- Just like solar PV, predictable — but unreliable!
- Wind surges drop the spot-electricity price essential to baseload utilities that carry us through the night
- If we count the energy cost of storage, is it even an energy source?
- But Amory Lovins says a smart grid doesn’t NEED storage?
- Are there any actual high wind countries in the world?
- Denmark’s Emperor has no clothes!
Just like solar PV, predictable — but unreliable!
Wind power is intermittent and unreliable with a low capacity factor, just like solar PV. Most people think that if we build enough wind turbines across a large continent like Europe, wind’s rise and fall will smooth out. Individual wind farms might die down, but the ‘wind will always blow somewhere.’ This is not always the case! This next graph shows different colours for different countries across Europe from September to March, and you can see the net effect is sudden surges of electricity and then massive, continent-wide drops.
Wind surges drop the spot-electricity price essential to baseload utilities that carry us through the night
Some renewables advocates celebrate the crash in the electricity price as a good thing, but it is actually a nasty side effect of a dysfunctional system. Wind shoots so much electricity into the system at once that it crashes the price that used to be paid to traditional baseload plants that carried us through the night. Unreliable wind companies end up profiting off the gradual erosion of the baseload utilities that we rely on for reliable power supply. It’s not something to be smug about!
As The Economist reports:-
Electricity markets, especially those that were deregulated in the late 20th century, typically work on a “merit order”: at any given time they meet demand by taking electricity first from the cheapest supplier, then the next-cheapest, until they have all they need; the price paid to all concerned is set by the most expensive source in use at the time. Because wind and solar do not need to buy any fuel, their marginal costs are low. They thus push more expensive producers off the grid, lowering wholesale prices.
If renewables worked constantly that would not, at first blush, look like a problem for anyone except people generating expensive electricity. But renewables are intermittent, which means that in systems where the infrastructure was designed before intermittency became an issue—almost all of them, in practice—fossil-fuel, hydroelectric and nuclear plants are needed more or less as much as ever at times when the sun doesn’t shine and the winds don’t blow. And if such plants are shut out of the market by low-cost renewables, they will not be available when needed.
In the long run, and with massive further investments, electricity grids redesigned for systems with a lot of renewable energy could go a long way to solving this problem. Grids with lots of storage capacity built in; grids big enough to reach out to faraway renewables when the nearby ones are in the doldrums; grids smart enough to help customers adapt demand to supply: all have their champions and their role to play.
But long-run solutions do not solve short-term constraints. So for now countries with lots of renewables need to keep older fossil-fuel capacity available as a standby and to cover peaks in demand. This often means additional subsidies, known as capacity payments, for plants that would otherwise be uneconomic. Such measures keep the lights on. But they also mean that fossil-fuel production capacity clings on—often in particularly dirty forms, such as German power stations powered by brown coal, or backup diesel generators in Britain.
If we count the energy cost of storage, is it even an energy source?
Reminder: that super-grid with ‘lots of storage capacity build in‘ may not even be an energy source once all the storage is built! Sure, wind has a respectable EROEI of about 23 in itself, but when we include the energy costs of building storage for unreliable wind, the EROEI crashes.
But Amory Lovins says a smart grid doesn’t NEED storage?
Amory Lovins is just plain smug in this next presentation. There’s something seductive about his confidence (or is that arrogance?) I wish I could sit back, unplug all my questions, and ‘believe’. Watch him be smug about the cheap price of wind and solar — when we’ve just seen that it hurts the utilities that carry us through the night. Watch him be smug about baseload power plants having 90% capacity factors (only requiring one ‘spare’ plant for every 4 or 5 other baseload plants) — when wind only has 35% to 40% capacity factors, requiring vastly more storage! Listen to him smugly ignore capacity factors as he states “The grid handles this intermittence by backing up failed plants with working plants!” Yup, and so he just avoids the vastly different ratio of backup between baseload plants and wind. There’s a huge difference between one nuclear plant going down and an entire continent’s wind going down! (See graphic above for Europe). Watch him be dismissive about huge drops in wind — simply because we can see it coming, which does not actually solve the storage cost and EROEI problem!
Watch him directly contradict another NREL study (Page 10 here) that concludes baseload power is essential if we want to wean off oil and onto electric cars. The NREL study concluded that America could charge most of their light family cars and trucks and buses — essentially most of their gasoline (petroleum) — if we turn every baseload plant up to full, especially overnight! That’s amazing. That’s the gasoline half of oil replaced with today’s grid and power plants! (Diesel for heavy trucking, mining, and farming is the other half of oil, and requires other solutions). This makes me wonder about NREL. Amory Lovins claims their modelling says no baseload plants are required. (2 minutes in). Their electric car study claims baseload is ESSENTIAL, TURN IT UP TO FULL! What gives? This kind of inconsistency should alarm us all. It points to the influence of ideology at work, not hard nosed engineering and maths.
Watch him smugly assert that renewables are going to charge electric cars that are then going to backup the grid rather than — I don’t know — use that power to drive!!!
Are there any actual high wind countries in the world?
Watch him lie to the audience about a 47% Denmark grid, as if Denmark had its own independent grid disconnected from the Nord Pool Spot grid, and not also trading with the Synchronous Grid of Continental Europe that serves 400 million customers! As the World Nuclear Association reports:-
Denmark’s electricity mix
Robust connection between Norway’s hydro turbines and West Denmark’s wind turbines holds the key to successful exploitation of wind for Denmark, and the German and Swedish connections are nearly as importantc. The power imported from Sweden (5.2 TWh in 2011, 2.7 TWh in 2010, 3.8 TWh in 2009, 6.6 TWh in 2008, 5.0 TWh in 2007, 1.7 TWh in 2006, 7.6 TWh in 2005) is almost half nuclear and half hydro. The power imported from Germany (2.9 TWh in 2011, 6.4 TWh in 2010, 3.6 TWh in 2009, 1.4 TWh in 2008, 1.5 TWh in 2007, 4.0 TWh in 2006, 0.6 TWh in 2005) is largely generated by brown coal and nuclear power. (Germany itself imports 9 to 20 TWh/yr from France, which is 75% nuclear.) Norway is almost all hydro.
Hence nuclear power provides an essential part of Denmark’s electricity. In 2011, with imports of 2.9 TWh from Germany and 5.2 TWh from Sweden, it would seem that about 3.5TWh used was nuclear – nearly 11% of total final consumption, and one third of the domestic consumption from wind. This fluctuates year to year, mainly due to NordPool prices, and Energinet.dk analysis showed 1% nuclear in 2010, 7% in 2011 and 14% in 2012.
At the end of 2014, total installed capacity in Denmark was 13.66 GWe, of which 8.15 GWe was thermal generation (mainly fossil fuel-fired) and 4.9 GWe wind turbines. At the end of 2015 wind capacity was 5.07 GWe, 3.8 GWe onshore and 1.27 GWe offshore, the majority in West Denmark (mostly onshore). Wind capacity rose to 4.16 GWe at the end of 2012. West Denmark (the main peninsula part) is the most intensely wind-turbined part of the planet. When it is producing, this power must be taken by the grid. In 2015, the capacity factor for Denmark’s wind capacity was 30.5% due to favourable conditions.
The wind turbines depend heavily for their effective utilization on 29 GWe of hydro capacity in Norway, over 1.7 GWe of which can be dispatched promptly when wind power is unavailable in West Denmark. The Skagerrak HVDC link is owned and operated by Statnett in Norway, and Energinet.dk in Denmark. Hence, there is a natural and felicitous interdependence between West Denmark’s wind and Norway’s hydro. With good winds, power can be exported back to Norway and there conserve hydro potentiale. This explains why the net import-export balance of electricity with Norway is very variablef.
Although about one third of electricity is produced by wind, the country’s use of this electricity is much lower. A 2009 report by Danish policy think tank CEPOS estimates that Denmark consumes around half of its wind-generated electricity on averageg,1. Wind power is heavily subsidized by Denmark but, because this power is exported at the spot price, the subsidies are effectively exported. Moreover, the countries that the wind-generated power is exported to – mainly Norway and Sweden – are largely carbon neutral with regards to power generation, so Denmark’s exported wind power does not save carbon dioxide emissions, instead displacing carbon neutral generation. On the other hand, wind power consumed within Denmark lowers fossil generation in the country.
Danish fossil fuel generation is also lowered during ‘wet’ years in Scandinavia, since the greater hydropower capacity in the north (particularly Norway) becomes more economic than Denmark’s thermal generation. In ‘dry’ years, when Norway and Sweden need to import more electricity, thermal generation in Denmark is higher. For example, total Danish electricity generation was 42.9 billion kWh in 2006 – a dry year – and dropped in subsequent wetter years. This accounts for thermal generation in Denmark being higher in 2006 (33.6 billion kWh) than subsequently, and net exports being higher in 2006 than in following years.
Knowing all the information above, can you see what an outright lie Amory Lovins sells? His smug “Whatever exists — is possible” (at 4 minutes in) is an outright lie. Denmark’s 47% wind does not exist because a “Denmark grid” does not exist! National boundaries are irrelevant when discussing an electrical super-grid that services 400 million customers! Instead, Denmark’s wind is a tiny fraction of the much larger Nordic and European super-grids! To explore this Danish fairy tale further, I’ll hand you over to Tom Blees. This is Eclipsenow, signing off. Enjoy.
Denmark’s Emperor has no clothes!
“It’s estimated that if we fully pursue our potential for wind energy on land and offshore, wind can generate as much as 20 percent of our electricity by 2030 and create a quarter-million jobs in the process — 250,000 jobs in the process, jobs that pay well and provide good benefits. It’s a win-win: It’s good for the environment; it’s great for the economy. Today America produces less than 3 percent of our electricity through renewable sources like wind and solar—less than 3 percent. Now, in comparison, Denmark produces almost 20 percent of their electricity through wind power.”
Barack Obama, Earth Day Speech, April 22, 2009
” ‘But the Emperor has nothing on at all!’ said a little child.”
From The Emperor’s New Clothes, by Denmark’s famous poet and author, Hans Christian Andersen, 1837
Guest Post by Tom Blees. Tom is author of Prescription for the Planet – The Painless Remedy for Our Energy & Environmental Crises. Tom is also the president of the Science Council for Global Initiatives.
Last month Denmark’s CEPOS, their Center for Political Studies, published a report called Wind Energy, The Case of Denmark, from which that Obama quote was lifted. It sheds a harsh light on the young president’s wind vision, and reveals a dubious statistic and assumptions that may be far from the future reality of the USA despite the promising rhetoric.
Brave New Climate is one of those rare sites that eschews the hype about energy systems, where the contributors and most commenters seem to want the straight facts based on actual data. Fortunately we have a couple decades of data on wind and solar power systems, and of course considerably more decades than that on nuclear, though changes in regulatory and subsidy frameworks have often had as marked an effect on energy systems as technological advances.
Last week I wrote a post on Germany’s economic experience with solar power, and in the comments I included more links to similar articles describing Spain’s own dubious foray into a solar-powered future. Today, with Barry’s indulgence, I’d like to turn the spotlight to Denmark’s experience with wind power, a national experiment that began in the mid-Eighties and is continuing to this day. Denmark was the leader in the development and deployment of wind turbines up until very recently, and still plans to keep moving in that direction with the construction of 800 MW of new offshore wind turbines by 2013. One reason they’re going offshore, despite the added cost, is because after almost 25 years of building windmills all over the country they’re starting to get a NIMBY reaction to building more of them on land.
While President Obama’s statement that “Denmark produces almost 20 percent of their electricity through wind power” might be technically construed as true, it belies the real picture, a situation that bedevils the notoriously fickle wind power wherever it has been built. If one simply looks at the statistics of the number of megawatt-hours of electricity produced by wind power in Denmark over the course of a year and divides it by Denmark’s electricity demand, the number does indeed come out to nearly 20%. But the devil is in the details.
Denmark’s thermal power plants, fueled mostly by coal, produce not only electricity but also heat for the towns near which they’re located. The Danes have taken great pains to make their coal plants as efficient as possible by building them for such double duty. But what happens when it’s wintertime and the wind is howling, spinning those turbines like crazy? One can easily imagine that those same days are mighty chilly, and so those coal plants are fired up even though the electricity they’re producing is now in less demand than the heat they’re producing to keep the Danes warm.
This situation presents a dilemma, for the high simultaneous production from both the wind and the coal plants means that Denmark now has an electricity glut. Despite the contention of many wind and solar advocates that energy storage is practical and economical, a couple decades of experience with wind turbines apparently still hasn’t been enough for the Danes to get the message. So when the glut has driven the price down, frequently to the level of zero, Denmark ends up exporting their wind-generated electricity to their neighbors, chiefly Germany, Norway, and Sweden.
The latter two nations have acted for years as Denmark’s energy balancers, allowing the Danes to utilize the erratic power of wind and still keep their grid balanced because Norwegian and Swedish hydropower stations are able to load follow the Danish grid. When electicity is pouring over the interconnector from Denmark, its partner/neighbors can refrain from letting so much water through their turbines, so in a way their reservoirs can be seen as Danish storage batteries. But later on, when the wind isn’t howling, Denmark either has to generate their electricity with coal or else buy it from their neighbors at substantially high prices. But what’s worse than buying high and selling at zero?
“In October 2009, Nordpool, the electricity trading system used in the whole Nordic area, is introducing a negative price for power. The floor price that traders will have to observe, presently zero, will be extended downwards to minus €200 per MWh. This will apply in particular to Denmark and more particularly, because of its high wind capacity, the West Denmark price area. In effect, “the market” will be penalizing other generators for excess wind power in the market.”
So while Barack Obama’s 20% number is nearly true in some sense, the reality is that wind has been supplying less than 10% of Denmark’s electricity on average over the last five years, and as little as 5% in the poor years. This despite a crippling level of subsidies that saddle Danish citizens with the highest electricity rates in the EU.
The CEPOS report also examines the creation of “green jobs,” the other carrot held out by the president. Even allowing generous assumptions in their calculations, the report’s authors conclude that each such job actually created consumes subsidies of $90,000-140,000 USD, about 175-250% of the average pay per worker in the Danish manufacturing sector. What’s worse is that the wind turbine industry is over 10% less productive than other industrial sectors. The report concludes:
“The Danish experience also suggests that a strong US wind expansion would not benefit the overall economy. It would entail substantial costs to the consumer and industry, and only to a lesser degree benefit a small part of the economy, namely wind turbine owners, wind shareholders and those employed in the sector.”
With the tenuous economics of their situation already clear, things are about to get worse on a couple of fronts. Norway is building connecting links to both the Netherlands and Germany in order to play the balancing game with those countries as they build up their wind farms. What this will do is make Norway’s valued balancing capacity more valuable, driving the cost of their electricity even higher since now there will be competition for that balancing capacity from three countries instead of having Norway as Denmark’s captive audience.
Looking at their nation’s experience so far and the forbidding situation with their erstwhile balancing buddy Norway, what do you suppose the Danish politicians are recommending for the wind industry? Amazingly, the Danish Parliament decided last year that by 2025, 50% of Denmark’s electricity demand must come from renewable resources, mostly wind power. This level of blindness to the data is certainly on a par with Germany’s continuing foray into solar subsidies that we examined last week. Perhaps they should read this report, which lays out the situation for all to see:
“The very fact that the wind power system, that has been imposed so expensively upon the consumers, can not and does not achieve the simple objectives for which it was built, should be warning the energy establishment, at all levels, of the considerable gap between aspiration and reality.”
It seems the politicians, despite the hard and rather unforgiving data, still believe that pursuing the dream of running Denmark on wind is a political winner. But should such decisions be based on political expediency rather than economic and social realities just because the populace has been convinced by years of conditioning that windmills are a good thing?
Now it’s only fair to point out that Denmark is a rather unique case, and that wind power generated in a much larger country can more easily be routed within that country rather than being subject to the tender mercies of neighbors who might be looking out primarily for their own bottom line. On the other hand, electricity markets within large countries and even large states can be every bit as unforgiving as the Norwegians might prove to be, as witnessed in California’s recent history. What cannot be argued is that wind power presents serious obstacles to balancing the grid, which in the absence of creative ideas to fix that situation will cause wind power to continue to be a thorn in the sides of power managers and will limit wind’s penetration into the electrical market, even if the money and the will are there to pursue a massive buildup.
There are certainly ways to ease that problem. How about if we had electrolysis systems incorporated into all the wind farms that could suck up power spikes and smooth out the output to the grid? We could use the hydrogen to make ammonia, either for fertilizer or fuel, reducing the amount of natural gas that is used for that purpose. The problem? I suspect (though I haven’t crunched the numbers) that this would be a very expensive way to produce ammonia compared to the way we do it nowadays, even if we impose a carbon tax on natural gas. But I’m sure there are some other ideas. The question is, do the economics of wind make sense compared to modern nuclear power systems? Where should we be putting our energy dollars and efforts?
I recently had a tour of a nuclear power plant owned by one of the big private utility companies. One of the plant operators was candid in expressing his frustration with the company’s attitude. The nuclear plant was producing the lion’s share of the electricity, yet they were treated like the red-headed stepchild. All the attention was focused on windmills and solar panels that weren’t producing enough to make a blip on the energy radar. They make for such good PR!
So what path is President Obama going to encourage? I know for a fact that his two top science advisors are very knowledgeable about IFR technology. Surely the realities of wind and solar development in other countries that have preceded us in these areas can’t be unknown to them. But so far nary a peep has been heard from the White House about IFRs, and precious little about nuclear power in general. Will we soon see the discussion emerge from behind the scenes? Will Obama take the political risk and lead his country away from fantasy and into a viable energy future?