Bishop Hill Constraining generators
Apr 14, 2014 Energy: wind There was a story doing the rounds a week or so ago about how much windfarms were receiving to switch themselves off. The levels of these "constraint payments" has now apparently reached £8.7m in a single month.
When the story appeared in the Times (£), there was a response in the Guardian which noted that constraint payments to windfarms are dwarfed by those to conventional generators.
National Grid made special payments of £300m over the last 12 months to big energy companies – sometimes for switching off their power stations in an attempt to "balance" the system.
The huge payout dwarfs the £37m paid to windfarms to remain offline over the same period to the end of February – a figure used by critics to question the advisability of supporting renewable energy.
The wording is interesting -big generators are paid, "sometimes for switching off".
Clarification comes in the form of a blog post at the Renewable Energy Foundation blog which explains that conventional generators are usually being paid to switch on when they have planned to be switched off (for example for maintenance), or compensating them for fast startups. And the need for conventional plant to make fast startups is, of course, to compensate for the fluctuating output of all those windfarms on the grid.
And we should not forget that the compensation received by the windfarms exceeds even the bloated subsidies that they have lost by not generating any power.
The technical term for this is "a racket".
Reader Comments (62)
The Guardian how can anyone possibly expect anything else from this comic. This is no longer a real newpaper.
Since its readership started to evaporate, it has been publishing more and more biased nonsense.
Let's not forget the only reason we would pay a power station to switch off in the first place is because we have windmills and mirrors to start with!!!
So in essence this supposed three hundred mil is only being touted by the guardian BECAUSE of our politicians catastrophilia with Mann Made Global Warming (tm)!!!
Mailman
His Grace:
Are you sure you can assume this? Suddenly out-of-breath windfarms might not be the only cause of sudden load increases.
From RTE (Radio Telefis Eirinn).
'Midland energy export plan will not go ahead.
Sunday 13 April 2014 22.16
Pat Rabbitte said he regretted it was not possible to conclude agreement
.
The Government has confirmed that it has failed to conclude an agreement with the UK to facilitate the export of renewable energy from the Midlands to Britain, within the European Union's 2020 time frame.
Both governments last year signed a Memorandum of Understanding on energy co-operation, with a view to developing the trading of renewable energy.
In a statement today, Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources Pat Rabbitte said he regretted that it had not been possible to conclude an agreement.
Government admits energy deal failure.
RELATED AUDIO & VIDEO
Watch: Government admits energy deal failure
Watch: Government confirms UK energy deal failure
But he said he believed that greater trade in energy between Ireland and Britain is inevitable post 2020.'
I have no respect for the Guardian but when the paper that is quoted most regularly here is the Daily Mail...it's hard to take it seriously!
A very interesting observation by REF:
"It is possible, perhaps likely, that some energy companies who own both wind farms and conventional generation are making unreasonable profits on both sides of the equation, but a lack of transparency in the reporting of electricity market data makes it impossible for those outside the industry to investigate this matter."
jferguson
Possibly there are many reasons, but one thing is true you're unlikely to get a fast start up from a windturbine.
John Constable, Director of Policy and Research for REF
Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) is a UK registered charity, and has been since 2004. It has no political affiliation, and publishes data and analysis on the renewable sector, as well as engaging in educational activities. Its chairman is Noel Edmunds.
@jfurguson: His Grace did not say 'sudden load increase'. The grid must be kept under constant tension within set parameters, and each sector of the grid must be balanced with the rest.
Even if nobody were using any electricity, if there were to be a sufficient fluctuation, whether increase or drop, in the supply to the grid causing an imblance, without any correcting action, safety relays would operate to remove the sector(s) with the imbalance so as not to shut down the whole grid.
Historical data and experience allows grid managers to anticipate variability of demand, and since not all conventional generators are operating at full output, it is easy enough to increase/decrease output because there is control over how much fossil fuel is burned and how much steam produced and what speed the generators turn.
In operation conventional generators give continuous, consistent output until told to do otherwise.
There is no such control over wind and solar whose output is entirely dependent, ironically, on the weather, so their supply can fall outside the parameters set, very quickly or even instantly.
The problem with the whole 'renewable' energy debate, is that the physics of electricity and its supply is not understood by those with the biggest mouths, particularly politicians. They see the grid as if it were just a big battery. It isn't.
Of course none of these payments are 'subsidies' as defined in http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmenvaud/61/61.pdf.
linked in to the document from http://www.theccc.org.uk/blog/ccc-analysis-low-carbon-policies-account-for-only-a-small-part-of-energy-bill-increases/But variance in tax or VAT to fossil fuel providers are a subsidy.
And as this report says CO2 'polluters' are not paying for their CO2 pollution so that should be viewed as a subsidy.
Oh the logic!
Jferguson:
It's true that a power station may trip out of the system, but such events are rare (lightning strike on transformers are far more frequent than mismanaged nuclear cores or gensets seizing up). Wind divergence from forecast is an everyday event. Demand forecasting tends to be rather more accurate. You can get a flavour of all these points by reviewing the charts here:
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
As the national grid is also a privatised company it's up to them what they do for better or worse.
@steve:" I have no respect for the Guardian but when the paper that is quoted most regularly here is the Daily Mail...it's hard to take it seriously!"
David Rose's articles in the Daily Mail are reported here regularly but the paper most quoted on this blog is the Guardian by a country mile.
> As the national grid is also a privatised company it's up to them what they do for better or worse.
If it were up to them then I suspect that they would ditch wind/solar entirely.
geronimo...but the Mail is most often quoted to support the angle of this blog..that was my point.
Context is everything. So how much were corps paid to switch on/off in the years before the renewables farce ?
idau, and John B,
I have no doubt that instability in wind generated power causes supply variations which require fast-startups. it may be that most fast-startups are due to loss of wind, but my suspicion is that there are other not infrequent causes and they should not be wholesale ignored, of course, of course.
And I should add that I think the concept of wind-generated utility scale power to be one of the most obvious follies foisted on us since the wealthy quit building Greek temples behind their homes.
Wrong fo so many reasons.
Its the amazing how Green wash cures all ills, make the unacceptable acceptable and turns 'evil rich people ' into god like beings.
For its an renewable INDUSTRY whose purpose to make money , and therefore are happy to bleed the taxpayer dry , meanwhile those that own these industries are the very city boys and bankers that the left so hates and the double irony is that its the big land owners who are making tons of cash of letting the land for wind farms .
Meanwhile its the common folk who see the energy bills go up and up and who can 'look forward' to brown outs .
The idea that the Greens give a dam about the working class is a joke and its not surprise to find most of them have no time for such idiotic ideas , the Greens heartland is the type of North London chattering classes whose power comes not from their numbers but form their positions of privilege.
Bottom line the Greens' want a energy crises , they see it as an 'opportunity' and in their own minds feel any price is worth paying to 'save the planet '
Re: Irish energy exports:
Eire is in substantial energy deficit, importing power via the Moyle and E-W interconnectors, and gas by pipeline despite some of their own offshore production - and of course all of their oil. It could do much to become self-sufficient by encouraging Tamboran to develop the 4.4Tcf of shale gas they have discovered in Fermanagh and Leitrim.
The proposal to build 5GW of windfarms on Irish bogs for €18bn (doubtless rather more in practice) has failed. It would probably be CO2 generative in any case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9889882/Wind-farms-will-create-more-carbon-dioxide-say-scientists.html
Joe Public quoting JohnConstable of REF:
The lack of transparency here, as elsewhere, is utterly scandalous. This point earned me a surprise ovation at a lightning talk I gave on climate openness at the UK Open Knowledge Foundation's annual conference in London in 2010. Another speaker had just outlined some of the black hole which was energy data and I managed to tie this to the type of openness problem Climategate had revealed, though the vast majority of the delegates were I'm sure conventional in in their views on AGW. We should continue to build alliances to put this egregious exception to the open knowledge agenda right, not least because of the abuses John Constable I'm sure is right to assume have flowed from it.
The generators must be kept in sync with grid frequency. Variations in grid frequency are small, and kept in closely controlled bounds and are supposed to be compensated over the course of a day so that synchronous clocks keep time. They are a signal of system imbalance. You can see the rolling system frequency at bmreports
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Consideration of E= cos(w1 t)+cos(W2 t) will tell you what happens if synchronisation is lost. Cascading blackouts ensue as safety shutdowns are triggered. The following gives a flavour of current problems with the introduction of so much wind power:
http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/D3F18F81-BFE8-4BA1-8B82-CCD6CD0A0A4F/62018/GC0035IndustryConsultationv10.pdf
Wait till the Russians turn the Gas off.
@ jferguson Apr 14, 2014 at 10:33 AM |
In any case, there is no way windfarms can be asked to make fast startups in case of emergencies.
@jfurguson: " Wind divergence from forecast is an everyday event. "
That's rather the point, wind divergence cannot be forecast, otherwise there would be no need to compensate for times when wind can't supply or is oversupplying.
Since the grid does not actually need wind or solar its needs can be met by fossil fuel/nuclear, it means these latter two must be told to stay off the grid so wind generated can be taken to meet quotas, and so fossil fuel plants switch off because it is expensive to keep them running and not selling what they produce. The problem then is when the wind speed suddenly varies requiring generators which, without wind power input would be turning anyway but not at full output, to be 'fast started'.
You will appreciate that sometimes this variation of wind input might be met by existing conventional generators already turning but at reduced output, increasing their output, but if it conincides with peak demand, maintenance or faults those not turning will urgently be required.
It is true conventional power stations can fault for one reason or another, but there is usually plenty of back up from the many generators turning and supplying around the Country with spare potential quickly to fill in.
By the by: fast start up, or generators idling not supplying are the most expensive operations. If more wind farms are built thus upping the contribution and thus unreliability of the grid, the more fossil fuel generators will be required to standby either idling or ready for fast start up.
Generators whose function is to provide back up for wind (or solar) are not profitable to operate. That means no new ones will be built and existing ones will close.
And that means the more the grid relies on wind and solar the more vulnerable it will be, so the only way to avoid frequent blackouts will be heavily to subsidies conventional generators to ensure they are built and operated in reserve, so all forms of generation will be subsidised at the cost of the consumer... and of course none of this will make any difference to atmospheric CO2, so called Manmade Global Warming/Climate change... just an empty, expensive political gesture.
@ It doesn't add up: that's right. Whereas conventional generator speed can be controlled by Human hand, wind turbine speed is dependent on wind speed, some braking notwithstanding, and significant part of the problem with wind is not 'no wind' but wind speed and thus turbine speed variability.
The readership of the Daily Mail dwarfs that of the Grauniad, and the DM's website is the worlds most popular newspaper site.
It's the Grauniad that has the problem, not the Mail.
AC1 - So the more something is read the truer it becomes...interesting approach!
Steve
So you believe everything you read from one source and disbelieve all you read from another source? No critical faculties?
That's exactly how it works for the IPCC isn't it?
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
The Daily Mail does of course report the IPCC's claims in a straightforward fashion. What is interesting is that reader comments tend to be strongly sceptical of their claims.
I've not commented on what I believe, I just said I don't have much time for the Guardian nor the Daily Mail. I believe little in either...so be careful before you start pointing little fingers.
It doesn't add up...
Readers comments are not the place where I look for evidence and rational view points! It's the same as here...people with too much time and personal opinions, often close to or in retirement! (and before anyone starts..yes, I count myself in that statement)
There is no ideologically pure source of information. You just have to read eclectically in order to appreciate all the angles and balance competing claims. And journalism should not be confused with science, ever.
marchesarosa
Agreed!
This is th paper that needs to be read in this context - Eleanor Denny's PhD thesis on the Irish Grid and the cost of wind power...
http://erc.ucd.ie/files/theses/Eleanor%20Denny%20-%20A%20Cost-Benefit%20Analysis%20of%20Wind%20Power.pdf
Steve:
The issue is not whether comments are rational, but rather that they guage opinion. You can do likewise reading CiF comments at the Guardian, few of which are rational. The difference is that Guardian comments tend to support the line pushed by the Guardian, whereas comments at the Mail tend to be a wider spread of opinion.
The politics of MPs as readers of the various publications offers an interesting insight:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/blogs/thepoliticswire/1545/Communicating-with-MPs-The-power-of-the-media.aspx
Bishop, when you say, "And the need for conventional plant to make fast startups is, of course, to compensate for the fluctuating output of all those windfarms on the grid." you omit the times when such startups are covering for the failure of other conventional plants. They do fail don't they? And constraint payments existed before wind farms, didn't they? Why was that?
Why not contrast the amounts paid before/after wind? That would give a more honest impression of the extra cost of wind (and might even support your prejudice, who knows?) - whereas your one-sided reporting of the issue is easily dismissed as anti-renewable propaganda.
It doesn't add up...
I know, it does make you worry when you read the comments section of newspapers.
Chandra:
Power outages are overwhelmingly caused by grid instabilities, usually the result of weather events cutting key links. Power station outages are very rare - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima all household names in nuclear for example. Of course, locations that are heavily dependent on hydro can end up with shortages if there is insufficient rain, as in California. It is far rarer for a conventional power station to fail, although the risks are higher for
High levels of intermittent renewables can create similar problems for grid stability - which is why we're spending on doubling the grid in order to deliver less power than we used to. The link I provided show that even with the grid reinforced there is now a substantial increase in the risk of trips.
Is that so? Here's a list of 'outages' over a 3 day period in 2010 (also listed, but omitted here were a few 'restarts' and many 'online' and 'offline' stations):
So what are they? How do the 'outages' differ from the 'offline' stations? The word 'outage' implies unplanned to me, but I know nothing about power systems so maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Search Google for
including the quotes and (click on 'repeat the search with the omitted results included" in the results if only one is listed) for a list of many outage tables, some of which hold few outages and some more.Chandra,
would it be fair to ask how many of the events you list required a "fast startup" of some other station?
Chandra: I don't know why the Bish allows you to post your insults here - you don't add anything worthwhile. I could write a whole spiel on the way the grid works, both before and after the introduction of wind, the grid code, the old BETA and current NETA systems, handling unplanned outages and planned outages, fast startups etc etc. However, I know I would be wasting my time with people like you, and as I am busy with more importane things to do, I won't.
Those outages in July 2010 are probably all planned outages; that's what happens in summer when demand is low.
Would Chandra be happy if someone else posted 4 year old data?
For those that would like to get the overall view of the U.K. National Grid status try this
jferguson
> would it be fair to ask how many of the events
> you list required a "fast startup" of some other
> station?
Yes of course. I was indeed asking what they were. But there is little chance of someone here who actually knows telling us how often fast startups are needed after conventional failures. That would contradict the prevailing dogma - only the wind fails.
SandyS, has the fossil fuel generation infrastructure changed so much since 2010 (become more/less reliable, etc) that data from that year are of no relevance?
Phillip Bratby, I made no insults, I merely asked questions. You are doubtless
> I could write a whole spiel ... However, ... I won't.
No, you'd have to admit that unplanned outages do indeed occur in fossil fueled plant and that fast startups are not associated only with wind. This is exactly what I suggested to the Bishop, so of course you won't.
All this panic you people like to spread about low margins in coming years because of stations being retired etc are precisely because all generators, including beloved coal plant, fail unexpectedly for time to time. Margin is needed to cover for such unplanned outages, wind or no wind.
Chandra: Of course unplanned outages can and do occur in any generator, but recovery from unplanned outages does not require fast start-ups. The grid is designed to cope with an instantaneous loss of about 1600MW (from memory), by demand management and frequency responsive operation, without the need for any fast start-up.
Nobody is spreading panic (that I'm aware of). There have been many warnings that, because of plant closures with no replacements being built, at some stage in a cold winter demand will exceed despatchable supply. An unplanned outage during a cold spell would just bring forward the date at which demand exceeds supply, with inevitable blackouts.
Chandra, a bit of Googling will show that outages are planned maintenance periods, like a car's MOT/service. Offline/Online means when they are working and not producing/producing but according to pre arranged schedules. Wind will mean more unplanned offline time. With other power stations, unplannned offline time is infrequent.
Chandra
As far as I am aware all occasions when generation stops, on a power station, is call an outage regardless if it is planned or not. That is the language of the industry.
Phillip, the Bishop said that "the need for conventional plant to make fast startups is, of course, to compensate for the fluctuating output of all those windfarms on the grid", so fluctuation of supply is apparently problematic and causes fast startups.
National Grid says that "the need for fast start is to minimise the risk of further system frequency degradation after an incident involving an abnormal or exceptional mismatch between generation and demand". No mention of fluctuation there, just an "incident" and "exceptional mismatches". Should I take it that wind supply fluctuating can cause an "exceptional mismatch" between generation and demand?
Also, I hear that demand fluctuates too, something to do with TV programs and cups of tea, so I might surmise that these demand fluctuation could, just like fluctuations in supply, cause an "exceptional mismatch" and hence fast startups.
And yet, despite the grid requiring fast startups with those 'fluctuations', you say that 1600MW can just drop off the grid in an instant and yet no fast startup is needed. That seems mighty odd to me so I'll have presume that you, the Bishop or I, or some combination thereof, don't understand fast startups.
I remember reading that one of the main subsidisers of the Grauniad is BAE systems.
Rushbridger would be sweeping the streets were it not for the British Arms trade. Just a tad ironic.
National Grid are signing up more and more STOR (Short Term Operating Reserve) backup in order to mitigate the intermittent renewables. Many, many contracts...££.. because renewables are so unreliable, unpredictable. Consumers pay more and more.