Source: http://www.blueskyelectric.net/blog/surge-protection-on-kauai/
electrical estimating licensed electricians residential electrician electrician company electrician tools
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Surge Protection on Kauai
Kauai’s electrical grid surges affect the life span of our computers, appliances, and other electronic equipment. Power surges can also completely roast the internal electronic parts during a storm or utility fault. What you need: Installing a whole house surge protector by a licensed electrician will greatly decrease the risk of power surge destruction. [...]
Wind Consequences (Part IV – Subsidies and Emissions)
This post is part of a five-part series on the adverse consequences of imposing industrial-scale wind plants on electricity systems. The series shows that there is no valid reason to pursue the policy of implementing new renewable energy sources in electricity generation, especially wind.
This post provides more information on the subsidies and emissions considerations for the scenarios summarized in Part I. Parts II and III dealt with cost implications. Part V this Thursday will focus on a number of other issues providing a complete picture of wind’s undesirability and unfeasibility in all respects.
Part I also provides links to the rest of the series.
Subsidies
Because subsidy issues are often raised, comparing those for wind and other generation plants, it is appropriate to show their effect on a MWh basis, regardless of the absolute amounts. The subsidy related to producing a useful output is the important consideration, because this is how electricity is generated, used and paid for. Table IV-1 shows this, but at the level that the wind plant owner experiences, not the full costs of wind to society, that is including wind balancing plant and unique-to-wind grid investments. Note the very high wind subsidies, especially relative to this limited view of costs.
Table IV-1 – Levelized Costs (For the New Plants Being Assessed) and Subsidies ($/MWh)
Source for subsidies: “Hard Facts: An Energy Primer”
This invalid, superficial view of wind subsidies appears to put wind at the same “cost” as the coal and natural gas plant types, and notably below nuclear. As described in Part III, comparisons cannot be made without the full wind costs taken into account. Remember this when claims are made about wind being competitive with other generation plant types as above.
High subsidies are claimed as needed because wind is promoted as being a new technology and therefore as needing support to encourage improvement, as other electricity generation technologies have enjoyed. First, wind is an old technology that has been in use for hundreds of years, and current wind turbines are basically little more than “modernized” versions. There is not much that can be improved upon to improve the conversion capability from wind to electrical energy, especially at the industrial-scale level of grid-feeding wind plants. Because wind turbines are very mechanically oriented, about the only approach available is to keep increasing the size of the already massive wind turbines being implemented today. However, this is a marginal and not desirable consideration considering the structural aspects and hardly justifies subsidization.
Finally the subsidization argument is sometimes supported by the very large energy resource potential represented by wind, which it is. The two most important arguments against this reasoning are (1) the highly diffused nature of the energy source that makes it useless for today’s developed societies (those wanting more information on this important aspect can look to these sources here, here and here), combined with (2) the reality that the conversion technology has reached its worthwhile limits. As an example, solar is a different consideration, because of the possibility of improved conversion technologies and in a truly distributed generation environment, but this is beyond what should be focused on for commercialization for decades.
Emissions
This raises the contentious question of the level of emissions savings provided by wind plants, which has never been conclusively determined, taking into account all the factors. Further, there is no published accurate, minute-by-minute, actual emissions by individual plant. Generally speaking, currently reported emissions information is just an estimate based on calculations using assumptions and simple algorithms. In some cases actual measurements are taken but are no better than those calculated as reported by the International Energy Agency (see page 35). A report by The Sustainable Energy Authority in Ireland, “Renewable Energy in Ireland”, in Appendix 1 also refreshingly recognizes the limitations to existing reporting methods.
There is an inescapable consequence to introducing wind’s production persistently erratic (over shorter periods) and unreliable (over longer periods) into electricity systems. Other generation plants must react to wind’s random minute-to-minute fluctuations as well as longer term absences and appearances. In effect, wind is another form of load on the electricity system that must be responded to in addition to the “normal” changes in demand. This forces other generation plants to operate less efficiently than they would in “normal” operations providing the steady, reliable electricity supply that modern societies require.
The result of the combination of these two sources (demand and wind) in the short term is a fairly random set of fluctuations with a variability of greater range than each individually, and this increases with wind penetration. Please, no further comments from the supposed “Statistics Professor” that the combination of two such random events in real time is the square root of the sum of the squares of the two inputs.
In other words, wind imposes a significantly greater need for frequency regulation control. Although not much reported on, frequency regulation generation plants appear to consume more fuel and produce more emissions dealing with this than they would if the normal short term variations in demand did not exist, even if the actual “average” amount of electricity produced is less during frequency regulation operation versus normal, steady operating conditions.
It appears that an international energy consulting firm, KEMA, has reported on this, as indicated by this study from the Netherlands, home of KEMA. This reference is also cited in another KEMA study (page 4 and note 1.). These claim that short term cycling coal and gas plants increases the fuel consumption (and hence emissions) over the normal operation of these plants even though they are producing less electricity during the cycling process. I unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a copy of this twice cited study from KEMA on two continents.
Here is a simple analogy. Imagine driving a car on a major highway at a normal (and fuel efficient) speed of say 55 mph. This corresponds to the normal operating conditions for fossil fuel plants, but ignoring normal short term demand fluctuations. Now imagine the same circumstances but introduce the repeated, and in short succession, applying of the brakes to reduce speed quickly to say 45 mph, and then pressing on the gas to accelerate back to 55 mph, or all sorts of combinations and ranges of this. This corresponds to the impact of wind fluctuations over and above normal demand fluctuations. Now imagine that the rate of change of the application of brakes and accelerator are amplified by this raised to the power of three. This is because with a wind turbine a doubling of wind speed increases electricity output by a factor of 8, and reducing wind speed by half reduces electricity output by factor of one-eighth. What do you think will be the effect on the fuel consumption, emissions and wear and tear on the engine, transmission and other moving parts of the car?
Now step out of this analogy and re-enter from a different point of view. The car in this thought experiment is now the wind production, not the wind balancing plants responding to it. Consider the effect on the other “normal” traffic around you. This represents a higher level view of the impact of introducing wind plants into an electricity system.
On the subject of plant start up and shut down to accommodate longer periods of wind variability, it appears that newer plants are more efficient in doing so. This should not be a distraction from the realities of the frequency of this need over time and the necessity of some existing plants being forced into doing this with the introduction of wind. Claims that future improvements in wind forecasting might provide some help here, but this should be relatively marginal. To put this in perspective, think in terms of weather forecasting in general.
As all the analyses of wind emissions effects that I have reviewed are incomplete, this prompted me to develop and continue to refine a calculator for fossil fuel and emissions savings for wind plants.[1] The calculator’s purpose is to provide a framework for the range of considerations required and, using fairly straight forward calculations, show the impact of wind. I produced a range of results depending on different input assumptions. The assumptions are necessitated by the lack of adequate data as described above. I believe that the most adverse for wind will be borne out when finally admitted to by those know and cannot or will not speak out (for a variety of reasons), and those who do not know and possibly do not wish to.
I could provide extensive references on all sides of this issue, but this would not resolve it today. This in itself should give readers pause for concern on this important subject.
Considering all this, my inescapable position is that wind plant presence in an electricity system does not contribute to fuel or emissions savings, and may actually increase these.
Cost of Emissions Savings
An important consideration in comparing the scenarios is their relative ability to reduce emissions, as well as the associated fossil fuel consumption, and the related costs in doing so. As for the above analyses this also takes the approach of looking at this on the basis of the year 12 new plant information and extending this over 40 years. As we have seen this amounts to 19.2 TWh of electricity production, except for some wind scenarios/options. As previously shown, there are options at the 15 year point for wind, as follows:
- Option 1. – Remove and do not replace the wind plants. In this case the gas plants and grid changes unique to wind may represent stranded costs or they might be useful in the ongoing generation fleet portfolio, or some blend of these two considerations. In this analysis the more likely full stranded costs are included as shown in Part III, Table III-3 and 5. Wind production for these scenarios over 15 years only is 2.2 and 7.2 TWh respectively.
- Option 2. – Re-invest in new wind plants to the capacity that existed at year 15. In this case the gas plants and grid changes unique to wind would be needed as before. The new wind plants will carry an implementation cost at each 15 year interval and produce the same amount of electricity over each 15 year period. The costs are as shown in Part III, Tables 4 and 6. Wind production for these scenarios over 40 years now is 5.7 and 19.2 TWh respectively.
In all cases the same levelized cost rates for wind will apply, assuming constant costs for wind plant installation and all costs for each scenario. Anyone wanting a more precise result, assuming some costs will increase and others decrease, can do so with more extensive analysis than provided here. Again, such added precision would not likely materially change the results. For example higher gas prices will affect all three of the gas and wind scenarios.
In the non-wind scenarios, the total costs can be determined by multiplying 19.2 TWh x 106 (to convert to MWh) by the levelized cost per MWh. The wind scenario cost are as determined in Part III, This cost can then be divided by the CO2 emissions saved by each scenario.
As already explained in Part I, I am working on the basis that it is better to be approximately right rather than wrong with considerable precision.
Table IV-2 provides the results for the scenarios, assuming coal plants are replaced in all scenarios. Emissions savings are less if other plant types are replaced, for example hydro and nuclear. See this post on the problems of cycling nuclear plants. In the two wind scenarios a range of CO2 emissions savings rates from 0.1 tonnes/MWh (to save dividing by 0 and getting an answer of infinity for the cost of savings per MWh), and a generous 0.3 tonnes/MWh. If this seems unreasonably punitive to wind, review the section on “Emissions” above.
First some sample calculations. The basis for emissions saving is taken to be coal plants that produce CO2 emissions at the rate of 1.1 tonnes of per MWh. For an emissions rate for gas plants at 0.5 tonnes/MWh, the rate of emissions savings is 1.1 – 0.5 = 0.6 tonnes/MWh. So for the gas plant scenario the emissions savings over 40 years are:
Gas plant emissions savings = 0.6 (tonnes/MWh) x 19.2 (TWh) x 106 (converting to MWh) = 11,500,000 tons or 11.5 million tonnes
In the wind/natural gas scenario, assuming the wind plants are replaced, at a wind plant emissions savings rate of 0.1 tonne/MWh the emissions savings are:
Wind savings = 0.1 x 5.7 (TWh) x 106 (converting to MWh) = 570,000 tons or 0.6 million tonnes
Table IV-2 – CO2 Emissions Savings and Associated Costs Relative to Existing Coal Plants
By these measures wind is more expensive by thousands of dollars per tonne of CO2 saved than nuclear or natural gas. The more realistic wind scenarios/options are the “No Replacement” ones, because support for wind cannot persist as reality sinks in.
Note that any contemplated imposition of a carbon tax on fossil fuel plants would not put wind plants at the same cost of emissions savings as nuclear and gas, unless such a tax was thousands of dollars per tonne. As far as nuclear is concerned, wind proponents might try to justify additional costs as well. Remember I used significantly higher implementation costs than the DOE/EIA to provide for such eventualities. In addition such tax on wind balancing plants should be charged to wind, so this becomes a bit of a “merry-go-round”.
In this analysis all plants are given the benefit of their TWh produced even though this includes the energy invested component. Looking at this from the point of view of plant production after deduction of the electrical energy component of EIe would widen the gap between the two wind and the other scenarios.
Implications for the U.S.
Remember the above information is on the basis of 1 TWh in year 0. Table IV-3 translates this information to the US case based on 2010 electricity production of 4,000 TWh. In the same year the US 2010 CO2 emissions due to electricity production was 2,389 mtonnes.[2]
Table IV-3 – Implications for the US
The most likely outcome of pursuing wind as a CO2 emissions reduction strategy is the Wind/Natural Gas scenario with the No Replacement option, as it should demonstrated within this 15 year time frame that wind is not a feasible policy. The sooner the better.
For comparison purposes the Wind/Natural Gas and Replacement Option is more equitable as this is the realistic limit of wind penetration, and all plants being assessed are producing over the period of 40 years. At best, the wind savings are most likely in the range of few percent over the life of the wind plants at a cost of $7.6 trillion, compared to nuclear with 88% emissions savings at the same cost and natural gas at 48% savings for $5.6 trillion.
Coming Next
Part V will provide a brief review some of the many other undesirable aspects of wind plants, all of which are needless and unavoidable if the fundamental feasibility case (technical, financial and operational) for wind is properly evaluated, and, of course, some concluding remarks. In summary, we must stop the folly of supporting the implementation of wind plants, and like industrial-scale, low quality, grid-feeding electrical energy sources.
[1] There are a number of posts for the calculator reflecting changes and improvements, which did not alter the nature of the results. Here are the related posts in order of appearance.
As first introduced, which admittedly contains some “glitches” http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
The remaining posts in this first series are Parts II, III, IV and V, which supplies the first set of updates.
Further updates (including a link to access the latest version) and analyses were provided in a two part series starting here.
[2] DOE/EIA (2010). “Electric Power Annual 2010 Data Tables” http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/table3.9.cfm
Source: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/09/wind-consequences-iv/
what is an electrical contractor electrical service service electrical
NRDC Wind Jobs Report Doesn’t Make the Grade (250 MW does not create 1,000+ jobs)
The carefully-crafted press release by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) presents their new wind-energy jobs report as thorough, objective, and academically sound. Although such an assessment would be very welcome, their “report” is no more than marketing propaganda. Their blatant bias here gives further credence to a piece by Henry Miller of the Hoover Institution, “Bad Faith and Bad Science at the NRDC,” which concluded that “NRDC continues to peddle junk science” for their own financial gain.
Energy specialists ordinarily don’t have the time to critique sales brochures, but here are some quick observations on this material:
1 – There is a strong implication given that a 250 MW wind energy facility creates “1,079 jobs.” That is not true. The vast majority of the jobs cited are for people already employed — e.g. lawyers, real estate professionals, acoustical consultants, etc. Put another way, these people would not be unemployed just because a 250 MW facility was not built.
2 – Contrary to the insinuations made by NRDC, “1,079 jobs for a 250 MW facility” are not full-time dedicated jobs. For instance an Iberdrola draftsman may work for one month designing part of some 250 MW project, and then move onto something else. He is apparently counted as “one job”. The proper way to deal with this situation is to show a more applicable metric: “job years” rather than “jobs.”
3 – How many of the jobs will actually be in the US? The NRDC report avoids that detail. For instance, the Iberdrola draftsman mentioned in the prior item, is likely a Spanish citizen working in Spain. British leaders were enticed by job claims to approve the largest wind project in the world. This subsequent investigation concluded:
“The Danish operator of the world’s biggest offshore windfarm, off Cumbria, is the latest to come under fire for favoring foreign suppliers and allegedly providing ‘negligible’ work or services to local UK companies.”
4 – For all of the first three reasons, the NRDC job claims can not be extrapolated. In other words, ten 250 MW wind facilities do NOT result in 10,790 jobs. This important point is not made sufficiently clear. In fact it’s much worse than that. This LA Times investigation concluded:
“Even though a record 10,000 MW of new wind generating capacity came online, few jobs were created overall, and wind power manufacturing employment fell.” [Note that this dismal conclusion came after starting up the equivalent of forty 250 MW projects!]
5 – Maybe I missed it, but in each of the categories where NRDC claimed there were a number of jobs, I could not find any independent verification of the employment numbers they asserted. The “Methodology” section (p 34) gave a casual explanation of how the numbers came about, but there is zero actual real-world data provided.
In other words, the job claim numbers are not transparent, so no verification is possible. Based on the numerous other blatant propaganda statements made throughout this piece, the job numbers can be safely assumed to be likewise exaggerated. See this detailed analysis that looks at this issue, and others.
6 – Note these two statement in the report: a) “This report does not involve an existing project, but rather an ‘illustrative’ project…” and b) “This analysis is not intended to provide a proxy for current U.S. wind industry employment.” (p 34). Translated into English, these statements mean that the job numbers claimed by NRDC are not based on empirical, real-world numbers, but are computer calculations, estimates, approximations and other guesses — all made by wind promoters and others having a vested interest in the outcome. NRDC should have made that clear in their opening remarks.
7 – Nowhere in this report are NET jobs discussed. Several studies by independent experts (e.g. here or here) have concluded that wind development results in NET JOB LOSSES. This is because more jobs are lost than created due to such negative impacts as higher cost electricity.
8 – Another important consideration (unmentioned in this report) is: what is the cost per job created? Analyses by independent financial experts conclude that the cost per wind job created by such subsidies, is extremely high (e.g. here and here). [Speaking of costs, the report states (p 31) that extending the PTC "will bring down costs." This bold sales pitch is not substantiated. It would seem that a more accurate statement would be that extending the PTC "will maintain developers' high profit margins."]
9 – Of course any tax handout (e.g. the PTC) will create some jobs. If we assume that we will impose this financial burden on taxpayers, an important perspective to consider is: how many jobs would be created if the same amount of tax revenue was directed to another area — e.g. for a more reliable energy source? The NRDC report never examines that critical question.
10-Which would be better, to have 1 GWH of electrical energy provided by: a) 250 jobs, or b) 1,000 jobs? The NRDC document implies that more jobs is better. The fallacy of that premise is explained here.
11-Energy attorney Chris Horner hits the nail on the head, saying:
“There is nothing – no program, no hobby, no vice, no crime — that does not ‘create jobs’. Tsunamis, computer viruses and shooting convenience store clerks all ‘create jobs’. So a jobs contention misses the mark — since it applies to all, it is an argument in favor of none. Instead of making a case on the merits, an employment claim is an admission that one has no good arguments.”
12-Yet another major consideration is: what is the net societal benefit of any preserved jobs? For instance there is also a production chain of jobs involved with the eight-track audio tape business. They are disappearing due to the fact that alternative products (e.g. CDs) are better. Should taxpayers subsidize the eight-track tape business to preserve those jobs? This report provided zero scientific proof that wind energy provides any societal net gains.
The conclusion is obvious: the sole objective of AWEA, NRDC and their anti-taxpayer allies is to mine the wallets of unsuspecting citizens. This short AWEA TV interview yesterday makes it quite clear. Citizens should get educated about this charade (see PTCFacts.Info), and then promote science-based energy policies. That will go a LONG way towards ending an era of chronic, unsustainable budget deficits.
Source: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/09/nrdc-wind-jobs-report-fails/
electrical work electrical job electrical tools electric work electrical services
Energy Eye™ HVAC Energy Management System
We are Kauai’s only: Factory Certified Installer Certified Technical Service Provider Distributor Energy Eye™ is helping hotels save from 15% to 35% on their guest room air conditioning expenses – GUARANTEED! What is Energy Eye? It is an energy management system designed for hotel/resort rooms, offices, and condominiums to control your AC cooling based on room occupancy. [...]
Source: http://www.blueskyelectric.net/blog/energy-eye-hvac-energy-management-system/
Electric Wire Color Coding, Terminals, and Uses
Electric wires have a special coating and color to them to identify their uses. Terminals on devices, such as switches and receptacles, have their own color codes so that the correct wires are attached to them. But the number one reason is for safety. By attaching the right colored wires to the right colored terminals, you'll have the correct connection.
...Source: http://electrical.about.com/b/2012/09/21/electric-wire-color-coding-terminals-and-uses.htm
electrical jobs a electrical contractors contractors electrical electrical contractors in electrical contractors
Wind Consequences (Part IV – Subsidies and Emissions)
This post is part of a five-part series on the adverse consequences of imposing industrial-scale wind plants on electricity systems. The series shows that there is no valid reason to pursue the policy of implementing new renewable energy sources in electricity generation, especially wind.
This post provides more information on the subsidies and emissions considerations for the scenarios summarized in Part I. Parts II and III dealt with cost implications. Part V this Thursday will focus on a number of other issues providing a complete picture of wind’s undesirability and unfeasibility in all respects.
Part I also provides links to the rest of the series.
Subsidies
Because subsidy issues are often raised, comparing those for wind and other generation plants, it is appropriate to show their effect on a MWh basis, regardless of the absolute amounts. The subsidy related to producing a useful output is the important consideration, because this is how electricity is generated, used and paid for. Table IV-1 shows this, but at the level that the wind plant owner experiences, not the full costs of wind to society, that is including wind balancing plant and unique-to-wind grid investments. Note the very high wind subsidies, especially relative to this limited view of costs.
Table IV-1 – Levelized Costs (For the New Plants Being Assessed) and Subsidies ($/MWh)
Source for subsidies: “Hard Facts: An Energy Primer”
This invalid, superficial view of wind subsidies appears to put wind at the same “cost” as the coal and natural gas plant types, and notably below nuclear. As described in Part III, comparisons cannot be made without the full wind costs taken into account. Remember this when claims are made about wind being competitive with other generation plant types as above.
High subsidies are claimed as needed because wind is promoted as being a new technology and therefore as needing support to encourage improvement, as other electricity generation technologies have enjoyed. First, wind is an old technology that has been in use for hundreds of years, and current wind turbines are basically little more than “modernized” versions. There is not much that can be improved upon to improve the conversion capability from wind to electrical energy, especially at the industrial-scale level of grid-feeding wind plants. Because wind turbines are very mechanically oriented, about the only approach available is to keep increasing the size of the already massive wind turbines being implemented today. However, this is a marginal and not desirable consideration considering the structural aspects and hardly justifies subsidization.
Finally the subsidization argument is sometimes supported by the very large energy resource potential represented by wind, which it is. The two most important arguments against this reasoning are (1) the highly diffused nature of the energy source that makes it useless for today’s developed societies (those wanting more information on this important aspect can look to these sources here, here and here), combined with (2) the reality that the conversion technology has reached its worthwhile limits. As an example, solar is a different consideration, because of the possibility of improved conversion technologies and in a truly distributed generation environment, but this is beyond what should be focused on for commercialization for decades.
Emissions
This raises the contentious question of the level of emissions savings provided by wind plants, which has never been conclusively determined, taking into account all the factors. Further, there is no published accurate, minute-by-minute, actual emissions by individual plant. Generally speaking, currently reported emissions information is just an estimate based on calculations using assumptions and simple algorithms. In some cases actual measurements are taken but are no better than those calculated as reported by the International Energy Agency (see page 35). A report by The Sustainable Energy Authority in Ireland, “Renewable Energy in Ireland”, in Appendix 1 also refreshingly recognizes the limitations to existing reporting methods.
There is an inescapable consequence to introducing wind’s production persistently erratic (over shorter periods) and unreliable (over longer periods) into electricity systems. Other generation plants must react to wind’s random minute-to-minute fluctuations as well as longer term absences and appearances. In effect, wind is another form of load on the electricity system that must be responded to in addition to the “normal” changes in demand. This forces other generation plants to operate less efficiently than they would in “normal” operations providing the steady, reliable electricity supply that modern societies require.
The result of the combination of these two sources (demand and wind) in the short term is a fairly random set of fluctuations with a variability of greater range than each individually, and this increases with wind penetration. Please, no further comments from the supposed “Statistics Professor” that the combination of two such random events in real time is the square root of the sum of the squares of the two inputs.
In other words, wind imposes a significantly greater need for frequency regulation control. Although not much reported on, frequency regulation generation plants appear to consume more fuel and produce more emissions dealing with this than they would if the normal short term variations in demand did not exist, even if the actual “average” amount of electricity produced is less during frequency regulation operation versus normal, steady operating conditions.
It appears that an international energy consulting firm, KEMA, has reported on this, as indicated by this study from the Netherlands, home of KEMA. This reference is also cited in another KEMA study (page 4 and note 1.). These claim that short term cycling coal and gas plants increases the fuel consumption (and hence emissions) over the normal operation of these plants even though they are producing less electricity during the cycling process. I unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a copy of this twice cited study from KEMA on two continents.
Here is a simple analogy. Imagine driving a car on a major highway at a normal (and fuel efficient) speed of say 55 mph. This corresponds to the normal operating conditions for fossil fuel plants, but ignoring normal short term demand fluctuations. Now imagine the same circumstances but introduce the repeated, and in short succession, applying of the brakes to reduce speed quickly to say 45 mph, and then pressing on the gas to accelerate back to 55 mph, or all sorts of combinations and ranges of this. This corresponds to the impact of wind fluctuations over and above normal demand fluctuations. Now imagine that the rate of change of the application of brakes and accelerator are amplified by this raised to the power of three. This is because with a wind turbine a doubling of wind speed increases electricity output by a factor of 8, and reducing wind speed by half reduces electricity output by factor of one-eighth. What do you think will be the effect on the fuel consumption, emissions and wear and tear on the engine, transmission and other moving parts of the car?
Now step out of this analogy and re-enter from a different point of view. The car in this thought experiment is now the wind production, not the wind balancing plants responding to it. Consider the effect on the other “normal” traffic around you. This represents a higher level view of the impact of introducing wind plants into an electricity system.
On the subject of plant start up and shut down to accommodate longer periods of wind variability, it appears that newer plants are more efficient in doing so. This should not be a distraction from the realities of the frequency of this need over time and the necessity of some existing plants being forced into doing this with the introduction of wind. Claims that future improvements in wind forecasting might provide some help here, but this should be relatively marginal. To put this in perspective, think in terms of weather forecasting in general.
As all the analyses of wind emissions effects that I have reviewed are incomplete, this prompted me to develop and continue to refine a calculator for fossil fuel and emissions savings for wind plants.[1] The calculator’s purpose is to provide a framework for the range of considerations required and, using fairly straight forward calculations, show the impact of wind. I produced a range of results depending on different input assumptions. The assumptions are necessitated by the lack of adequate data as described above. I believe that the most adverse for wind will be borne out when finally admitted to by those know and cannot or will not speak out (for a variety of reasons), and those who do not know and possibly do not wish to.
I could provide extensive references on all sides of this issue, but this would not resolve it today. This in itself should give readers pause for concern on this important subject.
Considering all this, my inescapable position is that wind plant presence in an electricity system does not contribute to fuel or emissions savings, and may actually increase these.
Cost of Emissions Savings
An important consideration in comparing the scenarios is their relative ability to reduce emissions, as well as the associated fossil fuel consumption, and the related costs in doing so. As for the above analyses this also takes the approach of looking at this on the basis of the year 12 new plant information and extending this over 40 years. As we have seen this amounts to 19.2 TWh of electricity production, except for some wind scenarios/options. As previously shown, there are options at the 15 year point for wind, as follows:
- Option 1. – Remove and do not replace the wind plants. In this case the gas plants and grid changes unique to wind may represent stranded costs or they might be useful in the ongoing generation fleet portfolio, or some blend of these two considerations. In this analysis the more likely full stranded costs are included as shown in Part III, Table III-3 and 5. Wind production for these scenarios over 15 years only is 2.2 and 7.2 TWh respectively.
- Option 2. – Re-invest in new wind plants to the capacity that existed at year 15. In this case the gas plants and grid changes unique to wind would be needed as before. The new wind plants will carry an implementation cost at each 15 year interval and produce the same amount of electricity over each 15 year period. The costs are as shown in Part III, Tables 4 and 6. Wind production for these scenarios over 40 years now is 5.7 and 19.2 TWh respectively.
In all cases the same levelized cost rates for wind will apply, assuming constant costs for wind plant installation and all costs for each scenario. Anyone wanting a more precise result, assuming some costs will increase and others decrease, can do so with more extensive analysis than provided here. Again, such added precision would not likely materially change the results. For example higher gas prices will affect all three of the gas and wind scenarios.
In the non-wind scenarios, the total costs can be determined by multiplying 19.2 TWh x 106 (to convert to MWh) by the levelized cost per MWh. The wind scenario cost are as determined in Part III, This cost can then be divided by the CO2 emissions saved by each scenario.
As already explained in Part I, I am working on the basis that it is better to be approximately right rather than wrong with considerable precision.
Table IV-2 provides the results for the scenarios, assuming coal plants are replaced in all scenarios. Emissions savings are less if other plant types are replaced, for example hydro and nuclear. See this post on the problems of cycling nuclear plants. In the two wind scenarios a range of CO2 emissions savings rates from 0.1 tonnes/MWh (to save dividing by 0 and getting an answer of infinity for the cost of savings per MWh), and a generous 0.3 tonnes/MWh. If this seems unreasonably punitive to wind, review the section on “Emissions” above.
First some sample calculations. The basis for emissions saving is taken to be coal plants that produce CO2 emissions at the rate of 1.1 tonnes of per MWh. For an emissions rate for gas plants at 0.5 tonnes/MWh, the rate of emissions savings is 1.1 – 0.5 = 0.6 tonnes/MWh. So for the gas plant scenario the emissions savings over 40 years are:
Gas plant emissions savings = 0.6 (tonnes/MWh) x 19.2 (TWh) x 106 (converting to MWh) = 11,500,000 tons or 11.5 million tonnes
In the wind/natural gas scenario, assuming the wind plants are replaced, at a wind plant emissions savings rate of 0.1 tonne/MWh the emissions savings are:
Wind savings = 0.1 x 5.7 (TWh) x 106 (converting to MWh) = 570,000 tons or 0.6 million tonnes
Table IV-2 – CO2 Emissions Savings and Associated Costs Relative to Existing Coal Plants
By these measures wind is more expensive by thousands of dollars per tonne of CO2 saved than nuclear or natural gas. The more realistic wind scenarios/options are the “No Replacement” ones, because support for wind cannot persist as reality sinks in.
Note that any contemplated imposition of a carbon tax on fossil fuel plants would not put wind plants at the same cost of emissions savings as nuclear and gas, unless such a tax was thousands of dollars per tonne. As far as nuclear is concerned, wind proponents might try to justify additional costs as well. Remember I used significantly higher implementation costs than the DOE/EIA to provide for such eventualities. In addition such tax on wind balancing plants should be charged to wind, so this becomes a bit of a “merry-go-round”.
In this analysis all plants are given the benefit of their TWh produced even though this includes the energy invested component. Looking at this from the point of view of plant production after deduction of the electrical energy component of EIe would widen the gap between the two wind and the other scenarios.
Implications for the U.S.
Remember the above information is on the basis of 1 TWh in year 0. Table IV-3 translates this information to the US case based on 2010 electricity production of 4,000 TWh. In the same year the US 2010 CO2 emissions due to electricity production was 2,389 mtonnes.[2]
Table IV-3 – Implications for the US
The most likely outcome of pursuing wind as a CO2 emissions reduction strategy is the Wind/Natural Gas scenario with the No Replacement option, as it should demonstrated within this 15 year time frame that wind is not a feasible policy. The sooner the better.
For comparison purposes the Wind/Natural Gas and Replacement Option is more equitable as this is the realistic limit of wind penetration, and all plants being assessed are producing over the period of 40 years. At best, the wind savings are most likely in the range of few percent over the life of the wind plants at a cost of $7.6 trillion, compared to nuclear with 88% emissions savings at the same cost and natural gas at 48% savings for $5.6 trillion.
Coming Next
Part V will provide a brief review some of the many other undesirable aspects of wind plants, all of which are needless and unavoidable if the fundamental feasibility case (technical, financial and operational) for wind is properly evaluated, and, of course, some concluding remarks. In summary, we must stop the folly of supporting the implementation of wind plants, and like industrial-scale, low quality, grid-feeding electrical energy sources.
[1] There are a number of posts for the calculator reflecting changes and improvements, which did not alter the nature of the results. Here are the related posts in order of appearance.
As first introduced, which admittedly contains some “glitches” http://www.masterresource.org/2009/11/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-i-a-framework-and-calculator/
The remaining posts in this first series are Parts II, III, IV and V, which supplies the first set of updates.
Further updates (including a link to access the latest version) and analyses were provided in a two part series starting here.
[2] DOE/EIA (2010). “Electric Power Annual 2010 Data Tables” http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/table3.9.cfm
Source: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/09/wind-consequences-iv/
Monday, October 1, 2012
Infrared Inspecting New Equipment
WHY BRAND NEW INSTALLATIONS NEED TO BE THERMALLY INSPECTED
- New Installation Thermo PDF
- Thermography Inspection Performed on December 14th 2011
- The Image is of a “Factory Installed” Bus Connection from the 3,000 amp vertical bus to the primary side of an 800 amp distribution circuit breaker.
- This temperature abnormality was found during the Thermography inspection on phase c of the newly installed GE switchgear. The temperature difference between phase C and phase B is 20 degrees ferenheight (Image #2). The breaker was aproximatley 30% loaded at the time of inspection (phase C-278amps phase B- 284amps). After removing the factory installed GE circuit breaker we found that the insulation tape had overlapped and restricted the current flow from the main bussway in the gear to the circuit breaker lug (Image #1).
- The repair was made and the tape was properly removed from the switch gear (Image #3). A re-scan was perfomed on the circuit breaker (Image #4) and phase c was actually running 2 degrees cooler than phase b.
Source: http://cooper-electric.net/infrared-inspecting-new-equipment/
electrical inspection electrical maintenance electrician certification electrical contracting contracting electrical
Shocked...Don't Be a Victim
There are certain dangers that may exist when you encounter a shock victim. Here are the safe ways to approach and help a shock victim. Beware of your first instict, to rush up to the victim and touch them. The danger lies in the fact the victim may still be attached to the power source that initiated the shock in the first place, putting you in danger of also being shocked.
...Source: http://electrical.about.com/b/2012/09/15/shocked-dont-be-a-victim.htm
Shockingly Humorous
OK everyone. It's time to come clean and spread those shocking moments with the rest of us. Come on... you know you all have those special oops moments that your brain just wasn't kicked into high gear and you did the unthinkable...got shocked. It may have been from household electricity, a spark plug on your lawn mower or by rubbing your feet across the floor in your house and touching something only to get an electrostatic shock, ouch! Here is still one of my all time favorites! I still get a chuckle every time I read it. How about you?
...Source: http://electrical.about.com/b/2012/09/22/2208.htm
electric repair contractor electrical electrical contractor in what is an electrical contractor electrical service
Poly Tarpaulins And Their Many Uses
Poly tarpaulins are made from a multi-mesh fabric that is coated with polyethylene sheets and comes in a variety of mil and mesh counts. They come in a choice of sizes and are used for many difference purposes. They are waterproof and rot resistant making them a handy item to have around.
The thickness of the tarp is what is referred to as mils. A mil is equal to . 001 or 1/1000 of an inch. The larger the number the thicker the tarp. Most tarps are 6 mils but they can come in as many as 12 to 23 mils thick if using for a canopy. Mesh count is the number of threads per inch. A 10 by 10 mesh count would have 10 threads per inch in both directions.
Sold in either precut sizes or by the roll the poly tarpaulin will come with either brass, aluminum or metal grommets. These are used to attach the tarp to a whatever it is that you are covering. The spacing can vary from 18 to 36 inches. The shorter spacing will add strength and minimize movement and tearing.
On each corner of the tarp is a reinforcing triangular plastic cover to prevent the grommets from tearing through the fabric. Corners are more prone to tension especially in high winds. A rope is sewn into the hem of the tarp to add further strength.
Used in a variety of ways the poly tarpaulin is used to cover roofs in remodels or when a leak is discovered. They are great in hurricane weather conditions to protect structures and belongings. They make great canopies to provide shelter or shade. Many different types of materials are covered with them like hay, lumber and gym floors.
Commonly treated to provide UV protection from the sun, they resist mildew and rot. They perform well in freezing temperature conditions. The silver or grey color tarps contain an additional sun blocking layer. These colors also provide total shade and protection from the elements.
<input id=”gwProxy” type=”hidden” /><input id=”jsProxy”>
-
About the Author:
Michael Stein is the President of Tarps Plus – www.tarpsplus.com Tarps Plus has been distributing tarps since 1954.
Article Source
Source: http://reschelectrical.com/poly-tarpaulins-and-their-many-uses/
emergency electrician licensed electrician electrical supply company
Electrician Los Angeles – Providing Landscape Lighting Ideas
Outdoor lighting can be one of the easiest improvements that you can make to the exterior of your home, and it can make a huge impact. Not only will outdoor lights improve the way your home looks at night, but it can also increase the value of your home. If you wish to sell your home in the future, you will be able to add your exterior lights to the list of amenities that your home can offer potential buyers.
Some of the most popular places to add landscape lighting are along paths or walkways, and around patios or decks. Los Angeles homeowners often place outdoor lighting at different points throughout their flower gardens, too, which creates a beautiful setting for any summer evening. By placing small outdoor lights throughout the yard, it gives the impression of twinkling stars right in your own back yard. Landscape lights can be installed in many unexpected places, such as your own vegetable garden!
Lighting Up Your Path
The Electric Connection, a licensed, bonded and insured local electrician in Los Angeles, can be a big help when it comes to deciding what type and style of outdoor lighting to use. They can also recommend where to place your lighting, and how far apart the lights should be. It’s always best to have this type of electrical lighting done by a licensed electrician.
Lighting Your Deck or Patio
Strategically placed outdoor lighting can be just the thing to help you make better use of your deck or patio, whether you’re spending time outdoors at night simply enjoying a quiet evening at home, or if you’re hosting a big party or a neighborhood get-together.
When it comes to the types and styles of landscape lighting choices that are available, there’s no need to worry because you’ll discover that there are plenty of options to choose from. For help and suggestions, you can find us on the web at TheElectricConnection.com. You can also give us a call to chat with us about your outdoor lighting options during our regular office hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday through Friday. We’ll be happy to set up a free landscape lighting estimate for you whenever you’re ready to get started.
electrical installation contractors electric electric contractors electrical repair commercial electric
Wind Consequences (Part II: Analysis Approach and Implementation Costs)
Part I yesterday provided an introduction and summary of results; this post describes in more detail the analysis approach and implementation costs. Parts III and IV will cover the full costs and other results.
As will be seen, dealing with wind is not as easy as some would suggest.
Analysis Approach
This analysis looks at a 13 year period (years 0-12) in which the demand growth and plant retirement due to obsolescence/age will be each 2% per year compounded. Assuming year 0 is 2012, year 12 is 2025. Table II-1 shows the situation at year 12.
Table II-1 – Year 12 Situation for a Year 0 Demand Level of 1.0 TWh
Using demand of 1 TWh in year 0 allows easy scaling for a particular jurisdiction. For example in 2010 the total US electricity production was about 4,000 TWh.
The profile of the new generation capacity to meet the electricity production gap of 0.48 TWh would normally be a combination of plant types depending on a number of considerations. However in most cases, this analysis shows the effect of using one plant type only to meet the electricity production gap. This is done to illustrate the performance of the energy source involved.
When wind is present, another plant type must also be included to balance wind’s persistent erratic behavior. This is otherwise redundant new capacity, meaning over and above that which would normally be required. There are two “wind” scenarios. One is a combination of wind and natural gas to meet the electricity production gap. Given the belief, by some at least, that more extensive wind implementation is desirable, the second scenario addresses this, allowing wind to provide the full 0.48 TWh, which we will see is not feasible.
My calculations are simplifications of complex considerations. There are more precise/sophisticated approaches in other studies, which may appear more impressive, but these will be obscure to many, and not necessarily more accurate, due to some or all of the following:
- Sophistication of the approach, meaning the assumptions and treatment of the considerations are so difficult to understand that the whole process is largely inaccessible to many people. It also has the appearance of validity because of this. Further the authors themselves might be blinded by this.
- Inappropriate use of complex mathematics, which is often a substitute for thinking/understanding on the part of the author(s) and readers.
- Accuracy and incompleteness of the underlying public data, especially emissions data.
- Omission of some of the necessary considerations, as included here, resulting in an even more “simple”, but superficial, approach, which does not produce useful results.
So my analysis falls between these two positions. It is more straight-forward and transparent, and I suggest sufficiently indicative of realistic results. See the DOE/EIA assumptions for electricity calculations in the Energy Outlook 2012 for an example of more complex treatment of the issues.
However complexity is hard to avoid given the nature of the matter. So the logic I use is complex because of the many factors at play, and this is unfortunate but necessary. On the other hand, the mathematics that follows is reasonably straight forward, the most complex being the determination of the “payment” amount for a given interest rate over time for a capital investment.
In the paraphrased words of Nassim Taleb, one can be wrong with great precision (for whatever the reason and by whatever means) instead of approximately right.[1] As well one can be wrong by being simple, but superficial.
There is so much detail that it is not practical to present it all in this series. Those interested can see it at Calculations.
Scenarios Analyzed
The scenarios analyzed are for coal, nuclear, natural gas, onshore wind/natural gas combination, and onshore wind to meet the electricity production gap, respectively. Offshore wind is not considered because it will perform no better overall than onshore.
The analysis draws on information in DOE/EIA publications.[2] For new plant implementations the “advanced” plant type information is used. In the natural gas cases, performance is taken to be the average of advanced combined cycle and advanced combustion turbine information. This combination in the natural gas scenario provides a good baseline for comparison purposes.
Table II-2 shows results in year 12 for these scenarios, assuming that in each case the energy source(s) indicated provides the total electricity production gap.
Table II-2 – Results for Year 12 by EROEIe Performance
At a high level of analysis, it appears that all energy sources identified in each scenario can fill the production gap to meet the future demand, as shown in row 1. Row 3 demonstrates the effect of deducting 50% of the energy investment (EIe) required for the new electricity infrastructure. This shortfall increases dramatically as EROEIe decreases. Note the 50% factored electrical energy component of EIe component in row 2 does not contribute to meeting the demand shown in row 1. It represents an increase in demand.
The shortfall due to the factored EIe (line 2) may be made up from existing plant capacity, increasing the capacity factor for new plants or by adding additional new plants. This is a complex matter and depends in part upon the profile of the plant portfolio retired/added and those remaining over the analysis period. For example existing or new hydro generation plants typically have a low capacity factor and cannot realistically be relied upon for more production, and existing or new plants supplying base load already have a high capacity factor and consequently are not available for additional production. In the higher EIe scenarios, it is assumed that additional new plant capacity is required.
For the wind/natural gas scenario, duplicate, reliable, flexible capacity, that is 88 MW of gas plant capacity, is required for wind balancing. In this analysis it is higher than the full wind case for a number of reasons:
- The 38% wind penetration represents a level that is not supportable within an electricity system without substantially more gas plant balancing capacity than that shown here.[3] This is a complex scenario to analyze and the most straight forward approach is to assume substantial wind curtailment, or some other form of dumping, such as export or paying some customers, who are able to accommodate it, to take the excess electricity produced. The analysis assumes an annualized average of 55 MW for wind, so curtailment would occur to a high degree when the wind electricity flux exceeds 55 MW (MWh/h) in real time. Alternatively, gas plant capacity would be required to meet demand during periods of real time wind production below 55 MW. The wind balancing gas plants will operate at lower efficiencies as a result.
- Higher gas plant capacities would be an alternative approach, otherwise wind may have gained too much in this analysis. Some attempt has been made to indicate this, primarily to introduce it as a factor to be noted, but it is not easy to project the amounts involved, because this would be dependent on the inevitable curtailment levels described above. This approach would also mean some of the existing plant base would have to be reduced to accommodate the combined wind/gas production, which may or may not be feasible, depending on the profile of that portion of the total plant fleet. There are cost consequences in this connection, which are covered below.
To remove the wind scenario would leave open the question as to its consequences. So it has been left in with the understanding that it is not a realistic option at all, but some measure of these consequences can be determined.
There are other factors not covered in the wind scenarios. First is the effect of the inevitable lower wind capacity factors as penetration increases due to the better sites being already taken. Second, payments that would likely be made to (1) wind plant owners to compensate them for curtailment, otherwise they would not be financially viable (alarms bells should sound here), and (2) conventional plant operators who will be required to reduce production, otherwise reasonably expected to be earned, due to policies requiring wind to take precedence, as it occurs.
Finally, do not be distracted by reports of wind causing low (or even negative) electricity rates in the wholesale markets. The costs shown here must be paid by someone and will appear in taxes and retail electricity rates in the jurisdiction hosting the wind plants.
The adverse effects of wind imposition increase with wind penetration. Table II-3- provides this for the wind scenarios, which is aggressive at 11%. This is in the range of the most wind intensive countries in Europe (including Denmark after taking exports into account), which are at domestic saturation levels. Remember though that these countries are dependent on international markets for their otherwise unsustainable wind turbine manufacturing industries so must live with the consequences to promote the policy. The US wind penetration in electrical energy terms in 2010 was 2.3%.[4]
Table II-3 – Wind Penetration
Be careful with wind penetration statistics to properly understand them. First they should be in energy terms, not capacity, and should be free of exports and any special treatment of curtailment.
New Generation Plant Implementation Costs
Table II-4 shows details of the cumulative overnight implementation costs for new plants at year 12. Reserve considerations are covered in Calculations. In the wind scenarios these are part of all the total costs associated with the persistent erratic nature of wind. This starts to explain the significant variance with DOE/EIA reported amounts when levelized costs are shown in Part III. So the following information starts on the path of providing a basis for comparison to the other plant types.
Table II-4 – New Plant Cumulative Overnight Implementation Costs at Year 12
DOE/EIA overnight capital costs are used except in the nuclear scenario, for which a higher implementation cost of $8.0 per MW (versus the DOE/EIA cost of $5.3 million) is taken to be conservative. The wind/natural gas case has lower implementation costs than nuclear largely because of the gas plant contribution, which provides 70% of the electricity production gap due to the assumed 30% capacity factor for wind. A more instructive comparison can be seen in the wind scenario.
However, remember that in both wind scenarios, the wind plants produce for only 15 years versus the other plant types, which have longer lives. For comparison purposes, both wind scenarios should assess the costs for two wind plant replacements over the 40 year period, which would raise the wind/natural gas new plant cost to $476 million and the wind scenario to $1,389 million. As we will see this is not the total picture.
For the Table II-4 values, the US investment, excluding unique-to-wind grid investments, for the wind/natural gas case would be $212 million (per TWh) x 4,000 (total US TWh in 2010) = $712,000 million or $712 billion and consistent with my findings elsewhere.
In the wind/natural gas scenario the gas plant capacity is required to ensure wind is fully balanced. Some of this capacity is generating electricity that is balancing wind, but coincidentally is meeting some demand. The full plant implementation costs are attributed to wind, because wind requires that capacity to be there for it to work in an electricity system. When full wind costs are allocated in later posts, the “normal” costs of the gas plant operations and maintenance, including fuel costs which are significant, are not attributed to wind, even though the energy flux is part of the necessary wind balancing. However there is an efficiency loss for wind balancing plants and this is attributed to wind costs.
A baseline of the minimum total capacity needed to meet future demand appears to be in the range of 198-229 MW per TWh of electricity production (Table II-3). An analysis in Calculations supports 230 MW. The coal and nuclear scenarios show lower numbers because of their high capacity factors, and the simplifying assumption that each scenario, except for the wind/natural gas combination, shows the effect a single fuel source used to meet the electricity production gap.
So, in the wind/natural gas case an additional (that is over and above what would normally be required to meet demand) 50 MW (280–230 MW), or 91% of the wind capacity is needed for 11% wind penetration. This additional capacity is fairly consistent with the concept of wind capacity credit forecasts from the German Energy Agency (dena) for 8% wind penetration, which shows that additional redundant capacity of 94% of the wind capacity is required.[5] According to dena and other sources, capacity credit decreases as wind penetration increases, so the new gas plant capacity here is likely understated for 11% wind penetration.
To further understand the impact of the wind scenario, Table II-5 scales to U.S. electricity system the plant types being assessed.
Table II-5 – Scaling Capacities to the U.S. Electricity System of 1,100 GW
In the wind/natural gas scenario adequate wind balancing capacity has also been added to absorb wind’s persistent erratic behavior. In the wind scenario, as already noted, considerable wind curtailment would have to occur otherwise the remaining 364 MW of the U.S. generation capacity (1,100 – 736) would be totally inadequate to balance wind. This is not a recipe for a reliable electricity system.
Grid Costs Unique to Wind
Generally speaking, the existing electricity grid is a distribution network to users from centralized generation plants, which are sited depending upon need. It is established to serve users. Changes to this grid will be necessary over the period studied due to replacement, increases in demand, including regional shifts in demand, and upgrades or improvements in grid technology. The provision of economic, reliable electricity, as and when required, is a social need and these costs should be shared amongst all generation sources.
On the other hand, again generally speaking, grid changes needed to accommodate wind are for energy collection, otherwise not needed long distance transmission to demand locations and user demand management systems needed to serve wind’s shortcomings. In other words, grid changes unique to wind plants, are primarily due to (1) the dispersion of the energy source (fuel), wind (and solar radiation), (2) the need to site these plants where the energy flux is strongest, not necessarily near to demand centers, and, (3) such other technologies (such as smart meters) that purport to facilitate the integration of unreliable, random wind production through possible demand limitation and conveniently provide the electricity cost rate capability needed to finance them. They serve the wind plants.
These grid changes unique to wind are substantial, with a required monetary investment of about the same order of magnitude as the wind plants. In smaller wind penetrations with curtailment not as large, some transmission lines must have the capacity to carry up to full wind production, not the annualized average at 30% of capacity. I have not seen a comprehensive study and these costs are hard to quantify, but I have previously made an attempt to do so here and here. Table II-6 shows these cost estimates for the scenarios.
Table II-6 – Overnight Grid Implementation Costs Unique to Wind
The grid costs are amortized over 40 years. At the 15 year plant life for wind plants three ongoing options present themselves.
- Option 1. – Remove and do not replace the wind plants. In this case the unique-to-wind grid elements may represent stranded costs or they might be useful in the ongoing electricity system, or some blend of these two considerations. Most likely they will be stranded costs.
- Option 2. – Re-invest in new wind plants in the same location to the capacity that existed at year 15. In this case the above grid elements would be needed as before. This analysis provides for this.
From an EROEI point of view, the grid changes unique to wind are included in the net EROEI calculated for wind. The EI burden of these grid changes is assumed to be 1 year of wind plant production, added to that of the wind plant EI. This represents one-half of the EI energy burden for the wind plants themselves, but could be larger.
Claims are often made about the smoothing benefits of geographic dispersion of wind plants. Although this might seem intuitively so, real experience shows this does very little improve wind’s overall persistent erratic behavior.[6]
For information on smart grid issues, and the reasons for not moving too quickly into this area, see my articles at MasterResource.[7]
Coming Next
As interesting and informative as the overnight implementation costs for plants and grid changes might be, they only show part of the cost picture. Wind is not doing well, and it does not get any better. Simply put: wind is not a “plug and play” option.
The next post will develop the full costs, which will take into consideration whether or not the wind plants are replaced after 15 years. My expectation is that by 2025, likely much sooner, we will have finally come to our senses that grid-feeding, industrial-scale wind is not feasible and not worthy of commercialization.
[1] Taleb, Nassim (2007). “The Black Swan”, Random House, p74
DOE/EIA (2012). “Levelized Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2012” http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
DOE/EIA (2012). “Assumptions – Electricity Market Module” http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/electricity.pdf
[3] Denmark is a case in point. It has a wind penetration as a percentage of domestic consumption in the high twenties. It manages this by exporting the majority of the wind production to Norway/Sweden where the combined hydro capacity is 30 times Denmark’s wind production. For more information see “Peeling Back the Onion of Denmark Wind (Part III – Wind Electricity Used in Denmark”, at http://www.masterresource.org/2010/10/denmark-part-iii-internal/
[4] DOE/EIA (2011). “Electricity: Detailed State Data”, first spreadsheet. Penetration calculated from totals at bottom of first spreadsheet. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/
[5] Study commissioned by the German Energy Agency, Deutsche Energie-Agentur GmbH (dena) (2005), “Planning of the Grid Integration of Wind Energy in Germany Onshore and Offshore up to the Year 2020 (dena Grid study)” http://www.susplan.eu/fileadmin/susplan/documents/dena-grid_study_summary.pdf. Wind capacity credit can be calculated from Tables 1 and 5 in the Appendix as follows for 2010: 1.8 (GW statistically guaranteed) / 29.8 (GW wind installed) = 6%. This means 94% of wind capacity has to be provided by redundant reliable capacity to ensure overall electricity system reliability (at a fairly liberal 99%). Actual wind penetration in 2010 was only 37.5 TWh, or 6% penetration, lower than 2005 projections of 29.8 (GW) x 0.18 (CF) x 8760 (hours per year) = 46,989 GWh or 47 TWh. http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/03/new-record-for-german-renewable-energy-in-2010 . This suggests that the projected penetration was expected to be about 8%. The conclusion is that more gas plant capacity is needed than shown in my calculations above. For more information on capacity credit considerations see http://dialogue.usaee.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=95&Itemid=113
[6] The following is a list of references on this subject:
http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/227/info%20note%20ref%20%20poyry%2031%2003%2011.pdf
http://www.slideshare.net/JohnDroz/energy-presentationkey-presentation slides 70-73
Wind Power in Ontario: Quantifying the Benefits of Geographic Diversity
http://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/oswald-energy-policy-2008.pdf
http://aefweb.info/data/Wind%20farming%20in%20SE%20Australia.pdf
[7] Hawkins, Kent (2011). “The Smart Grid and Distributed Generation: A Glimpse of a Distant Future” http://www.masterresource.org/2011/04/the-smart-grid-and-dg/ and (2010) “Smart Grid Problems Revealed: The NERC Study” http://www.masterresource.org/2010/08/smart-grid-nerc/
Source: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/09/wind-consequences-ii/
electrician apprenticeship electrician contractors electrical testing
DIY: Doing electrical work on your own?
“That looks easy to fix,” you might say, when you see a problem with your electrical wiring. Many people enjoy doing their own work on their homes. If they have the skills and tools, the DIY project can be very rewarding. It’s a great way to save money and feels good to have done it [...]
Source: http://www.blueskyelectric.net/blog/dyi-doing-electrical-work-on-your-own/
electric contracting electrican electrical contractors company certified electrician construction electrician
Electrician in Los Angeles Makes Electric Vehicle Charging Easier
BMW, Honda, Ford, Mitsubishi and Nissan all offer full electric vehicles; however, despite the groundbreaking technology introduced in the new crop of electric cars, sales of pure electric cars that run off of a battery alone have risen by only about 6% from the same time a year prior, according to Edmunds.com, the leading automobile information company. An analyst from Edmunds.com believes that what he calls “range anxiety” prevents most consumers from purchasing fully electric vehicles. It is also widely believed that this slow increase is due in part to the high prices of these vehicles. Furthermore, there is very little public charging infrastructure, which can make using an electric vehicle as a primary vehicle difficult for many consumers.
The sales of hybrid vehicles, on the other hand, are going through the roof. These automobiles travel using their battery power until a traditional gas engine turns on. One of the main reasons that hybrids are doing so well is because of the plethora of options. Hybrid vehicles eliminate much of the anxiety associated with limited range due to their ability to use a gasoline engine in addition to their plug-in battery. The proposed Ford C-Max Energi, for example, can drive for approximately 20 miles on electricity alone and an additional 530 miles with its gasoline engine. This makes them not only practical for everyday use, but also for longer trips. As a result of the variety of options and advancement of the technologies in these vehicles, sales have soared 381% in the first half of this year.
Although pure electric vehicle sales are lagging behind those of hybrid sales, it is important to remember that the technologies used in these vehicles are still relatively new, and with time are likely to advance very quickly as demand and interest in these vehicles grow. Because of this projected increase in demand and technology, a licensed electrician such as The Electric Connection expects to install many electric vehicle charging ports over the next few years. It is very common for a Los Angeles electrician to install easy to use charging stations right in your own garage.
In addition to Toyota’s new plug-in version of the Prius which can be charged with the assistance of a charging port installed by an electrician in Los Angeles, Chevrolet has introduced the Volt, and Ford will be releasing the C-Max Energi hybrid, which will be coming out in late 2012.
For more information on electric vehicle charging and electric vehicle technologies, you can read more at TheElectricConnection.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)