Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Addressing the Variability Factor: Can Wind Power Reliably Be Part of the Electricity Mix?

By Michael Goggin, AWEA
October 8, 2008   |   13 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
The same generation reserves that are used to accommodate variability in supply and demand can also be used to accommodate wind energy's variability. Thus, one does not need dedicated backup power for wind plants any more than one would need a dedicated backup plant for each fossil-fuel or nuclear facility.
13 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 13
October 8, 2008
As the fact sheet rightly points out (but not covered in this article), the variability of wind power output is very minimal when the turbines are spread over hundreds of miles because the period of calm in some locations will be that of good wind in some other locations. This, I believe, is the best answer to the concerns about backup power.
Comment
2 of 13
October 8, 2008
I wish to thank Michael Goggin for this excellent and very educational article. The explanation on spinning and non spinning reserves is just what I was looking for as I have thought about the problem of variability for some time. It is a wonder that no one from any utility company offered this information.

adrianakau2aol.com
Comment
3 of 13
October 10, 2008
Let's engage in a bit of logic here. I will grant that using hydro to back up wind is a good match; Norway's hydro is what makes Denmark's wind work. Unfortunately, there are many places in the US where it requires a real stretch of credibility to believe that hydro facilities are actually the systems on the grid that can back up wind.

Take, for example, the famous midwestern wind corridor that T. Boone Pickens talks about. How much hydro power is really available there? The area is missing two of the major parts of a hydro system - flowing water and elevation changes. It is mostly dry and flat. Power will not be wheeled multi-hundreds of miles to fill in the gaps, especially in the isolated Texas power grid.

WRT spinning reserves - yes, there is little loss of thermal efficiency when a fossil plant is operated at less than full capacity, but there is considerable loss of economic efficiency in running any large capital asset at a lower output.

All of the equipment and all of the personnel overhead are still required, but there is less product to sell and thus less revenue over which to spread the overhead. In addition, when the wind stops and the spinning reserve has to fill in the full power, the resulting emissions are greatly increased over what they would otherwise have been in the power came from nuclear instead of a wind system with a mainly fossil fuel grid back up.
Comment
4 of 13
October 10, 2008
In response to Rod Adams comments, it should be noted in the article that the reserves are needed with or without the use of wind power, not least because of the irregularity of demand as well as supply. The reserve also does not have to be local. As Rod himself points out, Denmark's wind has reserve from Norway's hydro, which is not as nearby as it sounds.
Comment
5 of 13
October 10, 2008
@Charlie Monk - there are certainly reserves needed whether or not there is wind on the grid. It is pretty clear from talking to system operators that the quantity and frequency of use of those reserves will be affected by the build-up of inherently intermittent sources of power like wind turbines.

With regard to the distance between Denmark and Norway's hydro, you are correct. There is a long physical distance there, but there are some very well-developed interconnections. That is NOT the case in Texas or in many of the other proposed wind areas in the US. The capital cost of the needed grid infrastructure improvements can be shared among all new power sources, but often wind supporters fight against other sources of power that might be built to share in the capital expense.

If a new grid segment only supplies wind, then the wind developers need to include the cost of that segment in the cost of their project and not try to force the rest of us to pay the freight as a hidden subsidy.
Comment
6 of 13
October 10, 2008
Rod is probably right. We really just need to build more coal plants.

If you don't like coal, and the cost of wind infrastructure is too high, perhaps you would like to offer up your solution that is more cost effective.
Comment
7 of 13
October 10, 2008
You are right that the cost of the infrastructure for wind power may be high and should be taken into account, but this was evidently done and paid for in Denmark with some success. Continuing to use established fossil fuel energy will inevitably appear cheaper, but measures like CO2 capture should be considered, which do not come cheap, and without this the fossil fuel approach carries an environmental cost that will be hard to quantify, huge and unpredictable.

I dont have a "solution that is more cost effective". The unwelcome fact is that continuing to provide the level of energy we like to consume does not have a low cost solution. It may not be wind. Most sensibly it will be combined with reduced usage and a wide range of technologies as appropriate to each location, but the certainty is that it cannot be what we have now.
Comment
8 of 13
October 10, 2008
More efficient wind machines are necessary to combat the variable conditions that exist. Commercially available wind turbines today need more options of size for the geography. Newer patented designs do not require the amount of mechanized transfer to the generator itself. Transmissions have been eliminated as well as the current generators that are used today. These are not theoretical solutions, but available today. A patented technology in use today can be scaled to any realistic turbine size with no major mechanical apparatus need to produce electrical power. If this is of interest to anyone please contact me jjg@cmgai.com (941) 429-0890
Comment
9 of 13
October 10, 2008
Interestingly, what is not mentioned at all is the demand side. I submit that this article is the 20th century paradigm of energy, responding to flucuations in demand with more capacity. It really makes sense to look at the demand side of the equation! In a smart grid scenario where consumers are incented and able to use power at its lowest cost, then the demand can be influenced. For example, it is cloudy here in Denver right now, if we had a significant percentage of our power coming from solar, then the 'spot' price for electricity would be higher today than a sunny day like yesterday. So, I might postpone certain activities like drying clothes or let my fridge run a few degrees warmer or automatically adjust the thermostat a few degrees until the rates are lower. This obviously requires cooperation of a lot of parties, but it is potentially a very powerful suplement to variability in supply.
Comment
10 of 13
October 10, 2008
Wind and other stochastic renewable energy sources have cost effective energy storage systems. To achieve the goal of copious, cheap, green wind energy and not clearly differentiating "energy" vs "electricity" is querulous. AWEA says: "20% Wind Energy by 2030: Wind, Backup Power and Emissions," Electricity is only 10% of our Energy needs. Is AWEA stating a 20% solution to our electrical energy needs – which is only 2% of our energy needs by 2030? How would that goal be relevant? I fear it could turn off Wind Energy investment. What group would invest in a 2% solution that's arrives in 22 years! Why did the "Fact Sheet" omit the obvious: "energy storage?" Electric Vehicles and myriad other applications use energy stores/ buffers/ reservoirs as solutions to intermittent power production. Wind can too, but I am not espousing 1 form of storage or another. Let me posit a challenge. My company has Next Generation Wind Energy Designs (NGWED) which can drastically reduce the cost/KW and cost per KWH of wind farms and electricity respectively, to less than that of fossil fuel. We stand behind a $.05/kWh or lower figure. From a first production farm to 100% energy (not just electricity) solvency would be a max of 7 years. The $.05/kWh does not include fossil fuel's hidden costs: tax incentives/ write offs, environmental/ health, refinery explosions, transportation / protection, geo-political. And the cost of fossil fuel transportation versus electric. AC Electric motors have one moving part that can last decades – which is anathema to some industries, 300+ parts/Engine. If my group with little resource can prototype NGWED solutions why can't AWEA? The challenge is to AWEA and all well intentioned people realizing that we can sever our fragile planet's multitrillion fossil fuel dependence. Nominal progress and discussion will unfortunately, not work. Sannerwind@gmail.com (Sannerprojects, Inc)
Comment
11 of 13
October 10, 2008
Thanks to all for taking the time to comment. A few responses:

Rod, you are correct that many areas of the country, including Texas, have very little hydroelectric capacity that can be used for accommodating variability on the electric grid. Fortunately, around 75% of Texas's generating capacity is supplied by natural gas plants, so the inherent flexibility of these plants can simply be put to greater use without a need for new plants. This is the case in many regions -- with improved operational procedures the already built-in flexibility of plants on the grid can be put to use. Also, your fear about zero-emission nuclear plants being turned down to favor flexible natural gas plants is unfounded. For one, the NRC prohibits nuclear plants from being turned down, and second high-emission high-fuel cost coal plants would be turned down first.

Greg, you are absolutely correct that demand response is a very cost-effective tool for accommodating variability on the electric grid, including that caused by wind energy -- I neglected to mention it simply due to limited space.

Jay, energy storage does have the potential to help accommodate variability on the electric grid. However, it does not make sense to use storage to even out variability in wind energy alone -- in many instances wind output and electricity demand will be simultaneously changing in the same direction so using storage to balance out wind output alone would actually make it harder to balance the grid. Storage can be much more cost-effectively deployed as a resource for the overall grid, not just for wind energy. At present storage is not cost-effective compared to other sources of flexibility on the grid, which explains why European nations have been able to achieve high wind penetrations but still have not needed to build energy storage. Similarly, studies in the U.S. have found that wind energy can provide 20% or more of our electricity without storage being necessary or cost-effective.
Comment
12 of 13
October 11, 2008
Michael, c.o AWEA
Your response is appreciated. Energy Storage is fungible, like money. A solution to intermittent power can also provide assistance with off-load, peak load, failure problems. If your car generator fails, your battery can suffice for a while, batteries being a simple energy store. Exactly where energy stores are positioned, e.g., in-situ, along the grid, at the consumer sites, each have value and supporting arguments. Further, it makes sense to project improved energy storage mechanisms at reduced cost, that's the direction of technology. However, it would be much appreciated if you reviewed and updated the basis for what seems to be an excessively long timeframe, In the 20% monograph, there's a lot of old data (e.g., 1987), old assumptions, and technology and gaping holes. If you look at Northern Europe wind energy has already achieved significant production levels , marine winds are a key. But not in the monograph You can and SHOULD corroborate that US territorial winds are a multiple the power required to render this 20% figure in 22 years, irrelevant, even using European/ world methods which are not the end-all be-all. Years ago, the weather service only modeled the data from over the continental US. Is this Deja Vue? Sannerprojects@gmail.com
Comment
13 of 13
October 17, 2008
The article focuses on supply balancing of the grid; increasing and decreasing the amount of power generated as demand changes. With the inclusion of more and more variable, fuel free, renewable energy in the grid in conjunction with smart grid technology, the possibility of Demand Balancing can be used by the power grid operators. Such systems already exist in primitive form in some jurisdictions. In the evening as power demand decreases, a "ripple" is sent down the wires which turns on water heaters. In the morning as power demand increases, a second ripple turns them off. However, the power doesn't have to be turned on an off at a set time. It can be turned on and off as power supply varies and It doesn't have to be in only one stage but can be in a number of stages. It all depends on identifying power users who can use "power when available" rather than "power on demand". What are some of these users. The above mentioned water heating is one. Charging your electric car is another. You get to work with enough power in your batteries to get home and access the night rate but given the choice of charging at an even more preferential rate, you would rather charge up you battery at work. You plug in, dial up "least expensive", swipe your card and key in $10. If the wind is blowing, the sun shining and the hydro dams overflowing, during the day you will have your batteries fully charged up at a very favorable rate. An advantage to the power company is that they don't have to throw away potential revenue when lots of power is being generated. It is a little like the airline companies for which it is more economical for them to fill empty seats at cost rather than flying half empty. There are many other customers who can use "power when available" and an additional advantage to the power company is that if you have a tank of hot water or a charged battery, you won't be demanding power when it is in short supply.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Michael Goggin

View Michael Goggin's Profile
About: Michael Goggin joined AWEA in February 2008. He represents the wind industry on transmission and grid integration matters, coordinates member input on the devel... more »

Advertise With Us

Ingeteam Canadian Solar Inc. Parker Hannifin - Precision Cooling Systems Kipp & Zonen GreenBrilliance SolarEdge Technologies WindPole Ventures, LLC
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters