning/evening ramps you are only looking to buffer a few hours at a time, versus trying to buffer what can be weeks with wind, which is arguably not a viable strategy.

Where the ELCC of wind is significantly higher than here in Ontario, pursuing wind may make more sense.

It would be nice if the folks planning these systems were given the leeway to look at this sort of information and perform the necessary analysis. What typically happens is that a government chooses a favourite and runs with it, ignoring any evidence to the contrary or advice telling them to slow-up. Here in Ontario, somewhat amusingly, the government created the OPA (Ontario Power Authority) as a guiding body who was supposed to analyze what was going on, what was being considered, and then present a consensus on how to proceed. The government then completely ignored them because their guidance didn't align with the narrative the government had already invested in

Agree. Right tech in the right place. None may be viable in Ontario. Strategic coordination on getting resources elsewhere (e.g. wind assets along the ocean vs someplace inland where there isnt wind) is necessary, as is the analysis you spoke of. Totally agree on not putting a square peg in a round hole because of "convenience" or "popularity" of the tech, vs the correct fit, implementation, and rationale.