The beginning of the end for wind power in Ontario

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks for a great thread. It is rather interesting how the addition of wind and solar don't reduce fuel consumption due to the modest efficiency of gas peakers.

My brother has a very expensive and ineffective solar array. Yet trying to explain to him the basics of intermittent green power gets a null response.
 
Originally Posted by philipp10
Yeah, go talk to Fukishima and Chernobyl about that "joke"....



A bit harsh don't you think? Also, check your spelling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Many people seem to misunderstand the amount of power required every day all the time and seem to think that the grid can just kind of gloss over those times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shinning.
Nuclear is the only true carbon neutral option in most areas although hydro can work in some.
No technology that can't carry base load 24/7/365 is really useful and the notion of making utilities buy solar output that they don't actually need is silly.
Since the utility must provide the needed capacity anyway, they save nothing buying power from someone's rooftop solar array.
Of course, if we're willing to live with Third World levels of both supply and reliability, we could go all renewable.
Won't be enough power to run most of our household appliances, but refrigerators are highly overrated anyway and you can always wash your clothes on a rock in the nearest stream.
...and air conditioning, what's that?
 
Wind turbines are a good complement to hydro-electric generation. They allow the utility to pond water upstream of the dam when there's enough wind generation to take care of some of the load. Solar might work well in this application as well.

For wind or solar to stand alone, storage is required. So far the great battery breakthough hasn't happened. (When paired with hydro-electric, the hydraulic G.S. effectively serves as the battery.)

The cost of solar generation keeps dropping. If (when) plug-in electric cars really take off for commuters, they can be charged during normal working hours, when the sun is at its peak. Could be a good fit.

And remember ... cold fusion is only 15 years away (like it's been for at least 20 years now).
wink.gif
 
Nuclear power is dead in the U.S only Wind power can cake up the slack in an environmentally friendly manner. The equivalent of two 1000MW Nukes are added every year. We now have 8% wind generation in the U.S. Its a good thing.
 
Originally Posted by AuthorEditor
Do some Googling to read the truth about wind and other alternative energy sources. It's already the cheapest way to produce new power and getting cheaper. Every energy source has its ups and downs in the growth phase. Just ask insurance companies how exciting nuclear is. When your money is on the line you think a little more clearly about these things. Fukushima will cost something like $500 billion.


You need to do some googling about how the grid works.

Thermal (and hydro) is "schedulable"...the grid operator sends (in Oz) signals out to the power stations every 5 minutes to change their load to meet current market needs and bid stacks... Wind is not...it's there when it's there, and everything else has to react around it.

In a meeting with one of the honchos in the Market Operating company a few months ago, he said that they used to have to use weather to predict demand, now they have to use it to predict supply as well.

As to the costs being cheaper...they ARE...while they are in disruptor phase...put 1MW of unschedulable wind in, bid it in at -$1,000/MWh, and wait for the wind to blow....it displaces 1MW of coal, and you get paid the market rate plus clean energy certificates.

However, when you go to the next part of the future, when you've closed that thermal plant down, wind and renewables suddenly become much, much more expensive...

WHY ???

Thermals can run at any point in their load range, as requested by the market operator, 24/7...they have capacity factors in the 80s and 90% range.

What is capacity factor, and why is it important in the debate ?

It's the amount of energy generated in a period of time...a 1,000MW thermal, 80% capacity factor, over 8760 hours in a year will generate 7,000GWh over the year.

1,000MW of wind will generate 2,200GWH...in a manner related to the weather at the time.

WHEN we come to rely on renewables, we will need at least 4 times the nameplate rating, plus somewhere to put all the spare electricity, as it will be generated lumpily across the year....

THAT's when "cheap" renewables become expensive...when the grid is reliant on them, and you need to multiply the costs, land use, and materials consumption by 4, PLUS install storage (Li grid batteries add $250/MWh round trip cost to the electricty, and LOSE 20% of it in the transaction)...oops, you need FIVE times the nameplate capacity plus storage...that's more expensive, and resource hungry than any nuke can be.

You later made the statement about outages...thermals have a lifecycle plan of maintenance outages, that is submitted to the Market Operator, and negotiated and agreed on such that capacity is there...including the Market Operator pushing them around so that they all fit.

For unscheduled outages (breakdowns and trips), the Market Operator maintains an N-2 contingency of spinning reserve, so two units can fall over and not risk the grid...two units rarely fall over concurently...

As to your statement that the thermals are backed up by renewables...that's patently false...they can't be scheduled into the market (they can be curtailed when they (increasingly) become a nuisance and risk stability)...if they can't be directed to generate, and to what volume, they aren't capable of backing up anything...

While googling, you could also look up the effects of
* Inertia in the grid
* Synchronous versus asynchronous machines
* Frequency Control
* Power Factor Correction

All services that the grid required for the lights to stay on, and that typical wind and solar don't do.

South Australia has oversaturated itself with renewables...they have to turn thm off regularly (curtailment) when there's too much of them on. And regardless of how they hyp the fact that the state COULD have been entirely self sufficient on wind on some given day or another, the fact remains that they have to pay the thermals to run, so that they even HAVE a grid to inject this power into.

So while asking others to google...it would do you well to delve deeper into the actual issue than one line soundbites.
 
Originally Posted by Cujet
Thanks for a great thread. It is rather interesting how the addition of wind and solar don't reduce fuel consumption due to the modest efficiency of gas peakers.

My brother has a very expensive and ineffective solar array. Yet trying to explain to him the basics of intermittent green power gets a null response.


The solar freaks down here always make me laugh.

Especially the ones who tell me about how they'll have power after a hurricane. The look on their face when I ask them if they believe they will have solar panels after 100+ mph winds and debris get through with them is priceless.

I'm not sure they understand that solar doesn't work at night either.
 
Originally Posted by philipp10

Yeah, go talk to Fukishima and Chernobyl about that "joke"....


You have identified that when nuclear is done wrong that it is dangerous. That is not news.

As long as it is done right, there isn't an issue. I don't know of anyone "afraid" of Turkey Point down here. Why? Nobody knows it is there because it is never an issue.
 
Originally Posted by Al
Nuclear power is dead in the U.S only Wind power can cake up the slack in an environmentally friendly manner. The equivalent of two 1000MW Nukes are added every year. We now have 8% wind generation in the U.S. Its a good thing.


The real question: Has this 8% increase in solar power allowed an 8% closure in fossil fuel energy production? Has it allowed 8% more demand without using 8% more fossil fuels? Has it reduced 8% of the CO output?

Or is it just making Hollywood celebrities feel good?
 
Most solar needs a grid reference to generate anyway...

My employer sells a battery setup (Redback) which can be configured to island a house and make it self sufficient.

I've got a solar install coming, but a part of my decision was that I'm the third last house on a radial feed...were too many of my neighbours to get it, (like a handful) I wouldn't be able to later....can programme the wash and drier to start in the middle of the day...might look at a split A/C system to get the thermal mass warm/cool during the day.
 
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by philipp10

Yeah, go talk to Fukishima and Chernobyl about that "joke"....


You have identified that when nuclear is done wrong that it is dangerous. That is not news.

As long as it is done right, there isn't an issue. I don't know of anyone "afraid" of Turkey Point down here. Why? Nobody knows it is there because it is never an issue.




We also have to remember that Fukushima Daiichi didn't melt down on its own. A magnitude 9+ earthquake and a historic tsunami preceded the event.

Sometimes we just don't have control over what happens.
 
Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by DoubleWasp
Originally Posted by philipp10

Yeah, go talk to Fukishima and Chernobyl about that "joke"....


You have identified that when nuclear is done wrong that it is dangerous. That is not news.

As long as it is done right, there isn't an issue. I don't know of anyone "afraid" of Turkey Point down here. Why? Nobody knows it is there because it is never an issue.




We also have to remember that Fukushima Daiichi didn't melt down on its own. A magnitude 9+ earthquake and a historic tsunami preceded the event.

Sometimes we just don't have control over what happens.


Yes, and it happened because the two upgrades to the site which the NSC told TEPCO to perform, weren't done:
1. Upgrade the sea wall to a sufficient height
2. Relocate the backup generators to an elevated position BEHIND the plant, rather than in front of it, at or below ground level.

The closest plant to the epicentre, Onagawa, was not owned by TEPCO, but rather Tohoku, and, unlike with the Fukushima plants, it had a robust 14.8m tall sea wall, which prevented the plant from experiencing serious damage. They have since requested to restart two of the units, the first of which should be back online next year.
 
Originally Posted by fdcg27
Many people seem to misunderstand the amount of power required every day all the time and seem to think that the grid can just kind of gloss over those times when the wind doesn't blow and the sun isn't shinning.
Nuclear is the only true carbon neutral option in most areas although hydro can work in some.
No technology that can't carry base load 24/7/365 is really useful and the notion of making utilities buy solar output that they don't actually need is silly.
Since the utility must provide the needed capacity anyway, they save nothing buying power from someone's rooftop solar array.
Of course, if we're willing to live with Third World levels of both supply and reliability, we could go all renewable.
Won't be enough power to run most of our household appliances, but refrigerators are highly overrated anyway and you can always wash your clothes on a rock in the nearest stream.
...and air conditioning, what's that?


thumbsup2.gif
Well stated.
 
UK have had a number of coal free days with the push for renewables.

However, unlike other countries, they are cogniscent of the issues that forcing thermals out of the market through low/negative wholesale prices, and not having jumper leads to neighbouring countries/states they need to manage the issues that I raised a few posts ago.

They have introduced a separate "capacity" market to pay the thermals to be available, rather than just being shuttered like other countries....

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/17/green-energy-surge-fuels-anxiety-uk-power-grid

Quote
Feddersen argues that there are two reasons why this will not happen. One is the UK's "capacity market", which has been set to cope with power shortages as coal plants have closed and renewables have made supplies more intermittent. A new scheme will pay conventional power station owners £378m in subsidies this winter to be on standby and ensure the lights stay on.

The other is the payments from National Grid to fossil fuel plants for services that are vital to national power supply, such as "blackstart" - the ability to restart the nation's power grid in the event of a catastrophic, widespread loss of energy supplies. Odd as it may sound, power station owners no longer make money out of power, but from these other mechanisms.


"Cheap" wind power becomes very expensive.
 
[Linked Image]

Until wind and solar can turn a profit without subsidies on the commercial market, fossil, nuclear, and hydro are where it's at.
 
A friendly reminder to members, if you can't post without politics, don't post.

I'm not going to preform surgery on this topic anymore, 20 minutes of my life is enough.

So politics means lock and political posters will get extensive time away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top