David Hagen – “Against the Gods…”
Great book, story of risk management, insurance, a little maritime history. Should make the Brits proud, as they should be. Perfect antidote for a cold winter day! ;)
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by JustinWonder
↧
↧
Comment on JC’s book shelf by DocMartyn
Steve, why do you think the general left/right split on cAGW is quite opposite from the Ebola outbreak? Here, the left and media, state that the right is over reacting, fear mongering and possible racist.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by ianl8888
@ Judith C
Thank you and PE for the posts here. I’ve been intermittently requesting such a series – very informative (particularly the responses)
It’s quite obvious that when confronted with the choice of renewabubbles and lowering living standards or staying with civilisation and its’ emissions, AGW advocates much prefer to stay silent
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by JustinWonder
I’ve always wondered about induction. Do electric trains not have an electrical contact via a third rail? My e&m is a distant memory…
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
Planning Engineer,
Thank you for another excellent post. Very clear, concise, well written and explains the issues brilliantly for non-specialists (like me).
Judith, thank you too for inviting these excellent posts. IMO, this sort of information is enormously important to get across to those who are concerned about CAGW and advocating for policy responses that can succeed in the real world.
↧
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by JustinWonder
Yes, but they can huddle in some NGO community center and watch us on tv.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by alpha2actual
The normalized capacity factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. The decline in the normalized capacity factor for Danish onshore wind farms is slower but still significant with a fall from a peak of 22% to 18% at age 15. On the other hand for offshore wind farms in Denmark the normalized capacity factor falls from 39% at age 0 to 15% at age 10. The reasons for the observed declines in normalized capacity factors cannot be fully assessed using the data available but outages due to mechanical breakdowns appear to be a contributory factor. A 2009 study reported by CEPOS, a Danish think tank, found that while wind provided 19% of the country’s electricity generation, it only met an average 9.7% of the demand over a five year period, and a mere 5% during 2006. This referred to as Demand Capacity.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by alpha2actual
I have yet to read an article discussing the deployment of utility scale wind or solar projects in the U.S. that includes an assessment of Europe’s almost 30 year experience which has been less than stellar. “Analysis of Wind Farm Performance in UK and Denmark” by Dr Gordon Hughes, is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh where he teaches courses in the Economics of Natural Resources and Public Economics. He was a senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank until 2001. He has advised governments on the design and implementation of environmental policies and was responsible for some of the World Bank’s most important environmental guidelines.
The study has used data on the monthly output of wind farms in the UK and Denmark reported under regulatory arrangements and schemes for subsidizing renewable energy. Normalized age-performance curves have been estimated using standard statistical techniques which allow for differences between sites and over time in wind resources and other factors.
The normalized load factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. The decline in the normalized load factor for Danish onshore wind farms is slower but still significant with a fall from a peak of 22% to 18% at age 15. On the other hand for offshore wind farms in Denmark the normalized load factor falls from 39% at age 0 to 15% at age 10. The reasons for the observed declines in normalized load factors cannot be fully assessed using the data available but outages due to mechanical breakdowns appear to be a contributory factor.
Applying Dr Hughs’ findings to the Cape Wind project Nantucket Sound, slated to begin construction in 2015, a basic Capital Cost /Life Cycle Output calculation generates some interesting numbers.
Cape Wind. Cost $2.6 Billion, Nameplate 468 Megawatts, Capacity Factor 27%, Life Cycle 10 years, Life Cycle Output 11 Terawatts. Capital Cost per Megawatt $234.89. Cost of Production per Megawatt $70.
State of the Art GE Flex 50 Combined Cycle Natural Gas Turbine. Cost $450 Million (right to work state), Baseplate 510 Megawatts, Capacity Factor 85%, Life Cycle 40 years, Life Cycle Output 152 Terawatts. Capital Cost per Megawatt, $2.96. Cost of Production per Megawatt $35, $15 of which is fuel cost.
Bottom line, it takes $36 Billion of Cape Wind to match the output of one $450 Million GE Flex 50 predicated on a Capital Cost/Life Cycle Output calculation.
The contracted cost of the Cape Wind energy will be 23 cents a kilowatt hour (excluding tax credits, which are unlikely to last the length of the project), which is more than 50% higher than current average electricity prices in Massachusetts. the bay state is already the 4th most expensive state for electricity in the nation. Even if the tax credits are preserved, $940 million of the $1.6 billion contract represents costs above projections for the likely market price of conventional power. moreover, these costs are just the initial costs they are scheduled to rise by 3.5 percent annually for 15 years. by year 15 the rate will be $.38 per Kilowatt. Classic, Federal and State tax dollars from Mass taxpayers for the privilege of having their electricity rates more than treble. The 200 days of fog is problematic for the high speed ferry boats which transit 3 million passengers annually. The three local airports which handle 400,000 flights a year are concerned about radar interference (flutter) caused by the turbines.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Rob Ellison
The post is impossibly obvious. It complains about the potential over utilization of some energy technologies – and thus cost increases. The interesting question is how to cost effectively integrate diverse supplies – biomass, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, biogas, etc. into the mix. Diverse supplies are an unmitigated good – as insurance against complete reliance on a limited number of supply technologies.
Rational planning goes beyond that to systematically identify research needs and commercialization routes. Solar and nuclear come to mind as having especial potential for cost reduction and performance improvement. There are as well substantial global off grid opportunities for a diversity of supply options.
Most having a mix of biomass and solar – makes perfect sense.
↧
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
rmdobservations (Ben Rose) posted about six comments on PE’s previous post Myths and Realities of renewable energy. Since then, he and I have been discussing renewables v nuclear on Online Opinion, an Australian web site (it allows only four comments in 24 hours and maximum 350 words) http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16809&page=0 . First we nominated three key criteria each that would change our mind if we were convinced our understanding was wrong.
There’ve been many posts. However, he’s has just pulled out but without conceding. I find that really frustrating and a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/20/10-signs-of-intellectual-honesty/ . I’ve just posted the following response (which is relevant to this post by PE):
Ben Rose,
I see you have effectively conceded.
Have you read the latest post by Planning Engineer on Climate Etc. “More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve”
http://judithcurry.com/2014/11/05/more-renewables-watch-out-for-the-duck-curve/
It begins:
“It can be very misleading to compare the energy costs for wind and solar to the energy costs for more conventional generation technology and assume the difference is the cost of providing for “clean” energy.”
You haven’t managed to support any of your assertions or criteria we agreed were the issues to be debated. I suggest, if you are intellectually honest, it’s time to concede.
Below I summarise the significant relevant points from the debate so far.
1. Nuclear is the least cost way to make substantial cuts to GHG emissions from electricity generation. That is with all costs included – including decommissioning, waste disposal and accident insurance (for the consequences attributable to the accident as opposed to the irrational response caused by nuclear fear; the latter should be paid for by government from the public purse since it caused it and therefore best managed by it).
2. Nuclear is about the safest way to generate electricity (LCA with all risks included) so this is not a valid reason for opposing nuclear power
3. Renewables cannot supply a large proportion of the world’s energy demand so they cannot make the cuts in GHG emissions that the CAGW alarmist say they want. Nuclear can
4. Only solutions that will improve countries’ economies over the short and medium term have a realistic chance of succeeding.
5. The impediments imposed on nuclear power as a result of 50 years of scare mongering by anti-nukes (mostly the environmental NGO’s and political Left) have made nuclear far more expensive than it could and should be.
6. Those who want policies to cut global GHG emissions should advocate to remove the impediments that have been imposed on nuclear power. They need to argue to appropriately deregulate nuclear power and make the regulation properly comparable with all other industries, e.g. on the basis of fatalities per TWh.
If you are intellectually honest you will concede. Then you’ll reconsider your advocacy of renewable energy and denial that nuclear is the best way to achieve global GHG emissions reductions as well as a sustainable energy supply for the world for the future.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by jim2
In climate science, if it’s not model output – then it doesn’t count.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Planning Engineer
Stephen here’s a stab at shining some light around SAIDI. Probably there are others here who can add more and say it better. SAIDI is the average outage duration per customer. It’s a good measure for the reliability an average customer on any given system might expect, but it does not tell you much about the comparative risks of a major blackout for diverse areas.
The biggest concern for system reliability is avoiding major blackouts to the bulk power system. When large parts of the system are down – it’s hard to recover and this can create huge regional problems. Smaller outages are not the same type of problem generally of shorter duration over smaller areas and with lower consequences. It’s inconvenient for the impacted customers, but not a huge social problem. The SAIDI index is overwhelming composed of small local outages, abd really is not a good indicator as to the risk of a major blackout. (The operators ability to shed load when needed helps the bulk system reliability.)
For example a grid serving a lower density population will have more radial loads. This will tend to increase system SAIDI, but not the risk of a major blackout. A denser population will support a networked grid, which all else equal will have lower SADI, but not necessarily a lower risk of blackout.
Major blackouts are rare events that are few and far between. No good index for that. They are typically caused by an unpredictable set of multiple contingencies. When I have expressed concerns about the impacts of renewable generation upon the grid, my major focus has been on the bulk system. The type events that make up the majority of SAIDI events have little to do with generation outages or system stability, but rather are attributable to line and substation problems.
I would expect that the German grid (because of population density) has a great amount of transmission and distribution redundancy through networked lines. This will work to limit the outages customer see. This does not mean that given a confluences of high loads and unexpected contingencies concurrent with a lack of conventional generations, that they will be less likely to have a blackout than a grid serving a much less dense area where the networked grid is supplemented by many radial lines which go out at a higher frequency.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by John Smith (it's my real name)
roving
I never miss “Downton Abbey”
as to understand British culture
promotes understanding of Tonyb and some of the other limey suspects
I’m not sure if it helps with the Scots
:)
↧
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by JustinWonder
Peter Lang
If nuclear is not expensive enough relative to renew-a-fables the greens will keep suing until it is.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Doug Badgero
Nuclear variable operating costs are so low that load following makes little sense. They are near the top of the dispatch sheet, and since their fixed cost are so high it makes no economic sense to build a nuclear plant to load follow.
↧
Comment on Cognitive bias – how petroleum scientists deal with it by stevepostrel
I remember seeing an empirical paper on offshore bids back in the 1980s that concluded that the bidders were properly accounting for the winner’s curse, at least within the empirical bounds given the data.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Peter Lang
Alpha2Actual,
Thanks you for your interesting comment. I have the 2009 CEPOS report (it’s excellent) but can you please give me a link to the report of the declining wind farm capacity factors.
↧
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by John Vonderlin
Hi Craig,
Never say never. Last night, here in California, we passed a huge water bond, one feature of which is building increased water storage infrastructure. Until the recent historic drought here, I would have rated the likelihood of that in the “cows flying” portion of the spectrum of probability. (The last state-built dam was in 1959) Whether it actually ever happens remains to be seen, but it is a powerful sign that the intransigence of environmental idealogues will be pushed aside by the public when things get bad enough.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Stephen Segrest
Planning Engineer — If not SAIDI then what? Without some quantifiable metric (based on engineering standards which at least SAIDI does follow) all we have are “opinions” and “anecdotal evidence” — both pro and con.
↧
Comment on More renewables? Watch out for the Duck Curve by Planning Engineer
Rob – I strongly agree that: “The interesting question is how to cost effectively integrate diverse supplies – biomass, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar, biogas, etc. into the mix”. I also agree that there is value in having a diverse resource mix. I have meant to be clear on such things.
I support research into renewables, but not transforming the power grid into a huge experiment.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
