Wind power [revisited]

S

Sunfish

I know some wish for this topic to just go away but it is one with far reaching implications for our nation's economic health - And a healthy housing market depends on a healthy nation.

I have just found this [long] paper and it is only a month old so highly relevant. It focuses on the costs of wind power but in a broad sense. It addresses the differences in opinion I have had with Aaron and others.

THE IMPACT OF WIND POWER ON HOUSEHOLD ENERGY BILLS was published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation and you should read who they are to decide on their credibility. I believe the writer to be well credentialed for the task.

http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-evidence.pdf
 
There was a wind power generator on TV some time back that looked great, it looked like an eggbeater (supposedly the best shape they found) and could be placed in the city, where updrafts on buildings turned them and could also be used in the country

they weren't huge and generated enough to put excess power back into the grid as well

Not sure what happened to them, I think they were invented in Sweden or somewhere :confused:
 
It all hinges on the numbers and they are wrong in even a UK context (I love the table that say data source: Author's calculations!).

For a timely review of real data in an Australian context, this is probably the best study. Media release here...

I disclose an interest in the study document. Others may be able to come up with more definitive studies but I doubt it.

Happy reading! :)
 
I tried to read that HE but all I could find was long lists of detailed inputs, assumptions and all manner of things which looked designed to obfuscate, not enlighten. There are meaningless until they are all put together and I couldn't find that.

My superficial scanning indicated that there was nothing in common between the two reports. The striking difference between them was the realization by Hughes that not all megawatts are equal and he explained the high costs incurred because of this. The Australian report seemed to concentrate on costs/mWH with no acceptance of the fact that wind is totally unreliable and needs high cost spinning reserve.

But we have been here before. I honestly thought you might try and understand where I'm coming from, but it seems you are still talking your own book to the exclusion of all else.

Note: Apologies to Aaron. I got the names of my adversaries mixed up. :)
 
I think it's clear where you are coming from.

You are preaching. You want people to agree with your position. That is not a debate.
 
redwing said:
There was a wind power generator on TV some time back that looked great, it looked like an eggbeater (supposedly the best shape they found) and could be placed in the city, where updrafts on buildings turned them and could also be used in the country

they weren't huge and generated enough to put excess power back into the grid as well

Not sure what happened to them, I think they were invented in Sweden or somewhere :confused:
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turby_wind_turbine
 
Ideo said:
I think it's clear where you are coming from.

You are preaching. You want people to agree with your position. That is not a debate.
Click to expand...
If you stated your position it WOULD be a debate. Besides, that was the opinion of a well qualified guy, not mine.
 
Sunfish said:
If you stated your position it WOULD be a debate. Besides, that was the opinion of a well qualified guy, not mine.
Click to expand...

My position is simple.

I don't believe their is enough solid evidence that man made global warming exists. If I find enough information I will believe it.

If man made global warming exists then it makes sense to investigate alternative energy sources. As a priority.

If man made global warming does not exist, then it is not a sustainable position to rely entirely on non-renewable energy sources, as they will run out. So money should be spent on finding alternatives. Of some description. It makes sense from a long term financial position to do so.

Simply sticking ones head in the sand and going "la la la not listening" doesn't contribute a thing. It's a backwards, anti-progress view of the world masquerading as pro-development.
 
Sunfish said:
I tried to read that HE but all I could find was long lists of detailed inputs, assumptions and all manner of things which looked designed to obfuscate, not enlighten. There are meaningless until they are all put together and I couldn't find that.

My superficial scanning indicated that there was nothing in common between the two reports. The striking difference between them was the realization by Hughes that not all megawatts are equal and he explained the high costs incurred because of this. The Australian report seemed to concentrate on costs/mWH with no acceptance of the fact that wind is totally unreliable and needs high cost spinning reserve.

But we have been here before. I honestly thought you might try and understand where I'm coming from, but it seems you are still talking your own book to the exclusion of all else.

Note: Apologies to Aaron. I got the names of my adversaries mixed up. :)
Click to expand...

Sunfish, I know exactly where you are coming from. I know exactly the cost of keeping a gas turbine spinning with zero output as backup for other forms of generation with a variable output, like wind. It's two fifths of bugger all. That's why the BREE report ignores them - it's in the noise of everything else. It's not as if you have to build a gas turbine to backup every wind farm - the gas turbines are already there to cover peak loads - it's just the cost of spinning them at zero output (a very conservative assumption), which is negligible in the context of everything else.

All those factors mentioned in the UK report are real and valid. It's the significance of them which is all wrong, particularly in the Australian context - it all comes down to the numbers. That's why the only people who ever talk about these issues are people who don't know the real price of dealing with them. It's a second order effect.

BTW often the confusion arises when there are real costs associated with stranding coal and other plant which were built for base load but have that base load taken off them by wind or other technologies. They scream and complain like nothing else. But that is what happens in a competitive power market - it's stranded asset risk when your technology gets superseded. No different to all the people who invested in horses and carts when motor cars first came on the scene. We would never make any progress if we kept all the existing players protected in cotton wool.

It's a problem of the coal plant if it isn't flexible enough to deal with the rigours of modern life. There are solutions to that BTW (such as plasma injection for low load flame stability in pulverised coal boilers) but you can't forever pander to the requirements of decades old equipment. You can only base future energy policy on the Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of each technology while ensuring that whatever mix of generation technologies you end up with can always meet the load on the power system.

To keep things simple, "wind, PV and gas turbines" can do that just as easily as "coal and gas turbines" (the status quo) and the paper I linked shows that such a combination is very likely to be cheaper overall in the future. The Executive Summary and Conclusion are the bits you are probably looking for.
 
11. Meeting the UK Government’s target for renewable generation in
2020 will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 21 GW
of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in
transmission capacity. Allowing for the shorter life of wind turbines, the
investment outlay for this Wind scenario will be about £124 bilion. The
same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle
gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion – this is the Gas scenario
Click to expand...

If this is right than wind power is pure madness
 
BMW said:
If this is right than wind power is pure madness
Click to expand...

Of course it's not right. Would a conservative UK govt be implementing this policy if such a statement was correct? These guys do their credibility no good whatsoever when they make such obviously incorrect claims. The industry just switches off to them.
 
Ideo said:
My position is simple.

I don't believe their is enough solid evidence that man made global warming exists. If I find enough information I will believe it.

If man made global warming exists then it makes sense to investigate alternative energy sources. As a priority.

If man made global warming does not exist, then it is not a sustainable position to rely entirely on non-renewable energy sources, as they will run out. So money should be spent on finding alternatives. Of some description. It makes sense from a long term financial position to do so.

Simply sticking ones head in the sand and going "la la la not listening" doesn't contribute a thing. It's a backwards, anti-progress view of the world masquerading as pro-development.
Click to expand...

spending the wealth of the next generation on technology that is inefficient is likely to stall new technology innovation not increase it. This will basically lead to governments picking winners based on political donations ie Solyndra. Any new technology needs to be able to stand by it self without government subsidies. let the free market find the best solutions as it always will.
 
HiEquity said:
Of course it's not right. Would a conservative UK govt be implementing this policy if such a statement was correct? These guys do their credibility no good whatsoever when they make such obviously incorrect claims. The industry just switches off to them.
Click to expand...
Conservative in name only
 
Of course wind power works, is economic & has a bright future.
I wonder how many people opposed to it have an IP in a coal mining area ?

800px-GlobalWindPowerCumulativeCapacity_GW.png
 
Ideo said:
I think it's clear where you are coming from.

You are preaching. You want people to agree with your position. That is not a debate.
Click to expand...

When wouldn't you want people to agree with your position when you give your opinion :)

PS: It's been talked about before and its an Australian company who has been forced overseas to pursue their new technology with ceramic fuel cells
 
HiEquity said:
It's a problem of the coal plant if it isn't flexible enough to deal with the rigours of modern life. There are solutions to that BTW (such as plasma injection for low load flame stability in pulverised coal boilers) but you can't forever pander to the requirements of decades old equipment. You can only base future energy policy on the Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) of each technology while ensuring that whatever mix of generation technologies you end up with can always meet the load on the power system.

To keep things simple, "wind, PV and gas turbines" can do that just as easily as "coal and gas turbines" (the status quo) and the paper I linked shows that such a combination is very likely to be cheaper overall in the future. The Executive Summary and Conclusion are the bits you are probably looking for.
Click to expand...

yes yes, but doesn't this report assume that the carbon tax and other climate change policies are pricing coal out of the market?
 
wategos said:
Of course wind power works, is economic & has a bright future.
I wonder how many people opposed to it have an IP in a coal mining area ?
Click to expand...

Are you so wrapped up in your own hip pocket economics that you do not accept the possibility that sceptics may simply be concerned citizens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
Fantastic article by Steve Keen
2
Replies
28
Views
4K
locko24
locko24
Aceyducey
What, do you believe, are the biggest risks facing investors today and why?
Replies
9
Views
982
thefirstbruce
T
Ruby
The Player Interview
Replies
0
Views
11K
Ruby
Ruby
Back
Top