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

[Jerry Lahti]

Jim, so the wind power can be summarized in the words of our former (US) 
president, "you can power all of the windmills some of the time, some of the 
windmills all of the time, but not all of the windmills all of the time."

With apologies to the late A. Lincoln.

--
Jerry Lahti
Naperville IL


---------- Original Message -----------
From: "Dukelow, James S Jr" <jim.dukelow at pnl.gov>
To: "Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj at aecl.ca>, radsafe at radlab.nl
Sent: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:07:03 -0800
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] World's Biggest Wind Park -Capacity Factor vs. Nu
	clear

> >>snip<<<<

> Another mitigating factor: On many days the wind will be sporadic.  With
> the wind turbines spread over hundreds of square miles, sporadic wind
> means some of the turbines are delivering power all the time.
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> Jim Dukelow
> Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
> Richland, WA
> Jim.dukelow at pnl.gov
> 
> These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved 
> by my management or by the U.S. Department of Energy
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
> Behalf Of Franta, Jaroslav
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 11:14 AM
> To: 'radsafe at radlab.nl'
> Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] World's Biggest Wind Park -Capacity Factor vs.
> Nu clear
> 
> 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
> 
>    <snip>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
> 
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and 
> understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
> 
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other 
> settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
------- End of Original Message -------