The beginning of the end for wind power in Ontario

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Papa Bear
Chris, when they come to remove the turbines do they take that humongous chunk of concrete in the ground out too?? What a mess.
We have a slew of turbines here in Eseex-Kent Counties - a lot of farmers will end up with in-ground pools ...


I hope so, the amount these companies are being over-paid for their unreliable output, I certainly hope that all traces of the equipment be removed is inked in their contracts.

Worth noting: The next farm on the docket, the one at Bruce, is owned by Cameco, Bruce Power and TransCanada Pipelines. I assume it was built because they were incentivized to do so, or it was virtue signalling, either way, given it's on the Bruce site, I assume its removal won't be a concern. I own some shares in Cameco, so I find this mildly amusing.

Do you know who owns the wind farm right next to this one? Enbridge

It has 110 Vestas V82's. It was built in 2008, so it's got a few years left.

If we look at the generation profile for Underwood (the Enbridge farm) we can see that generating output falls by ~50% during the summer months when demand is the highest. This is why it's oft stated that wind produces out of phase with demand. In the months of lowest demand, it's output is the highest:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwood_Wind_Farm

Underwood has an installed capacity of 110MW, which means, at 100% CF, it can produce 963,600MWh. Its annual production for 2009, 2010 and 2011 average out to be 366,758MWh; 38% Capacity Factor, which is actually quite good for a wind farm. However, if we look at June, July, August, the average monthly output is 21,929MWh; 26% Capacity Factor. June of 2019 saw a CF of only 16%! Other months weren't much better. Then, you look at December 2010 and it's 79%

But even during the windy months, there's no consistency. January 2011 was 49%, the same month in 2012? 75%.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Shannow
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.


Indeed. And the UK has installed a ton of gas capacity, so these coal-free days aren't fossil-free days. But gas is the new green

 

[Shannow]

They reckon they'll be not using gas within a decade...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-ready-for-life-without-gas-power-plants

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Shannow
They reckon they'll be not using gas within a decade...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-ready-for-life-without-gas-power-plants



Based on this quote, that sounds like a pretty lofty goal:

Quote
While natural gas regularly provides more than half of the U.K.'s electricity, increasing wind and solar power output means the need for the fossil fuel is sometimes very low, falling below a quarter of usage on windy days.


And some of the solutions sound a bit... untested:
Quote
To keep the system balanced, the network may need new technology such as flywheels and supercharged capacitors, he said. Large coal and natural gas power stations give the network more resilience, known as inertia, because they have heavy spinning shafts and turbines, while solar and wind plants reduce grid stability as they are dependent on weather conditions.


But hey, they'll have Hinkley Point C online by that point, so that's like 3,200MW of new Nuclear

 

[Pew]

So where do batteries start fitting in where there's a lack of renewable energy, like in the case of Australia and Musk's "super battery"? And would the batteries fitting in Australia's brownout be the same if...say...Ontario starts seeing a demand higher than what power plant production?

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

News Flash!

Renewable fuels such as wind/solar are climate dependent. I'm shocked.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

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?


Some people seem to be unable to comprehend context when speaking about renewable energy. Of course the viability of renewables largely depends on ones climate. In the Southern and SW states solar and wind along with Nat Gas peaker plants are more than sufficient. Nuclear is the worst option in terms of cost. Ratepayers in the State of Georgia are going to get worked over real well for two reactors which are way behind schedule and way over budget. My state is much better suited for solar rather than adding capacity via nuclear.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Pew
So where do batteries start fitting in where there's a lack of renewable energy, like in the case of Australia and Musk's "super battery"? And would the batteries fitting in Australia's brownout be the same if...say...Ontario starts seeing a demand higher than what power plant production?


The battery in Oz primarily does FCAS, it lacks sufficient capacity to provide any real grid resilience.

Grid's are over-sized on purpose; there are more generating assets than necessary to account for peaking and unscheduled maintenance, as Shannow noted. Interconnects are also employed for this reason. Ontario has a 2,000MW link to Quebec's massive hydro infrastructure that we can employ if necessary, and it's used both ways, when needed/appropriate.

We have a 2,140MW flexible fuelled gas/oil plant in the form of Lennox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennox_Generating_Station

Quote
As of 2007, Lennox represented 50% of Ontario installed generation capacity east of the Toronto zone. When operating at full capacity, the plant claims to be the largest user of natural gas in Ontario.[4] The facility is operated solely at times of peak load; the base load for the Ottawa-Toronto region is supplied by Pickering and Darlington stations in Durham Region[5] and by an asynchronous interconnection with Hydro-Québec which has served Ottawa since 2010.


that is publicly owned (owned/operated by the Crown) that can idle at incredibly low levels, thus its capacity factor is 1.5% (that's not a typo), which should give one an idea as to how little it is utilized, even during the heavy demand months. It also has very low staffing levels at around 160 people, and it does not get rate subsidies, as it is owned by the province, unlike all of the private gas installed to prop-up VRE.

 

[Cujet]

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


In sunny Jupiter, FL, we have a predicted, annualized, 4.7 hours of panel-powering sunlight per day. The rest of the time might as well be night! As ya won't be makin' any power.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted by BMWTurboDzl
Some people seem to be unable to comprehend context when speaking about renewable energy. Of course the viability of renewables largely depends on ones climate. In the Southern and SW states solar and wind along with Nat Gas peaker plants are more than sufficient. Nuclear is the worst option in terms of cost. Ratepayers in the State of Georgia are going to get worked over real well for two reactors which are way behind schedule and way over budget. My state is much better suited for solar rather than adding capacity via nuclear.


Really ?

in a stand alone capacity, not reliant on any outside connections ?

How do they schedule the generation and control frequency (between peaker operation clearly) ?

What provides the inertia in the system ?

There's a LOT that people don't understand about the grid, and how the lights stay on 24/7

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

8% nameplate capacity...or 8% ACTUAL GENERATION?

I suspect the former.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.


And, of course, the fact it was designed and built in the Johnson administration, and started generating in Nixon's first term.

 

[Andrew1972]

Is power generation your interest or your power bill in Ontario leading you to be concerned in something like this?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by madRiver
Is power generation your interest or your power bill in Ontario leading you to be concerned in something like this?


My grandfather worked in power generation, but originally my concern in what was transpiring with our generating infrastructure and why costs were rising that spurred my interest in the subject. Now it's a hobby of mine, with a focus on Nuclear for the most part.