Wind matters

[dspp]

The load factors for offshore wind increased by 1.2 percentage points, from 38.9% to 40.1%,

These are amazing load factors that are coming in from offshore wind.

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2019/03/28 ... ecords-uk/

I read in Wikipedia that the 'load' factor is called 'capacity' factor, but I presume they are the same thing. Wikipedia says that Horns Rev 2 in Denmark is managing an average of 47.7%, which may be about the maximum for northern Europe. This is also deduced for the UK by eyeballing the graphs in Gridwatch, which shows that for March, which is invariably a windy month, the wind turbine contribution was high about 50% of the time, and low the rest - not much middling generation. Looking over last year's plot, the Late Winter/Early Spring and Autumn are windy but the rest of the year, not so much. I would tentatively suggest that for capacity factors, this is as good as it gets.

Yes they are the same thing in essence, and can be calculated over any stated time period though the ones we are discussing are the annual CFs and LFs.

The CF for wind has been improving steadily in my time and I remember when 30% was good. It is a function both of the technology, and of the wind conditions at the site. Both are still improving (better technology allows access to better wind conditions) and so 40% may not be the upper limit.

I recall calculating the capacity factor for UK gas power stations (CCGT) as being about 45% several years ago. I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor that US CCGT capacity factors have improved from 48% to 55% over the last several years. The recycled biomass power station I am looking out my window at is doing 65% or so (I'm not putting the exact number for obvious reasons). The point I am making is that these wind CFs are extremely typical of modern power stations.

regards, dspp

[dspp]

10 MW floaters ........

"MHI Vestas Offshore Wind has confirmed a firm order to provide five V164-9.5 MW turbines for the Kincardine floating wind project in Scotland. The order was signed in 2018 with Cobra Wind International Limited (CWIL), the UK offshore division of Spain’s Cobra Group."

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2019/04/01 ... wind-farm/

[Nimrod103]

The load factors for offshore wind increased by 1.2 percentage points, from 38.9% to 40.1%,

These are amazing load factors that are coming in from offshore wind.

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2019/03/28 ... ecords-uk/

I read in Wikipedia that the 'load' factor is called 'capacity' factor, but I presume they are the same thing. Wikipedia says that Horns Rev 2 in Denmark is managing an average of 47.7%, which may be about the maximum for northern Europe. This is also deduced for the UK by eyeballing the graphs in Gridwatch, which shows that for March, which is invariably a windy month, the wind turbine contribution was high about 50% of the time, and low the rest - not much middling generation. Looking over last year's plot, the Late Winter/Early Spring and Autumn are windy but the rest of the year, not so much. I would tentatively suggest that for capacity factors, this is as good as it gets.

Yes they are the same thing in essence, and can be calculated over any stated time period though the ones we are discussing are the annual CFs and LFs.

The CF for wind has been improving steadily in my time and I remember when 30% was good. It is a function both of the technology, and of the wind conditions at the site. Both are still improving (better technology allows access to better wind conditions) and so 40% may not be the upper limit.

I recall calculating the capacity factor for UK gas power stations (CCGT) as being about 45% several years ago. I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor that US CCGT capacity factors have improved from 48% to 55% over the last several years. The recycled biomass power station I am looking out my window at is doing 65% or so (I'm not putting the exact number for obvious reasons). The point I am making is that these wind CFs are extremely typical of modern power stations.

regards, dspp

I suspect some of these figures are misleading. For CCGT there seems no reason why the capacity factor should not be high, probably higher than biomass. In fact, in that Wikipedia link, the UK CCGT data has declined from 70 to 30%, over 10 years, presumably because of forced downtime due to replacement by wind generated electricity. The cost of that underused equipment should, of course, be factored into the true cost of renewables.

[dspp]

I read in Wikipedia that the 'load' factor is called 'capacity' factor, but I presume they are the same thing. Wikipedia says that Horns Rev 2 in Denmark is managing an average of 47.7%, which may be about the maximum for northern Europe. This is also deduced for the UK by eyeballing the graphs in Gridwatch, which shows that for March, which is invariably a windy month, the wind turbine contribution was high about 50% of the time, and low the rest - not much middling generation. Looking over last year's plot, the Late Winter/Early Spring and Autumn are windy but the rest of the year, not so much. I would tentatively suggest that for capacity factors, this is as good as it gets.

Yes they are the same thing in essence, and can be calculated over any stated time period though the ones we are discussing are the annual CFs and LFs.

The CF for wind has been improving steadily in my time and I remember when 30% was good. It is a function both of the technology, and of the wind conditions at the site. Both are still improving (better technology allows access to better wind conditions) and so 40% may not be the upper limit.

I recall calculating the capacity factor for UK gas power stations (CCGT) as being about 45% several years ago. I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor that US CCGT capacity factors have improved from 48% to 55% over the last several years. The recycled biomass power station I am looking out my window at is doing 65% or so (I'm not putting the exact number for obvious reasons). The point I am making is that these wind CFs are extremely typical of modern power stations.

regards, dspp

I suspect some of these figures are misleading. For CCGT there seems no reason why the capacity factor should not be high, probably higher than biomass. In fact, in that Wikipedia link, the UK CCGT data has declined from 70 to 30%, over 10 years, presumably because of forced downtime due to replacement by wind generated electricity. The cost of that underused equipment should, of course, be factored into the true cost of renewables.

I'm not sure you can say that. This is just the normal risks inherent to an incumbent when a new arrival appears on the technology scene. So for example in USA coal is being displaced by shale gas for CCGT use, and by wind at much the same time. Why criticise the wind and not the CCGT. Likewise in UK.

(but yes, all technologies should carry their FULL levelised costs, i.e. both the intermittency costs, and the pollution costs, to get to a level playing field)

regards, dspp

[Nimrod103]

Yes they are the same thing in essence, and can be calculated over any stated time period though the ones we are discussing are the annual CFs and LFs.

The CF for wind has been improving steadily in my time and I remember when 30% was good. It is a function both of the technology, and of the wind conditions at the site. Both are still improving (better technology allows access to better wind conditions) and so 40% may not be the upper limit.

I recall calculating the capacity factor for UK gas power stations (CCGT) as being about 45% several years ago. I see in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor that US CCGT capacity factors have improved from 48% to 55% over the last several years. The recycled biomass power station I am looking out my window at is doing 65% or so (I'm not putting the exact number for obvious reasons). The point I am making is that these wind CFs are extremely typical of modern power stations.

regards, dspp

I suspect some of these figures are misleading. For CCGT there seems no reason why the capacity factor should not be high, probably higher than biomass. In fact, in that Wikipedia link, the UK CCGT data has declined from 70 to 30%, over 10 years, presumably because of forced downtime due to replacement by wind generated electricity. The cost of that underused equipment should, of course, be factored into the true cost of renewables.

I'm not sure you can say that. This is just the normal risks inherent to an incumbent when a new arrival appears on the technology scene. So for example in USA coal is being displaced by shale gas for CCGT use, and by wind at much the same time. Why criticise the wind and not the CCGT. Likewise in UK.

(but yes, all technologies should carry their FULL levelised costs, i.e. both the intermittency costs, and the pollution costs, to get to a level playing field)

regards, dspp

I have always favoured a diversified supply of energy, partly for security of supply, but also because only by investing in and getting experience of these new renewables, can we truly ascertain the costs, advantages and disadvantages.
However, at some point we need to have a market for energy, otherwise the UK will end up with energy, which may be green, but very expensive. We need to know what the costs of going green really are, and whether our competitors are playing fair and doing likewise. Hence, what if two suppliers are offering energy to the market a) wind company offers price x, but cannot promise to supply more than say 50% of the time, and it is an unpredictable 50%. b) CCGT company offers price x, supplied on demand. Which company should we choose?

[dspp]

(but yes, all technologies should carry their FULL levelised costs, i.e. both the intermittency costs, and the pollution costs, to get to a level playing field)

regards, dspp

I have always favoured a diversified supply of energy, partly for security of supply, but also because only by investing in and getting experience of these new renewables, can we truly ascertain the costs, advantages and disadvantages.
However, at some point we need to have a market for energy, otherwise the UK will end up with energy, which may be green, but very expensive. We need to know what the costs of going green really are, and whether our competitors are playing fair and doing likewise. Hence, what if two suppliers are offering energy to the market a) wind company offers price x, but cannot promise to supply more than say 50% of the time, and it is an unpredictable 50%. b) CCGT company offers price x, supplied on demand. Which company should we choose?

Personally I would make them both carry the full costs, including the negative externalities, and including intermittency costs, and then society can make a fully informed decision about where to allocate any tech dev subsidy. Even CCGT need intermittency cover. Maybe not as much as wind but they still need some. Not as much as nuclear mind you, that is the real big need for intermittency 'insurance' as it can fall over in 1GW chunks. But it is difficult to properly allocate the 'insurance' required for intermittency as one policy currently covers multiple users which is a very cost-effective result, i.e. the same backup can support both wind & solar & gas & nuclear, as it is a pooled backup. Hence there being very poor quality public domain information on this issue.

Diversification is an interesting one. First problem is to get as much sourced (fuel & kit) within UK + UKCS as possible. Including - insofar as reasonably ^ economically practicable - the full design & mfg chain. Again, at the moment, that would exclude nuclear but also wouldn't be great for the bigger CCGT units or solar. After that look at technology diversification, and product diversification (i.e. minimise fleet exposure to monoclone risk).

regards, dspp

[Nimrod103]

Even CCGT need intermittency cover. Maybe not as much as wind but they still need some. Not as much as nuclear mind you, that is the real big need for intermittency 'insurance' as it can fall over in 1GW chunks. But it is difficult to properly allocate the 'insurance' required for intermittency as one policy currently covers multiple users which is a very cost-effective result, i.e. the same backup can support both wind & solar & gas & nuclear, as it is a pooled backup.

I don't really see why a CCGT power station should have downtime, except for maintainance, and when demand is lower during the night and summer. Hence why 70% is perhaps fair. The problem with wind is that some of the downtime due to the wind not blowing will be during peak demand. It may ultimately be possible to design an overall power system, which encompasses storage in batteries (static or in cars), so that supply can be continued even when there is no wind. But this will require major top down planning, unless the economics are such that it becomes a no-brainer to adopt such a strategy. I see this happening very slowly.

In the meantime, while such planning is taking place, UK manufacturers and consumers need cheap energy. Their requirements would seem to me to be paramount, yet I get the impression their requirements come low down the priorities of Govt and woke civil servants.

[dspp]

Even CCGT need intermittency cover. Maybe not as much as wind but they still need some. Not as much as nuclear mind you, that is the real big need for intermittency 'insurance' as it can fall over in 1GW chunks. But it is difficult to properly allocate the 'insurance' required for intermittency as one policy currently covers multiple users which is a very cost-effective result, i.e. the same backup can support both wind & solar & gas & nuclear, as it is a pooled backup.

I don't really see why a CCGT power station should have downtime, except for maintainance, and when demand is lower during the night and summer. Hence why 70% is perhaps fair. The problem with wind is that some of the downtime due to the wind not blowing will be during peak demand....

Not all downtime is planned .......

I am clearly not explaining myself very well. The biggest short-term downtime event that currently concerns the UK grid (so I am told, by those who ought to know) is if a nuclear power station trips off the bars with no notice, that is about 1.2 GW but is a fairly high probability big event (i.e. needs to be planned for). A longer term event that is even bigger and is planned for is if a 'surprising' fault condition is found that affects all of one class of nuclear reactors requiring them all to be taken off load for (say) a few months, but probably with a day or so of notice. That is probably 7 x 1.2 GW = 8.4 GW for all the AGRs and is a very low probability event. Then there are much higher probability events that affect smaller amounts of power. The point about 'pooling' is that all the smaller events can take a free ride on the system-wide backup capacity that exists to cater for these big events, and so too - to a very significant extent - can all the smaller generators of other types take a similar free ride in both economic & technical terms.

Believe me conventional generators of all scales have intermittency issues - I have spent much of my life dealing with this, whether offshore or onshore. I have four such problematic events in the quarterly board report I was writing up today (MW-class, conventional legacy equipment). Maybe you can't see the problem, but I can assure you it exists. Typically about a week to resolve ....... (which happens to be the likely duration of the longest high pressure cells with low wind in mid winter BTW which is what some folk get concerned about for wind power, i.e. these are normal issues in grid/energy planning terms).

Then you should also look at the actual power used in any given half hour of all of the days of the year, vs the total capacity. Again the demand peaks at just a few hours in the winter months in the UK (typically). So there is plenty of spare capacity in the system for most of the months of the year, and for most of the hours of the day even in the high demand months. Again this means that a free ride exists in backup capacity planning terms for almost all types of generators for almost all of the time.

And yet some folk get fixation about the 'cost' of providing backup for renewables. And they keep trying to pin the 'backup cost problem' onto the renewables as if it was only a renewables issue. Really it is not a problem, and at the moment it is primarily a conventional intermittency problem that is both the technical design-driving case, and the economic 'cause' that ought to be carrying the bulk of the cost.

In due course renewables should carry their share but at present that is not a significant share. Below 40% renewables penetration it is a trivial share. Not until about 80% renewables penetration does it become a serious economic concern with renewable deployment, and that is assuming current technology. By the time the UK gets to 80% then I expect the technology will have improved such that the significant moment will be at 90% or etc.

regards, dspp

[dspp]

The US Offshore Wind Power Technology Roadmap

https://www.energycentral.com/system/fi ... epaper.pdf

This is interest to those wanting to understand how US is playing catch up, and to what extent there is value of delay.

- dspp

[Itsallaguess]

Scottish Power is to undertake the most ambitious battery power project in Europe in an attempt to unlock the potential of the UK’s wind and solar farms.

The company will connect an industrial-scale battery to the Whitelee onshore windfarm early next year to capture more power from its 214 turbines.

The first major onshore wind power storage project will lead the way for a string of similar projects across at least six of Scottish Power’s largest renewable energy sites over the following 18 months.

It claims the battery systems, each half the size of a football pitch, promise a “significant step” on the road towards renewable energy providing baseload, or continuous electricity supply, for the UK energy system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/10/scottish-power-build-vast-battery-improve-wind-energy

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[jackdaww]

Scottish Power is to undertake the most ambitious battery power project in Europe in an attempt to unlock the potential of the UK’s wind and solar farms.

The company will connect an industrial-scale battery to the Whitelee onshore windfarm early next year to capture more power from its 214 turbines.

The first major onshore wind power storage project will lead the way for a string of similar projects across at least six of Scottish Power’s largest renewable energy sites over the following 18 months.

It claims the battery systems, each half the size of a football pitch, promise a “significant step” on the road towards renewable energy providing baseload, or continuous electricity supply, for the UK energy system.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/10/scottish-power-build-vast-battery-improve-wind-energy

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

==================

this will be a lithium ion battery rather than vandium redox batteries.

[dspp]

FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND HEADS TO SCALE

Total and Simply Blue Energy have established a partnership to develop floating offshore wind projects in the Welsh waters of the Celtic Sea.
The first development will be the 96MW Erebus demonstration project in water depths of 70m, for which an application has already been submitted to the Crown Estate.

In a recent report, the Offshore Renewable Energy (ORE) Catapult advised that there could be as much as 50GW of electricity capacity available in the Celtic Sea in Irish and UK waters.

This is a significant amount of capacity given that the Committee on Climate Change (CCC) suggests the UK will need at least 75GW of operating offshore wind capacity to reach the net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions target by 2050, Simply Blue Energy said.

etc

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/03/19 ... 2020-03-19

dspp

[dspp]

Mildly confused here. Is "Celtic sea" the new politically correct name for the Irish sea, or something else entirely?

They are two different but neighboring seas, always have been.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=ht ... egUIARCDAg

regards, dspp

[richfool]

My question is more basic: I appreciate there is a case for each, but are the prospects for wind as opposed to solar, better or worse, (from an investment perspective)?

[dspp]

My question is more basic: I appreciate there is a case for each, but are the prospects for wind as opposed to solar, better or worse, (from an investment perspective)?

context dependent. windy places wind is better. sunny places solar is better. do the individual project sums.

increasingly coal and nuclear are never better. oil and gas are getting very iffy as well these days.

dspp

[dspp]

"global offshore wind industry installed a record 6.1GW of new capacity in 2019, bringing the total capacity to 29GW"

"The 6.1GW of new capacity in 2019 represents a 35.5% increase compared to the previous year, which saw 4.5GW installed."

"China remains the overall leader in new installations, adding more than 2.3GW capacity in 2019, with the UK and Germany in second and third place, installing 1.8GW and 1.1GW respectively."

"Offshore wind accounted for approximately 10% of new wind power installations in 2019, an increase from 5% in 2015..............preliminary forecasts find that this growth is set to accelerate as an additional 50GW of new offshore wind capacity could be installed by 2024 globally. This would mean that the total global installed capacity could reach nearly 90GW over the next five years,"

etc

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/03/19 ... 2020-03-20

- dspp

[dspp]

UK offshore wind, barriers & challenges

https://sse.com/media/669511/Delivering ... y-2030.pdf

- dspp

[Itsallaguess]

A new report from the American Wind Energy Association says wind is now the largest single source of electricity in Iowa.

According to the trade association's Wind Powers America 2019 Annual Report, Iowa is now generating more than 10,000 megawatts of wind energy, accounting for more than 40% of the state's electricity.

Wind became the leading source of electricity in both Iowa and Kansas this year, making them the first states to reach that benchmark. Previously, coal-fired power generation had been Iowa's main source of electricity.

Projects in Iowa added the second-most wind power capacity of any state in 2019, behind only Texas.

https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/tech/science/environment/2020/04/16/wind-energy-iowa-largest-source-electricity/5146483002/

Cheers,

Itsallaguess

[dspp]

Big crane failure.

At the end of the video you see a barge in the water alongside the ship. That barge is what was the 5500 t test weight. The video starts at some point after the near vertical jib recoils from the rope/hook break, and what you see is the jib going backwards over the top. The injuries (one still in hospital) were in the crane control cab, which is next to where the hook ends up.

sobering 24 sec video
https://www.energypeople.com/news/story ... se---video

good german acct
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/mecklenb ... an156.html

regards, stay safe, dspp

[dspp]

Big crane failure.

At the end of the video you see a barge in the water alongside the ship. That barge is what was the 5500 t test weight. The video starts at some point after the near vertical jib recoils from the rope/hook break, and what you see is the jib going backwards over the top. The injuries (one still in hospital) were in the crane control cab, which is next to where the hook ends up.

sobering 24 sec video
https://www.energypeople.com/news/story ... se---video

good german acct
https://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/mecklenb ... an156.html

regards, stay safe, dspp

Sounds like the injuries are minor. Hook failure seems to be the cause. Replacement crane needed PDQ.
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/05/05 ... 2020-05-06
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/05/05 ... 2020-05-06
- dspp