[wolfekeeper]

Oh look data:

http://www.cse.org.uk/pdf/common_concerns_about_wind_power.pdf

energy payback 3-6 months.

[alancalverd]

And wind power in the UK does not have a single extra generator built to accomodate it, not a single one, nor are any planned.

That is the problem in a nutshell. We are phasing out reliable sources and replacing them with unreliable ones.

That very rarely happens. It's usually that there's a fault in the network and the power can't get to the consumer from the generators.

Alas, it happens for several weeks of each year. No fault, just no demand for expensive windpower, so the supply contract ensures that the taxpayer pays anyway.

Aircraft are 130 dBs, whereas Windmills are like 80-90 dB when it's really windy.

Which is why I mentioned arrivals, not departures. Quite a different noise spectum.

It does seem that windfarm capacity factors have improved, I will grant you, but that masks the underlying problem that the capacity factor of a coal or nuclear station is determined by economics whereas that of a wind farm is determined by the weather. We have some control and discretion over the former but not the latter, and it is a sad but inevitable fact of meteorology that the days with the highest power demand are those with the lowest wind speed (persistent anticyclones).

I would be delighted if all our energy needs could be met by renewables, but present policies are not helping.   

[wolfekeeper]

And wind power in the UK does not have a single extra generator built to accomodate it, not a single one, nor are any planned.

That is the problem in a nutshell. We are phasing out reliable sources and replacing them with unreliable ones.

Actually reliability, wind is more reliable. If the forecast says you'll get a certain amount of power, you do get that. With other sources, the power station can get a fault and disappear, all at once.

That very rarely happens. It's usually that there's a fault in the network and the power can't get to the consumer from the generators.

Alas, it happens for several weeks of each year. No fault, just no demand for expensive windpower, so the supply contract ensures that the taxpayer pays anyway.

You're not listening, it's not expensive energy, on-shore wind energy has reached or exceeded grid-parity costs in very many places in the UK; that's without any subsidies, and doesn't factor in the effect of pollution which add costs and large number of deaths throughout the UK (did you know that air pollution kills far more people than car crashes?) The medical costs of coal powered power stations are huge, nevermind the human costs.

Aircraft are 130 dBs, whereas Windmills are like 80-90 dB when it's really windy.

Which is why I mentioned arrivals, not departures. Quite a different noise spectum.

Then you're just being deliberately deceptive. Wind farms are just not very noisy at all.

You said:

"Have you ever lived 2 miles downwind of a 10 MW windfarm? No windfarm owner does - the racket is astonishing (on the few days when it is working, that is). "

This is a flat-out lie, unless you mean astonishingly quiet.

Come to think of it, I've lived about that distance from an airport, and I never even noticed the aircraft that were landing. The ones that took off were vaguely annoying, but not the ones that were landing, they pretty much glide in, they're very quiet.

It does seem that windfarm capacity factors have improved, I will grant you, but that masks the underlying problem that the capacity factor of a coal or nuclear station is determined by economics whereas that of a wind farm is determined by the weather. We have some control and discretion over the former but not the latter, and it is a sad but inevitable fact of meteorology that the days with the highest power demand are those with the lowest wind speed (persistent anticyclones).

Wind power is basically used as top-up, the energy used means that you've reduced pollution, locally in the UK, and also reduced imports. Also contrary to what you say, the UK gets the most wind power in winter, where it's more useful.

Denmark are currently running with about 30% wind energy; and they don't have the wind resources the UK does, and Denmark will hit 50% by the end of the decade. They've seen negligible extra costs, a fraction of a penny per kWh.

If the UK gets a lot more wind installed then the grid will probably get better connections to the continent, and the UK can be a net exporter of electricity, it can make money.

I would be delighted if all our energy needs could be met by renewables, but present policies are not helping.   

The policies actually just put wind on an even footing with coal and gas, there's lots of hidden, very large subsidies for both, that wind doesn't have or need.

[cheryl j]

If a person looks at capitalism or the economy from a kind of  game theory point of view, at what point does it start to resemble a pyramid scheme and threaten to collapse? Even there were unlimited resources, would it not require unlimited population growth to keep it going?

The other idea that sometimes crosses my mind is the relationship between capitalism, technology and increases in productivity. When agriculture in North America began using tractors, combines, and other machinery, there was a big increase in productivity. And since the farmer was capitalist, management and labour, all in one, he profited either way.  But I would argue that increases in productivity from automation and computers in other industries haven't always resulted in higher wages, or more leisure time, for all workers.  If profits  from increased productivity continue to be funneled to the people at the top, (company owners, CEOs, share holders) and you reach a point where the majority of workers can't adequately house and educate themselves or the next generation, that seems unsustainable as well.

[CliffordK]

In general, I believe the average worker today in the USA, and most of Europe is better off today than one century ago, two centuries ago, or three centuries ago.

However, one concern is that not everything follows the same inflation curve. 

Land and housing prices often go up at 5% to 10% a year, while wages and the price of commodities increase at a much slower rate of perhaps 3% a year. 

Part of the increase in land values is pushed up by an increasing population, and rarity. 

A century and a half ago, the government could hardly give away land, especially on the frontiers.  Today, that land giveaway is all but gone, and there is increasing competition for the land due to population growth.

There is, of course, always the goal to get "bigger and better", but I presume if the population would stabilize, then home prices would also stabilize. 

But, obviously with supply and demand, anything that becomes rare with respect to demand will also cause the inflation disjoints.

[alancalverd]

Actually reliability, wind is more reliable. If the forecast says you'll get a certain amount of power, you do get that. With other sources, the power station can get a fault and disappear, all at once.

We live and learn. On my planet, all rotating machinery is subject to occasional breakdown and surface wind forecasts are at best an educated guess. But what do I know? I only fly around in the stuff, propelled by rotating machinery. And whenever I fly near a windfarm, I notice a substantial proportion of windmills are not turning: clearly there is no demand for free electricity on Earth, since they are all 100% reliable.

There is however a more serious side to "reliability". The point of electricity, gas, JETA1, coal, or cow dung, is that you can get the power you need when you need it, not when the wind thinks fit. And if you need more, you just turn on the tap or shovel more peat into the furnace: "no wind" won't appease the train traveller or the victim on the operating table. Without even going into details of general meteorology and cyclone genesis, I might ask windmill enthusiasts to step outside around dawn and dusk. Remarkably, just when electricity demand is highest, surface windspeed is least.

[CliffordK]

By connecting a large number of wind generators, one can improve the odds of 24 hour coverage.  Somewhere in the USA, the wind has to be blowing.  Of course, there are transmission losses with moving wind power from Nebraska to California.

There are also batteries and various methods to store the power, although difficult to do on a MW or GW scale.  I have suggested that hydroelectric installations could be designed to vary output to compliment solar, wind, and other renewable power generation.

But, it is a good point that much of our society is organized around power on demand.

[alancalverd]

But I would argue that increases in productivity from automation and computers in other industries haven't always resulted in higher wages, or more leisure time, for all workers.

I told this tale on another thread, but it bears repeating. Some years ago I was offered a job in a confectionery factory. The plant employed several hundred workers and produced several tons of sweeties every day. The job on offer was to double the output and replace nearly all the staff, by automation. I didn't take it, but somebody did, and the redundant staff are now buying the product at full price with their dole money, instead of half price at the company shop. That's capitalism working hand in hand with socialism to make the rich richer!

Land and housing prices often go up at 5% to 10% a year, while wages and the price of commodities increase at a much slower rate of perhaps 3% a year.

I don't think this is entirely due to scarcity or population density, though it is much more apparent in the UK than in the USA (and you can get a nice plot in suburban Detroit for $10 nowadays).

What happened in the UK was an interesting sociological phenomenon. Houses had always been affordable (average UK house price in 1940 was 1.5 times the average wage) but the supply was not plentiful - and why should it be? There's little point in having more houses than families, and people rarely moved house. Mortgages were limited to about 2 x one man's salary as there was little prospect (or indeed need) of a wife continuing to earn. Thus price was limited by the availability of money.

In 1960, it suddenly became feasible to undertake to repay a mortgage from joint salaries, thanks to oral contraception. Within 5 years, house prices had doubled simply because more money was available to buy them. Now if you have just bought an asset whose value seems to be appreciating at 12% per annum, it's very tempting to "move up the housing ladder", and the housing market moved from a slow trade in essentials to a fastmoving speculative commodity market, with people moving from house to house every year instead of once in a lifetime. 

The forces of nature asserted themselves and people began to reproduce once again, so wages had to rise to pay for the mortgage burden now mainly falling back on men. But since all transactions are counted as part of Gross National Product, even if nothing is actually being produced, and GNP per capita is the parameter or prosperity, it suited successive governments to allow raging inflation both of speculative house purchases and he wages to pay for them. The pound collapsed against the dollar (from $4 in 1950 to $2 in 1970) but that simply made exports of luxury cars all the more attractive, even if less profitable.

And here we are, with absurd house prices and a government once again doing its best to stimulate a bogus market because it looks good to have lots of money changing hands, even if no value is being added to any product.

AFAIK the same thing happened, though on a less absurd scale, in the USA, and it all fell apart because deregulation encouraged people with no secure income to join in the speculation.         

 
 

[wolfekeeper]

Actually reliability, wind is more reliable. If the forecast says you'll get a certain amount of power, you do get that. With other sources, the power station can get a fault and disappear, all at once.

We live and learn. On my planet, all rotating machinery is subject to occasional breakdown and surface wind forecasts are at best an educated guess. But what do I know? I only fly around in the stuff, propelled by rotating machinery. And whenever I fly near a windfarm, I notice a substantial proportion of windmills are not turning: clearly there is no demand for free electricity on Earth, since they are all 100% reliable.

I never said they were 100% reliable. They're 99+% reliable, and there's always 2-3 days warning when they're generating.

There is however a more serious side to "reliability". The point of electricity, gas, JETA1, coal, or cow dung, is that you can get the power you need when you need it, not when the wind thinks fit. And if you need more, you just turn on the tap or shovel more peat into the furnace: "no wind" won't appease the train traveller or the victim on the operating table.

No, because they can break. And when they do, you need a great big back-up generator. The UK has got some old fuel-oil generators it uses for that (probably mostly diesel). The UK has plenty of capacity.

FWIW there's an interesting chart here which shows you the current UK generating pattern, and historical for the last year:

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

Without even going into details of general meteorology and cyclone genesis, I might ask windmill enthusiasts to step outside around dawn and dusk. Remarkably, just when electricity demand is highest, surface windspeed is least.

Really? Can you point to that in the above chart for the last week, because I can't see that ever happening.

Actually reliability, wind is more reliable. If the forecast says you'll get a certain amount of power, you do get that. With other sources, the power station can get a fault and disappear, all at once.

We live and learn. On my planet, all rotating machinery is subject to occasional breakdown and surface wind forecasts are at best an educated guess. But what do I know?

Well, you're clearly not a meteorologist.

There is however a more serious side to "reliability". The point of electricity, gas, JETA1, coal, or cow dung, is that you can get the power you need when you need it, not when the wind thinks fit. And if you need more, you just turn on the tap or shovel more peat into the furnace: "no wind" won't appease the train traveller or the victim on the operating table.

Wow, nobody have ever thought of your clever argument against wind power, I'm glad you've pointed that out!

[alancalverd]

The UK has plenty of capacity.

Not according to our glorious government

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48132/2175-emr-white-paper-exec-summary.pdf

●● security of supply is threatened as existing plant closes: over
the next decade we will lose around a quarter (around 20 GW) of
our existing generation capacity as old or more polluting plant close.
Modelling suggests that de-rated1 capacity margins could fall below
five per cent around the end of this decade, increasing the likelihood
of costly blackouts. In addition to this huge reduction in existing
capacity, the future electricity system will also contain more intermittent
generation (such as wind) and inflexible generation (such as nuclear).
This raises additional challenges in terms of meeting demand at all
times, for example when the wind does not blow;

but what do they know?

Well, you're clearly not a meteorologist.

Obviously not. Meteorologists forecast the weather. I'm  pilot. We fly in actual, not forecast, conditions - the difference can be lethal.

Really? Can you point to that in the above chart for the last week, because I can't see that ever happening.

http://www.weatheronline.co.uk/cgi-bin/expertcharts?LANG=en&CONT=euro&MODELL=gfs&BASE=00&VAR=pslv&HH=24 shows a typical UK anticyclone, last Tuesday. Widely spaced isobars so buggerall wind over most of the UK - 10 kt max at 3000 ft midday, down to zero on the surface at dawn and dusk (as convective mixing decreased - happens every day to some extent). Just a random day when I happened to be airborne and the forecast was pretty close to actual. You can listen to the air traffic control tapes if you wish: inbound to Nottingham at 10 am I was told "Runway choice at your discretion. There's no wind."

During the summer the high pressure tends to center further north and the condition can last for weeks at a time. Sorry I can't quickly find a better example as I wasn't around for most of this summer but the visible symptom is interesting: after a few days you get a dust haze that leaves vertical visiblity fairly clear, but restricts horizontal vis during daylight hours to the point that visual flying is dangerous - you can see the ground but not other aircraft.  And no wind.

PS I just plotted a flight along the south coast of England and into south Wales for this afternoon. Coldish, gloomy autumn day. Forecast surface wind: 0 to 5 kt, decreasing to calm by nightfall.

[alancalverd]

Incidentally I'm intrigued by the high capacity factors now being claimed. These don't match up with the wind roses, so I wondered how to get a high capacity factor without breaking the laws of physics.

It turns out to be very easy. If I put a 100 kW wing on a 50 kW alternator, I will get twice the capacity factor because the alternator is working flat out when the wing is only at 50% power. It all depends on what you mean by "installed capacity", and knowing how politicians like their statistics massaged, you can get any answer you like.

[wolfekeeper]

You see, this is the thing, while I'm sure you're a fine pilot you have no clue what you're talking about when it comes to wind power.

Many of the wind farms are in Scotland. On that particular day (Tuesday October 6, 2013) the graph I sent you a link to shows the UK wind farms produced a rock-steady 2G of power the whole day, which is almost exactly average, and showed no dip in production in the early morning or any other time at all.

The local wind conditions you mentioned had no impact at all on the overall energy production (although they probably meant the southern generators weren't running, the northern ones were); and you took this to mean that none of the wind farms were operating in the whole of the UK, and even further to claim that wind power is useless!

In science terms, you have an interesting theory, but the evidence of the real world graphs of wind power production do not back it up.

[wolfekeeper]

Incidentally I'm intrigued by the high capacity factors now being claimed. These don't match up with the wind roses, so I wondered how to get a high capacity factor without breaking the laws of physics.

It turns out to be very easy. If I put a 100 kW wing on a 50 kW alternator, I will get twice the capacity factor because the alternator is working flat out when the wing is only at 50% power. It all depends on what you mean by "installed capacity", and knowing how politicians like their statistics massaged, you can get any answer you like.

That is one of the factors that influences capacity factor, it's a completely legitimate strategy. But the bigger blades cost more money of course. Another strategy is to build taller, or to place them in windier places (offshore wind has a higher capacity factor.)

Note that any subsidies and other income that get paid for building a wind generator at all, are not paid for capacity factor, they're paid for the actual energy generated and the income has to pay for the windmill. It's the builder that risks losing money if they artificially push up the capacity factor not politicians.

[alancalverd]

Nice charts, indeed. How interesting that

On that particular day (Tuesday October 6, 2013) the graph I sent you a link to shows the UK wind farms produced a rock-steady 2G of power the whole day, which is almost exactly average,

Now since the average wind speed varied a lot in the previous week, but output didn't, we must presume that most of the 2 GW came from offshore, which is admittedly more reliable.  But it's worrying that with 10 GW installed capacity, the annual graph never exceeded 50%, and it warms my heart to note that total wind output fell to near zero for most of July, when the anticyclone covered the North Sea as well as the landmass.

[wolfekeeper]

The wind is always lower in summer, and higher in winter. There's also 10GW lower demand then, to some degree this balances out.

But it is definitely a variable source of power.

Denmark currently has enough wind power capacity that if and when the wind blows hard across the whole country, they generate more than enough power to power the whole country from the wind alone, and they sell the extra energy abroad, particularly to places like Norway. Norway then turn down their hydrogenerators, and collect the water. When the wind goes away, they turn the taps back on, and sell it back to Denmark.

The UK could do much the same thing, it already has some taps to Europe.

[alancalverd]

The wind is always lower in summer, and higher in winter. There's also 10GW lower demand then, to some degree this balances out.

Not according to the graphs you quoted. Demand was close to its minimum in late December, and wind output was at or above 30% of capacity during June and September.

The UK could do much the same thing, it already has some taps to Europe.

All we need is (a) a friendly neighbour with vast overcapacity of hydropower (b) vast overcapacity of windpower and (c) a massive transmission grid. As of now we have a 2GW transmission capability and

Since the commissioning of the 2,000 MW DC link in the 1980s [i.e. under an agreement between nationalised industries] the bulk of power flow through the link has been from France to Britain.

  mostly nuclear.

Nice science, Mr Wolfe,  but a long way from engineering reality!

[wolfekeeper]

The question of this thread is asking how can economies continue to grow, but you don't think countries should build infrastructure such as grid interconnections???

If you look at that link it mostly flows into the UK.

There's also an interesting thing going on with nuclear power that most people don't realise; nuclear power needs hydro as well!

The reason is that the nuclear infrastructure is particularly expensive, so the cost per watt (peak) is much higher. Although you can turn nuclear power output up and down quite easily, to bring the kWh price down to sane levels the nuclear plants have to run as close to flat-out as possible. But the actual demand varies.

France actually have to use hydro to deal with this problem, as well as dumping excess power to its neighbours.

So nuclear actually has similar problems as wind power does, due to the variations in load.

[alancalverd]

I don't think it's pedantic to point out that a fluctuating demand that can be met, albeit at a cost, is quite different from a fluctuating supply that can't be matched to demand because it is not under human control.

It would indeed be very helpful if nations could share resources, but as far as the UK is concerned we don't have a national electrical system anymore, just a ragbag of noncompeting retailers with no interest in the future supply of anything. The fact that parts of the "privatised" grid are owned by the French and German governments doesn't seem to make it work any better. 

[wolfekeeper]

You sound like you read the Daily Telegraph. Most of the stuff written in The Daily Telegraph comes from 'Renewable Energy Foundation'.

The Renewable Energy Foundation sounds like it would be an unbiased source, but actually, it's headed by Noel Edmunds. Noel Edmunds, inspite of his cuddly on-screen image, is a man who believes there's energy orbs floating over each shoulder that can only be seen on digital cameras i.e. imaging technology compatible with photoshop. I am not making this up.

But REF is not about renewable energy, it's about making sure that there isn't any renewable energy near Noel Edmunds house. That's why he joined them back in 2004. I am not making this up.

So they publish information, but deliberately the information is cherry picked and packaged and released to make sure that it appears that wind power is useless.

So why's it called the 'Renewable Energy Foundation'? It's because if it was called the more accurate title of 'Down With Wind Energy', even the Telegraph wouldn't be able to publish it.

Anyway, there's a whole report about the costs of intermittency here, from UKERC, who were set up to be as balanced as possible, unlike REF:

http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/Downloads/PDF/06/0604Intermittency/0604IntermittencyReport.pdf

[alancalverd]

I guess I probably would read the Telegraph if I agreed with its politics - I certainly approve of its use of polysyllables, which give it a reading age of about 12, by far the highest in the UK. But I loathe Mr Edmonds, his repellent on-screen persona, and all he does.

Fact is that I'm a physicist by trade, so I just look at the numbers and ask "will it work?" Doctors and engineers pay me to do this. If the job is to supply electricity sustainably and affordably to the UK, windpower without at least 5 days' storage or 100% backup simply won't. If the job is to supply "clean" energy for all purposes, there is no sustainable source that can support the UK population. I commend  http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html by Prof David MacKay for unbiased numbers.

I abjure "balance". Science is not democratic and the laws of physics do not bend to consensus.

It seems to me that the UK could be indefinitely sustainable in both biofuel (much more useful than electricity) and food with about 10% of the present population. This could be achieved in 100 years at no cost to anyone but (a) democratic politicians only think in 3 year horizons and (b) there's no short term profit to be made,  so our grandchildren are doomed and we have to pay over the odds to subsidy farmers in order to distribute the green vote and keep shortsighted incompetents in parliament and off the dole queue.