[ RadSafe ] World's Biggest Wind Park -Capacity Factor vs. Nu clear

[Franta, Jaroslav]

Supplemental to my previous message, here is a comment from a colleague....

Jaro
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

From: 	Whitlock, Jeremy  
Sent:	February 21, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject:	RE: Public Consultations

I note that this Radsafe message inadvertently perpetuates a myth about wind
farms -- that to "equal the output" of a nuclear plant all they have to
increase their installed nameplate capacity by a ratio of CF(nuke)/CF(wind).
This would be true if the low inherent CF of wind turbines was due mainly to
maintenance outages.  However, since it's due to wind variability, which
affects large geographical areas and multiple wind farms simultaneously (as
experienced by the Germans utilities), installing X times as many wind
turbines will more than likely give you X times as many wind turbines
tripping simultaneously due to low or high wind speed.  The German
experience shows that the more you try to do this, the broader the effect it
has on the reliability of the grid itself, leading to a decreasing
"effective CF" with installed wind capacity -- estimated at about 8%
currently in Germany and predicted to fall to around 4% after new projects
are completed.

In short, "equalling the output" really means a lot more than getting to the
same number of integrated MWh over the year.  Defining "output" only as
integrated energy does make a point, but it can lead to dangerous policy
decisions if people start deluding themselves that all they have to do is
build more.

J.

Another colleague added:
The idea of simply "building more" wind farms would be a valid argument if
energy storage was built along with it (eg. pumped storage, giant tanks of
compressed air, or huge banks of batteries or capacitors).  However, this
would drive up the cost of electricity so much that no utility or investor
would bother to enter the wind power business.  
Energy storage is the weak link for wind power development.

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


-----Original Message-----
From: Franta, Jaroslav 
Sent: February 21, 2006 1:16 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] World's Biggest Wind Park -Capacity Factor vs.
Nuclear


Thanks Stewart.

Just a minor note -- your figure of 13.14 TWh is the max. theoretical annual
generation at 100% CF. 
The article states that "the three wind parks, called Havsul I, II and IV,
would generate a total of 4.2 terawatt hours of electricity annually."
Dividing 4.2 by 13.14 gives your (correct) figure of 32%CF.

Here in Canada the CFs so far have been around 20% or less, but Hydro-Quebec
now requires/ assumes 36% CF for new projects -- it remains to be seen
whether Nature will cooperate -- and what the consequences will be of energy
supply planning based on such bogus numbers....

In Ontario, OPA (Ontario Power Authority) assumed a capacity factor of 47%
for wind turbines when it projected that Canada needed a "minimal" installed
capacity of 3,000 megawatts in wind turbines by 2025. 
The two major wind-farm operators in Ontario, OPG and Huron Wind (part of
Bruce Power), have both claimed 40-45% capacity factors in their
advertising. 
The mistake has been recognized by Huron Wind, but they still have these
files on their website and on their billboard beside the Bruce windfarm and
throughout the material in their visitor's centre. 
They claim that it would be expensive to correct since the information is
repeated in all their PR material, so it has to wait until the next planned
overhaul of everything (not likely soon). 
In the meantime, the OPA disseminates the incorrect figures to millions of
Ontarians...... 

Germany's wind generation capacity is the largest in the world, at 12,000
megawatts - 11.5% of its total capacity.
But at an average of only 15% to 17.5% capacity factor, this produces from
15.8 to 18.4 terawatt-hours of energy in a year. 
So the entire national German wind power production represents only about
22% of the 79TWh of the Province of Ontario's nuclear production.

Jaro

CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED INFORMATION NOTICE

This e-mail, and any attachments, may contain information that
is confidential, subject to copyright, or exempt from disclosure.
Any unauthorized review, disclosure, retransmission, 
dissemination or other use of or reliance on this information 
may be unlawful and is strictly prohibited.  

AVIS D'INFORMATION CONFIDENTIELLE ET PRIVILÉGIÉE

Le présent courriel, et toute pièce jointe, peut contenir de 
l'information qui est confidentielle, régie par les droits 
d'auteur, ou interdite de divulgation. Tout examen, 
divulgation, retransmission, diffusion ou autres utilisations 
non autorisées de l'information ou dépendance non autorisée 
envers celle-ci peut être illégale et est strictement interdite.