Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

How Utilities Integrate Wind Energy

By Jeff Anthony, American Wind Energy Association
June 29, 2009   |   18 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
"[These studies] lay to rest one of the major concerns often expressed about wind power: that a wind plant would need to be backed up with an equal amount of dispatchable generation."

-- Utility Wind Integration Group
18 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 18
June 29, 2009
Why aren't more people using "excess wind-power" to lift water to primary lakes to create power at peak times?? Or am I being to naive???.
Comment
2 of 18
June 29, 2009
I think part of the reason is that wind is currently a small enough part of US electricity generation that it has not become a need yet. Another I think is NIMBYism. Though that doesn't explain Denmark.
Comment
3 of 18
June 29, 2009
Denmark is tightly connected with Norway and Sweden. When the wind blows strong they export electricity to Norway and Sweden, who turn down their hydro plants. When the wind dies, Denmark imports electricity from them. They use the hydroelectric facilities as batteries, but I am not sure how much, if any, pumping is done. The reservoirs fill naturally when the wind is strong and Norway and Sweden are pulling off the excess.
Comment
4 of 18
June 30, 2009
The UK for example, has a Pumped-storage facility (called Dinorwig) with generation capacity almost 2 GW. The water is pumped into a reservoir on top of a mountain during low load times and used again during peak-demand. Currently it's not wind of course that provides the power that pumps the water up, but it could be. Apparently these facilities are hugely expensive and this plant was built when the power sector was still publicly owned.. I don't think there are any such facilities in Scandinavia, only natural reservoirs that vary on yearly basis and hence are intermittent to an extent as well.
No image available
Comment
5 of 18
Anonymous
June 30, 2009
Regarding pumped storage in UK there are four facilities totalling about 2.8 GW. I did visit the Cruachan installation in 1965 only months before opening. This station was constructed to allow nuclear plants to work at high capacity. Cruachan can go from zero to 440 MW in 2 minutes from standstill. With the turbines spinning it can go from zero to 440 MW in 30 seconds.

There is some pumped hydro in Norway, but it is only to pump water from a relatively high elevation into reservoirs that are even higher. As far as I know there are not any reversible installations in norway.
Comment
6 of 18
June 30, 2009
To Carolyn's posting above, wind power is now the second largest form of new electrical generation being added to the U.S. grid for four years in a row. Last year new wind power installation represented 42% of the new generation added to the U.S. grid. Wind power has a lot of catching up to do with respect to generation facilities installed over the last several decades, but it is on track to contribute increasingly larger amounts of energy to supply electricity in this country over the next several years.

The U.S. Department of Energy issued a report last year that describes one scenario where wind power alone can supply 20% of the nation's electricity needs (on an energy basis) by the year 2030. The report and supporting studies and analysis can be found at: www.20percentwind.org

And to the postings above on the subject of energy storage -- currently energy storage is far too expensive to be used to integrate wind power into the grid -- both in Europe and in the U.S. So energy storage is NOT needed to integrate the variable ouput of wind energy in this country anytime soon. Since it is so expensive, energy storage was not even modeled in the US DOE report. It was found that existing system resources, primarily fast-response natural gas plants were far more effective at integrating renewable energy resources. Energy storage may someday play a bigger role, but not until their costs come down significantly. Most parts of the country can integrate wind power at around $5/MWhr in additional costs -- energy storage technologies are often 20 times more expensive than that cost.
Comment
7 of 18
July 1, 2009
The latest outlook from the EIA has wind at a little over 2% of U.S. electric energy in 2020, not 20%. It still turns itself on and off.
Also why do wind programs come to a halt whenever government subsidies stop?
No image available
Comment
8 of 18
Anonymous
July 1, 2009
"...why do wind programs come to a halt whenever government subsidies stop?"

Economics / market conditions. Fossil fuels still cheaper.
Comment
9 of 18
July 1, 2009
Well I guess fuel prices are going to increase again - expotentially before renewables become the norm. How much damage will occur in the meantime is the real question.
No image available
Comment
10 of 18
Anonymous
July 1, 2009
It is one thing to keep the level of local penetration low by sending it somewhere else; it's another to see the barriers and issues explained once penetration reaches some significant level. What of Spain and others? Let's see the real data, not the smoothed out summaries.

Good storage about doubles the cost, and storage with wind makes sense because so much blows at night. We may still be a long way from needing storage (since we are at low penetrations), but storage per se is something worth looking at - pumped hydro, compressed air are the first to look at.

We need more details, and some 'worst case' scenarios, e.g., of spinning reserve overlaps costing money and CO2 - in order to know the real envelope of possibilities. Be that as it may, these issues will be overcome, and wind is ripe for overcoming them.
No image available
Comment
11 of 18
Anonymous
July 1, 2009
Electric Power & Light states:

"If wind is a small part of generation, its intermittency brings few operating problems ... When it reaches approximately 10 to 15 percent of power production, the added costs of units that must run to ensure reliability can become substantial. ..... As advocates claim, wind produces nearly 20 percent of Denmark's total generation. Fortunately, that nation is a small part of a much larger, centrally dispatched Scandinavian system largely based on hydroelectric and nuclear facilities. Denmark's wind units produce less than 3 percent of the region's power. Load and generation characteristics force the nation to export nearly half of its wind power, often at zero prices, and to pay premia to fill in any shortfalls. According to NUS Consulting Group, in 2007 the average cost of energy production in the U.S. was approximately 9.5 cents per kWh, and in largely nuclear France, it was just more than 8 cents. In Denmark, it was 23 cents."
Comment
12 of 18
July 1, 2009
Rolf -- the one thing we know for sure about EIA projections is that they are historically and consistently inaccurate. Wind power is the second largest form of new generation being added to the grid and is WELL AHEAD of the projections that show the wind industry providing 20% of the nation's electricity by 2030. Installations in 2007 and 2008 are well ahead of the "20% Scenario" outlined by the US DOE report, which provides a far more useful projection of future growth than anything produced by EIA.
Comment
13 of 18
July 1, 2009
To Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous --

Suggest reading the 20% Report to better understand why energy storage is not needed now, and was not needed to reach 20% in the US DOE scenario: wwww.20percentwind.org
Comment
14 of 18
July 1, 2009
Referring to the amount of 'spinning reserves' required,"The exact amount depends on the mix of generation on a given system and other factors.". Is that based on capacity or production? The difference is a factor of five. It's my understanding the utility companies take what they want from wind farms and disconnect the rest - what the windmill does with that power is not their concern, they're under no contractual obligation to take it.

In the first paragraph this author states "...generating enough electricity during a year to serve more than 2 million homes..." and "...producing enough electricity each year to power the equivalent of some 7 million households...". I would love to know where those production numbers come from. All I can find are capacity numbers, a different beast entirely. Even the 20% report uses estimated production numbers and didn't state what conversion rate of capacity to production they were using.

My thinking is most of the good wind sites have been built out so the hype is necessary to get lesser performers to buy in (someone has to pay for it and they don't want it to be them). Hi, we're from the gov't and we're here to help - and if you don't believe us certainly you can trust this industry association :)

btw Jeff, an executive summary of 21 pages indicates the bloat in the document.The 'ol wear 'em down with data overload, eh?
Comment
15 of 18
Jeffery, I have read the 20% Report and I can find no mention of storage or the need for reserve capacity.

Almost all the reputable reports on wind integration done over the last 10 years over the world (and there have been a lot of them) all come to the conclusion that above about 5-10% wind penetration (by energy not power) the network needs some additional reserve capacity to maintain network reliability. At 20% wind penetration by energy you will need between 15 - 25% of the installed wind capacity. This is never mentioned in the 20% Report.

I can only assume this reserve capacity has not been factored into the cost of wind or into the calculation of GHG emission reductions.
Comment
16 of 18
July 7, 2009
Martin --

Energy Storage was found to be too expensive to integrate wind power, that's why you don't find it in the 20% Report. It was found that existing resources on the grid were adequate to integrate wind power. See more at:
http://www.awea.org/utility/reliability.html

In the 20% scenario, additional natural gas fired generating capacity was added in the 20% scenario. These fast-response natural gas plants provide the needed flexibility -- providing capacity when needed when the wind is not blowing, and shutting down when the wind is blowing, basically. While this additional natural gas capacity is needed to accomodate the variable output of wind energy in the 20% scenario, natural gas plants are actually run 50% less (so 50% less energy is obtained from natural gas overall). This savings on a fuel basis more than pays for the incremental costs of addiing these plants, the incremental transmission needed to build out the 20% wind scenario, and the costs of the wind plants themselves.

So all costs have indeed been factored in -- that's why the 20% wind scenario not only reduced emissions from the electricity sector by a significant amount -- it also saves consumers money over the study period -- all the while reliability integrated over 300,000 MW of new wind power projects.

Jeff Anthony, AWEA
Comment
17 of 18
July 7, 2009
Edward --

Wind power has been the second largest form of new generation added to the grid for the past four years in a row in the U.S. The largest form is new natural gas plants.

Jeff Anthony, AWEA
Comment
18 of 18
July 7, 2009
r-t-55471 -

The full 20% Report is over 300 pages long and is a very technical report, sorry if 21 pages was too long of an executive summary for your tastes, but we want to get all the pertinent insights and results adequately cover in the short(er) version.

It is false that all the good wind sites have been built out already, there are excellent wind sites in any number of locations in the U.S. ready to be developed, in most cases transmission is needed to access some of these locations, so until we re-build the aging transmission system infrastructure in the country, we may not be able to tap the best wind resources, that's why transmission was identified as a primary barrier in the 20% Report -- which you may have missed the fact, but was produced not by AWEA, but with support from AWEA and issued by the U.S. Depaartment of Energy -- or perhaps you missed that when you got bogged down in the 21 page executive summary ?

The 2 million and 7 million homes figures are based on the energy produced by wind projects on a avergae basis in a typical year. They are based on energy output, in terms of megawatt-hours.

Jeff Anthony, AWEA
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

Advertise With Us

Cantsink Manufacturing SolarEdge Technologies Delta Rigging & Tools Total Energy USA Texas Renewable Energy Industries Association Solmetric Corporation Planet Solar Inc
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America 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 Photovoltaics World Magazine 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