Bishop Hill More holes in the IPPR report
Sep 4, 2012 Energy: grid Energy: wind Gerard Wynn's article points out the differing views on wind intermittency of the green subsidy junkies at IPPR and those who have to deal with the problem, namely National Grid.
Regarding day-ahead variability, the [IPPR] study did not anticipate problems: "Wind power, at penetrations likely in the UK by 2020, is variable and predictable in much the same way as demand," it said.
That confidence is not matched by Britain's transmission operator, National Grid, which published a consultation earlier this year on whether to upgrade its wind power forecasting.
"The main challenge associated with wind power is its variability; wind power output is highly dependent on weather conditions and carries a high degree of uncertainty," it said.
"As the volume of wind power capacity increases, so will the effect of wind variability and hence the accuracy of the wind power forecasts will become more important for both National Grid and the industry in terms of balancing their own position."
The National Grid highlighted the problem of cut-out, for example, where high wind conditions force turbines to switch off, removing output suddenly: "These events are difficult to forecast accurately in terms of magnitude of impact and timing."
There's more on these lines in the article. Read the whole thing.
Reader Comments (14)
I posted the following earlier on unthreaded:
"Meantime, there is getting to be a growing disparity between actual wind output and latest forecast output. Current output is about 600MW below forecast. This is somewhat contrary to the IPPR report claims on accuracy of forecasting".
Output has been between about 600 and 800MW below forecast all day.
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
http://www.cisionwire.com/kiwi-power/r/dirty--peaking-power-stations--to-meet-surging-energy-demand-during-london-2012-olympics,c9287775
Dirty power stations picking up the powwer surges during the Olympics.Super Saturday after Jessica Ennis and Mo Farrah a few million viewers got up and switched on their kettles all at the same time for a nice cup of Tea.
Arrrrrrrr bless
An extract:
That may be so. But, as Stuart Young Consulting has shown, they're quite likely simultaneously to produce essentially no power.
Robin Guenier
Do we know how often baseload power plants trip without warning? Once a day or once a flood? I should imagine that the likelyhood is no wind power more often than baseload failure.
thanks
Sandy
"As the volume of wind power capacity increases, so will the effect of wind variability and hence the accuracy of the wind power forecasts will become more important for both National Grid and the industry in terms of balancing their own position."
This is a non-problem as the MET can simply use their models to forecast wind speeds and directions, do the models incorporate wind? actually never mind as I think they can only model temperature for the next 100 years to an accuracy of 0.001C
Yes, I always keep a collapsible car in my saddlebags in case my bike breaks down.
It's not the presence or absence of wind, it's the rate of change. In a gale, the sudden cessation of power from say 5 GW windmills in 30 s means 12.5 RR Trent 600s drinking diesel fuel have to be powered up from idle to match the fall otherwise the main generators trip out.
The only way out is to sink the surge into pump stored hydro so you can use less diesel and recover 70% of the stored energy in the hydro to make up the loss thus ensuring you save some CO2.
This is why it's far better to have no windmills once you have the possibility of 10% of grid demand from high wind then its fall-off into near calm.
SandyS:
Well, consider it this way. By 2016/7, our masters plan that 20% of our electricity shall come from "renewables" - essentially that means wind. (I know it's impossible but let's assume otherwise.) If, as happens from time to time (e.g. during that very cold week last February), there was no appreciable wind anywhere throughout the UK, onshore and offshore, we'd lose 20% of our power. That would mean disaster; unless, of course, there were plans for major backup capacity - and I am unaware of such plans. To lose that much nuclear power would mean that nearly all our nuclear plants would have to fail at the same time. I think it's safe to say that's never happened and is exceptionally unlikely ever to happen.
SandyS
A few times a year. The maximum loss is 1200MW from Sizewell B and about 700MW from other plants. The link to France fails occasionally at a loss of 1000MW per link. The grid is designed to cope with a sudden loss of 1600MW. There was an occasion when a conventional plant and Sizewell B tripped very close together and the grid coped with that. However, there were subsequent unexpected losses of wind turbines which required some local blackouts until the grid was restabilised.
Yes, I always keep a collapsible car in my saddlebags in case my bike breaks down.
Sep 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM
Alan Reed
--------------------------------------------
A closer analogy might be someone smugly cycling along "saving the planet" while being followed by a spare car so that they can hop in if they get tired or hit a steep hill.
Thank you Philip & Robin
Sandy
Sep 4, 2012 at 3:05 PM | SandyS
In Germany they now have some 8% contribution from wind (solar is about a quarter of that, but also a problem) and there are numerous electricity grid glitches already, with companies seeking their own solutions for power or considering moving out of Germany. To help solve this problem Germany is building lots of new coal plants, since they excommunicated nuclear energy. However, since they also are building lots of new wind farms and solar plants - they want 16% wind contribution in 2020 - the solution is a moving target. It will be interesting to see if they can solve this. Their grid reinforcement already has a backlog...
From the article:
"Last year short-term balancing services cost Britain's National Grid 708 million pounds ($1.12 billion)."
Now that's interesting. In the days of yore (~1995) Ofgem used to pay NGC £250m per annum to manage the primary and secondary response/reserve/black-start/var markets. That was back in Pool days, we're in new territory now, but these ancillary services are outside the energy market, so lets assume that the present grid needs about £300m of balancing services to manage changing demand, fossil-fuel/nuclear plant failures and the like.
So where does the remaining £400m per annum go? Balancing the variability/intermittancy of wind?
Let's assume that's so.
Last year, wind generated 12,675*10^6 MWh (DUKES). So the ancillary services for wind were:
£31.6 /MWh.
Add that to ROCs, transmission reinforcement . . .
@Alan Reed, @artwest
You have exposed the mindset of the greenies: deep down they like to play out their fantasies, safe in the knowledge that there are some grown-ups around to sort out the mess afterwards.