Breaking Wind -Revisited

[benbo]

Ran across this little snippet in a Cal Energy publication, and it reminded me of some of the old wind power discussions on EB -

"More Wind Means More Expensive

Peakers, Study Finds

As intermittent energy such as wind spreads, the

grid will need to rely on more-expensive thermal generation

such as natural gas peakers to meet demand

not met by renewables, according to a February 2010

paper from James Bushnell, director of the UC Energy

Institute.

What’s more, adding large amounts of wind won’t

reduce the need for thermal generation by that much.

The paper looked at what electricity load would

have looked like during 2007, under various levels

of wind penetration. Bushnell, also a member of

Cal-ISO’s Market Surveillance Committee, found that

large investments in wind only modestly reduce the

need for thermal generation. In California, going from

no wind to more than 11 GW reduces the need for fossil-

fuel power only by 1,200 MW—from 20,810 MW

to 19,561 MW.

The results were the same in the Northwest Power

Pool, the Arizona-New Mexico area, and the Rocky

Mountain Power Pool—“the reduction in thermal

capacity averages only about 15 percent of the new

installed wind capacity,” Bushnell found."

 

[kevo_55]

Is there someone around here who is an expert "breaking wind?"

 

[roadwreck]

this is not the topic I thought it would be

 

[NCcarguy]

^ Me either.....although I'm not sure I was disappointed?????

 

[wilheldp_PE]

In California, going fromno wind to more than 11 GW reduces the need for fossil-

fuel power only by 1,200 MW—from 20,810 MW

to 19,561 MW.

Is this talking about generating CAPACITY or actually generation DEMAND? If it is the former, then I agree. If the wind isn't blowing, the demand isn't going to decrease, so we need the capacity at fossil fuel plants to supplement the decrease in wind capacity. If it's the latter, then I disagree. We should be actually burning a lot less fossil fuels because most of the time, the wind will be blowing enough that we don't have to fire up coal or natural gas plants.

 

[z06dustin]

In California, going fromno wind to more than 11 GW reduces the need for fossil-

fuel power only by 1,200 MW—from 20,810 MW

to 19,561 MW.

Is this talking about generating CAPACITY or actually generation DEMAND? If it is the former, then I agree. If the wind isn't blowing, the demand isn't going to decrease, so we need the capacity at fossil fuel plants to supplement the decrease in wind capacity. If it's the latter, then I disagree. We should be actually burning a lot less fossil fuels because most of the time, the wind will be blowing enough that we don't have to fire up coal or natural gas plants.

Looks to be capacity (of installed generation... the 'demand' is screwing with me because I think of 'demand' as meter demand / power not energy). If it was written by an engineer, it definitely means power because they're talking MW and not MWhr... but if it's by a lit major who knows.

 

[benbo]

In California, going fromno wind to more than 11 GW reduces the need for fossil-

fuel power only by 1,200 MW—from 20,810 MW

to 19,561 MW.

Is this talking about generating CAPACITY or actually generation DEMAND? If it is the former, then I agree. If the wind isn't blowing, the demand isn't going to decrease, so we need the capacity at fossil fuel plants to supplement the decrease in wind capacity. If it's the latter, then I disagree. We should be actually burning a lot less fossil fuels because most of the time, the wind will be blowing enough that we don't have to fire up coal or natural gas plants.

I think they mean "Maximum Installed Capacity" or "Nameplate Capacity" of 11 GW, or in other words the maximum amount the wind farms could generate if the wind were blowing constantly at just the right directions. That's opposed to Net Generation. In other words, these farms have what is called a very low "Capacity Factor" because a lot of the time there is no wind, or it is too hot, or they are broken down, or whatever other reason they can't generate up to the 11 GW installed capacity. The whole point of the article is that windfarm's are an inherently unpredicable form of energy because a lot of the time there is no fuel (wind) to turn them.

The "Net Dependable Capacity" of a windfarm is the amount of capacity you can typically count on. It is always less than 10% of the nameplate capacity. But in reality, windfarms really have no NDC.

So they need the fossil fuels.

That's why Nukes are much more reliable.

 

[RIP - VTEnviro]

this is not the topic I thought it would be

Damn, I fell for it too.

 

[Dleg]

And here I was, about to share my story of the loudest fart on record.

 

[Flyer_PE]

And here I was, about to share my story of the loudest fart on record.

So what stopped you?

 

[Supe]

And here I was, about to share my story of the loudest fart on record.

So what stopped you?

X2. Farts -> gusts -> wind -> turbines. The story is completely relevant.

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Somebody should invent a micro turbine that could be built into underwear that generates enough power from farts to automatically charge your cell phone while it's in your pocket.

Better yet, we could invent a micro-gas-fired-turbine to strap onto cows to simultaneously solve the problem of cow flatulence depleting the ozone layer and generate power.

 

[Supe]

Somebody should invent a micro turbine that could be built into underwear that generates enough power from farts to automatically charge your cell phone while it's in your pocket.
Better yet, we could invent a micro-gas-fired-turbine to strap onto cows to simultaneously solve the problem of cow flatulence depleting the ozone layer and generate power.

Get on it! Your early retirement is a mere cow fart away!

 

[Capt Worley PE]

Better yet, we could invent a micro-gas-fired-turbine to strap onto cows to simultaneously solve the problem of cow flatulence depleting the ozone layer and generate power.

Pair it with a Tesla 'broadcast energy generator' and you' ight have something!

 

[MA_PE]

Tesla? They rock!

 

[wilheldp_PE]

I'm more of an ideas guy. I leave the execution up to others.

 

[Wolverine]

HA, MENTAL MIDGETS! You're tooo late! I've already designed and patented the device:

 

[humner]

Well if any of you have ever been to a gaming convention, the cows have nothing on them.

 

[Dleg]

Somebody should invent a micro turbine that could be built into underwear that generates enough power from farts to automatically charge your cell phone while it's in your pocket.
Better yet, we could invent a micro-gas-fired-turbine to strap onto cows to simultaneously solve the problem of cow flatulence depleting the ozone layer and generate power.

Let's keep it simple: since methane is a far more "potent" greenhouse gas than CO2, let's just focus on combustion at the source. Something like a noise-triggered, piezo-electric spark generator that could be hung near the tail. Imagine night at the dairy farm, if you will: thousands of little flame thrower eruptions. It could be very romantic.

HA, MENTAL MIDGETS! You're tooo late! I've already designed and patented the device:

Hmmm..... That might... just... be.... crazy enough to get us all killed!!!!!!

 

[wilheldp_PE]

Let's keep it simple: since methane is a far more "potent" greenhouse gas than CO2, let's just focus on combustion at the source. Something like a noise-triggered, piezo-electric spark generator that could be hung near the tail. Imagine night at the dairy farm, if you will: thousands of little flame thrower eruptions. It could be very romantic.

I would just imagine cows learning to walk backwards and overthrowing the earth with their newly installed flamethrowers.