Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: The Renewable Energy Reality Check [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)26. I think people deliberately spreading known misinformation like this should be banned from EE
Using this forum as a platform for disseminating misinformation and trolling is wrong. It is within the purview of the hosts to act on such behavior.
Doesnt Wind Power Need Backup Generation? Isnt More Fossil Fuel Burned with Wind Than Without, Due to Backup Requirements?
In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load.
Backup generating plants dedicated to wind plants or to any other generation plant or load for that matter are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources.
Regarding whether the addition of wind generation results in more combustion of fossil fuels, a wind-generated kilowatthour displaces a kilowatthour that would have been generated by another sourceusually one that burns a fossil fuel. The wind-generated kilowatthour therefore avoids the fuel consumption and emissions associated with that fossil-fuel kilowatthour. The incremental reserves (spinning or nonspinning) required by winds variability and uncertainty, however, themselves consume fuel and release emissions, so the net savings are somewhat reduced. But what quantity of reserves is required? Numerous studies conducted to datemany of which have been summarized in previous wind - specific special issues of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine have found that the reserves required by wind are only a small fraction of the aggregate wind generation and vary with the level of wind output. Generally, some of these reserves are spinning and some are nonspinning. The regulating and load-following plants could be forced to operate at a reduced level of efficiency, resulting in increased fuel consumption and increased emissions per unit of output.
A conservative example serves to illustrate the fuel-consumption and emissions impacts stemming from winds regulation requirements. Compare three situations:
1) a block of energy is provided by fossil-fueled plants;
2) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that require no incremental reserves; and
3) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that do have incremental reserve requirements. It is assumed that the average fleet fossil-fuel efficiency is unchanged between situations one and two. This might not be precisely correct, but a sophisticated operational simulation is required to address this issue quantitatively. In fact, this has been done in several studies, which bear out the general conclusions reached in this simple example.
In situation one, an amount of fuel is burned to produce the block of energy. In situation two, all of that fuel is saved and all of the associated emissions are avoided. In situation three, it is assumed that 3% of the fossil generation is needed to provide reserves, all of these reserves are spinning, and that this generation incurs a 25% efficiency penalty. The corresponding fuel consumption necessary to provide the needed reserves is then 4% of the fuel required to generate the entire block of energy. Hence, the actual fuel and emissions savings percentage in situation three relative to situation one is 96% rather than 100%. The great majority of initially estimated fuel savings does in fact occur, however, and the notion that winds variations would actually increase system fuel consumption does not withstand scrutiny.
A study conducted by the United Kingdom Energy Research Center (UKERC) supports this example. UKERC reviewed four studies that directly addressed whether there are greater CO2 emissions from adding wind generation due to increasing operating reserves and operating fossil-fuel plants at a reduced effi ciency level. The UKERC determined that the efficiency penalty was negligible to 7% for wind penetrations of up to 20%.
In a power system, it is necessary to maintain a continuous balance between production and consumption. System operators deploy controllable generation to follow the change in total demand, not the variation from a single generator or customer load. When wind is added to the system, the variability in the net load becomes the operating target for the system operator. It is not necessary and, indeed, it would be quite costly for grid operators to follow the variation in generation from a single generating plant or customer load.
Backup generating plants dedicated to wind plants or to any other generation plant or load for that matter are not required, and would actually be a poor and unnecessarily costly use of power-generation resources.
Regarding whether the addition of wind generation results in more combustion of fossil fuels, a wind-generated kilowatthour displaces a kilowatthour that would have been generated by another sourceusually one that burns a fossil fuel. The wind-generated kilowatthour therefore avoids the fuel consumption and emissions associated with that fossil-fuel kilowatthour. The incremental reserves (spinning or nonspinning) required by winds variability and uncertainty, however, themselves consume fuel and release emissions, so the net savings are somewhat reduced. But what quantity of reserves is required? Numerous studies conducted to datemany of which have been summarized in previous wind - specific special issues of IEEE Power & Energy Magazine have found that the reserves required by wind are only a small fraction of the aggregate wind generation and vary with the level of wind output. Generally, some of these reserves are spinning and some are nonspinning. The regulating and load-following plants could be forced to operate at a reduced level of efficiency, resulting in increased fuel consumption and increased emissions per unit of output.
A conservative example serves to illustrate the fuel-consumption and emissions impacts stemming from winds regulation requirements. Compare three situations:
1) a block of energy is provided by fossil-fueled plants;
2) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that require no incremental reserves; and
3) the same block of energy is provided by wind plants that do have incremental reserve requirements. It is assumed that the average fleet fossil-fuel efficiency is unchanged between situations one and two. This might not be precisely correct, but a sophisticated operational simulation is required to address this issue quantitatively. In fact, this has been done in several studies, which bear out the general conclusions reached in this simple example.
In situation one, an amount of fuel is burned to produce the block of energy. In situation two, all of that fuel is saved and all of the associated emissions are avoided. In situation three, it is assumed that 3% of the fossil generation is needed to provide reserves, all of these reserves are spinning, and that this generation incurs a 25% efficiency penalty. The corresponding fuel consumption necessary to provide the needed reserves is then 4% of the fuel required to generate the entire block of energy. Hence, the actual fuel and emissions savings percentage in situation three relative to situation one is 96% rather than 100%. The great majority of initially estimated fuel savings does in fact occur, however, and the notion that winds variations would actually increase system fuel consumption does not withstand scrutiny.
A study conducted by the United Kingdom Energy Research Center (UKERC) supports this example. UKERC reviewed four studies that directly addressed whether there are greater CO2 emissions from adding wind generation due to increasing operating reserves and operating fossil-fuel plants at a reduced effi ciency level. The UKERC determined that the efficiency penalty was negligible to 7% for wind penetrations of up to 20%.
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I very much want to hear from those at DU who repeatedly claim that this profile is wrong.
Buzz Clik
May 2013
#1
This study of predictions shows your sources are the least reliable of all available.
kristopher
May 2013
#4
Written by the president of an "alternative energy" company who stands to profit immensely
wtmusic
May 2013
#8
Wind is the fastest growing in terms of percentage. It's insignificant, before and after.
wtmusic
May 2013
#16
2012: 100GW total global PV -- By 2018 Additional 220GW only rooftop to be added
kristopher
May 2013
#19
A number of 100mw to 300mw solar pv plants will be built over the next 18 months- in the US.
FogerRox
May 2013
#27
I think people deliberately spreading known misinformation like this should be banned from EE
kristopher
May 2013
#26
Interesting, but you do realize, I hope, that a backup is always going to be necessary.
Benton D Struckcheon
May 2013
#31
...and it will never store more energy ever in all eternity, right?
Benton D Struckcheon
May 2013
#36
True, but as I tried to point out, that's the dog that's not barking
Benton D Struckcheon
May 2013
#47
I've been wanting to test whether the seasonal variability is in fact increasing,
Benton D Struckcheon
Jun 2013
#59