DEC 02

This is a great example that alternative energy sources can be done.

Pretty cool, it's nice to hear that they are efficient and wind powered.

But the excess energy can actually be sold to energy companies. It is an ironic twist in power management

THis is awesome, I can't wait to see the real thing when it's been built and in operation. This could be a great case study for a lot of companies in areas with enough wind with high power consumption.

An implied estimated capacity factor of 28.5% will not not provide 100% of stated need. The timing of wind production and energy use is not linear. If they are lucky they may get 30% of their needs supplied by the turbine and the rest will come from the grid. Fact: This turbine will not reduce any CO2 emissions.

This is also an example of how resourceful people are. Goes to say that we can do anything as long as we set our minds on it.

Mr Downes - Where does 28.5% come from? The article specifically states that the total electricity produced will be double consuption using the grid as a storage medium, so what what is the importance of "linear" production and use. How do you figure out they will be lucky to get only 30% of their needs. You have stated as a "fact" that the turbine will not reduce CO2 emissions. Please give us a reasoned argument based on supportable evidence to substantiate your post.

For Paul T and novices: 1)The capacity factor is power produced versus capcacity 1,250MW/(500KWx(24x7x365)=28.5%. 2) The grid is only a tranmission medium. There isn't a bank of batteries to save power until its used. Power not used is lost. 3) CO2 is reduced only when you displace a fired fuel source. The grid can't predict when wind will generate power so it continuously uses fired plants (per the EIA/DOE). 4)Use of power is predictable (peak versus off-peak) and the wind is variable. Timing studies in Denmark show they use less than 25% of wind power produced. The excess is exported or lost (Energinet DK). Wind/solar power will never be viable until economic sequestration of electricity is developed, which will be in 20 to 30 years (Steve Chu, Secretary of Energy).

But isn't this like describing a much more efficient chainsaw - much more efficient at its job.
We need to question the value of the data processing that actually uses the kilowatts - does more and more facebook really add value? ( easy example)
More seriously, do the researchers who burn up those kilowatts ever contemplate the carbon footprint of their research work? Maybe we need to think about not only publishing the work and giving the references on which the work is based, but also the tons of carbon that were released in doing the research. Once we start measuring the footprint of the research we can manage it better.
And please please don't raise the old argument of academic freedom - we all know that NOTHING is free.
Miro

WL: 500x365x24x7 = 30,660,000
This presumes that the production is maximized and continuous all year. Obviously not a real situation. Much less will be produced, but where are you getting the actual values to claim that the production of 2 x 1,250,000 is only 28.5% efficient? You haven't shown that.
Also, even if the efficiency is only 10%, getting that power without the CO2 pollution (and other pollutants produced by conventional means) is a step in the right direction. And if a coal or oil-fired plant could be turned on for less time as a result of this (and, hopefully, other copycats) then that is a win for the environment.

Mr.Downes, you are still not showing that the turbine is not saving CO2. True the grid is only a transmission system, but here in Europe we use the term to include the generators, the transmission lines, and the consumers. The amount of power being transmitted is set by the consumers, the generators will produce the required power plus the transmission losses to match the demand. There will be more potential generation capacity available than the expected demand to cover the accidental loss of a generator (spinning reserve) plus some generators on static standby able to come on line at short notice. Anytime a grid connected wind generator is able to produce power then a fuel burning power stations´ fuel consumption will drop. My description of using the grid as a storage medium perhaps could be better expressed as a time shift mechanism; if my turbine produces more energy than I need, it goes into the grid and the total fuel consumed by the grid reduces. If my turbine is not producing enough power for my needs, I buy some back from the grid. Either way as the article says the turbine will produce more power than I need on a yearly basis I will make a net contribution to the grid and therefore save the consumption of some fossil fuel. I don´t know about where you live, but here we have a very efficient weather forecasting system, we actually know within certain limits of accuracy when wind is available. Therefore we can predict both consumption and potential renewable production. Here in Spain we are producing over 25% of the entire country´s electricity demand by wind turbines on a frequent basis, with huge savings in the consuption of fossil fuels. It is true that some traditional generator stations can not turn down beyond a certain limit without going off line. If excess wind generation forces every fuelled generator down to this point then indeed the potential wind generated power will not be produced and the potential savings are lost. In this situation several of Europes hydro electric stations start running in reverse, using electricity to pump water from low level back into their reservoirs for future use. If Mr. Chu thinks it will take 20 years plus to build a decent amount of storage then maybe his department needs an injection of energy itself, but personally I can`t see the inventiveness and initiative of Americans permitting this to take so long. As someone who first became involved in the energy conservation and renewable energy business in the 1970s I guess that you can continue to graciously separate me from the novices.

Good catch Barney on my math error. 1)Capacity = 500KW x 8,760 hours per year = 4,380 Mw/Yr; 1,250/4,380 = Capacity Factor 28.5%. 2) Acording to federal government data (EIA) wind turbines do not reduce emissions when they operate unless there is curtailment of fossil fueled plants. So why would you pay $1 millon for something that runs at 10% efficiency when you can buy something else for $1 million that runs at 98% efficiency and does not produce emissions (nuclear). 3) Wind power is a great concept but will not be effective until we have cost effective smart energy grid storage. That technology is 20 to 30 years away. Why spend hundred of $billions on wind when we have potential in biomass, tidal, river and storage of CO2 from coal plants closer to development?

Hi WL and Paul T,
You 2 seem to have a disagreement concerning the ability of online power generation to turn down when wind generated power is fed into the system, thus saving fossil fuel emissions. Is it being done in Spain now due to a smart grid, but it isn't currently possible in the USA due to its "dumb" grid?

Hi Barney
hope I´m not coming across as too confrontational, it´s just obvious that Mr.D and myself are thinking about this in different ways. There are differences in the power grid infrastructure between the US and Europe; for example whilst I am no expert on the US system much of it appears to have been built by private enterprise under the hard realities of commercial realism whereas major parts of the European system were put together by governments with technical performance as the controlling factor (not an advert for government public projects by the way, you should see the mess they made of the UK railway system!) There is also the huge distances involved in the US between areas of economic power generation and the main areas of consumption. In Europe we have increasing significant inputs of wind, solar and other renewables, including the Rance tidal station in France which has been running for decades. We also have the advantage that our grids are nation wide and connected to each other; peaks of consumption in our different countries are not co-incident, resulting in more effective load levelling provision. It also enables storage systems such as Dinorwig to be more effective. It also helps in feeding in wind power, weather fronts tend to move uniformly west to east across the whole continent meaning that although the power is produced in different areas at different times the total contribution tends to be more even over time. None of these differences are enough to prevent rapid introduction of wind power on either continent. Interestingly the UK government appears to be proposing new nuclear power stations to replace existing nuclear plants and to help meet the UK CO2 reduction targets. Bit difficult for a data centre to get a building permit for a nuclear station though, and getting back to and rereading the original topic written by Philip I still can`t see that the provision of renewable energy into a new construction can be anything but laudable, and despite Mr. Downes figures it does specifically state that the turbine will produce twice the projected energy use, the difference between the the peak power theoretical yearly power production of the turbine against its´ real world performance has already been allowed for. Whatever, it´s good to see people thinking about the possibilities and challenges of alternative energy and being concerned enough to discuss them on forums like this.

Paul T. You make some valid points about the differences in the geographical and transmission attributes of our nations which require unique solutions. However, your explanation of your grid makes no sense to me. Tranmission wires can't store electricity. When electricity is produced it has to be used or converted simultaneously (for example pumped storage or batteries) or it is lost. My view of wind power is based solely on collection and analyses of raw data from original sources or regulatory information agencies. While I like to see and exchange views on the merits of renewable energy, fom a business standpoint (project finance), I have seen too many failures and know that most of the information/views floating on the subject do not reflect reality. As far as suggesting that I demonstrate that wind power doesn't reduce CO2, that would be "proving a negative" and I hope you know what that means. If wind power is the answer to emission reductions then the burden of proof should fall on the party asserting the claim. Data from the EU-ETS (carbon trading market in Eurpoe) and the EEA (European Environment Agency) indicate Spain's renewable electrcity capacity (wind/solar/hydro) increased almost ten-fold from 2000 thru 2008 while CO2 continued to increase. Spain has purchased huge levels of REC's from eastern Europe because it can't meet its mandated CO2 reduction requirements. Spain's gross exports and gross imports of electrcity have exploded over the past decade beacause it can't match wind generation with demand. I watched the wind power industry fall off a cliff in the early 90's and they had all kinds of excuses. The only things different now is they make bigger turbines, they have superb PR, and subsidies are now huge and longer term. The funadamentals are the same as before which means it will fail again.

For those tired of this exchange I tried to resist writing a reply, honestly, but I failed. However last post, definitely. (probably)
I realised I failed to respond to Barneys remark on the "dumb" grid. To be honest Barney I haven´t found a comprehensive definition of a "smart" grid. In the past as systems got bigger generating stations and distribution facilities began to communicate with each other using telecommunications. As technology advanced regional and even national control and monitoring stations evolved able to see data and make remote adjustments in real time. However this was working on the supply side of the chain, there was no communication with the consumers other than an arbitrary disconnection of sets of consumers if the grid became overloaded. It is now possible for supply utilities to send and receive data to their customers, for example in some parts of the world consumers meters are read remotely. This is my conception of the start of the smart grid. Some of these links have used radio systems, others superinpose the data streams over the supply cables themselves, just as you can buy systems to remotely control appliances in your house by sending information over your house wiring. The next logical step is to have an agreement whereby in return for lower tariffs the utility gets control of some loads in the customers facility and can selectively stop or start them to help ameliorate problems on the supply side. For example imagine you have an electric immersion water heater (A vertical cylinder). A normal heater might contain say forty gallons for your particular needs. The new version may contain twice that, but would have two heating elements, one half way up the tank heating the top forty gallons as before, but the second is at the bottom of the tank and under the control of the utility. They run into the problem that they have excess capacity for some reason. Rather than incur the losses involved in taking off line and later restarting a generating unit they turn on the second element in your tank to use some of that energy. Your water heater won´t make much difference of course, but a smart grid could turn on thousands of such loads and make a major difference. Conversely if the grid is overloaded the system could shut down discretionary loads in the consumers premises rather than switching off a whole city district completely. As more information and control capability is implemented so the system becomes smarter and more efficient.

Paul T’s last entry confirms my prior statements. His retort to my last entry provides no proof that the European grid’s conversion to green energy is having any beneficial impact of reducing CO2 emissions. He has no data or sources thereto to back up his assertions of wind power’s efficacy. He uses phrases such as “it is now possible”, “my conception of the start”, and “the next logical step”. Wind power integration into transmission grids is improving all over the world in incremental baby steps. At the current pace, it may become viable in 20 to 30 years. In the past two years, European government bureaucrats have transformed the reporting process for the transmission grid in order to artificially support green policy. Relevant raw data of actual performance is now buried in their respective databases. EU countries now report intangible emissions reductions based upon certificate trading in which they buy credits from underdeveloped countries or industrial manufacturers that curtail/shutter operations. A recent report states that an Indian steel company will shut down its U.K. mill that has a capacity of 3 million tonnes of steel per year and will instead make a profit of $300 to $400 million selling emissions certificates because it will no longer produce CO2. The company will now produce the steel in India and export its product to the U.K. So the world’s CO2 emissions will stay the same, the company will make an even bigger profit using its low cost labor in India, and the U.K. will lose all the steel making jobs. The Cap and Trade proposals in Washington will have the same effect in the USA if passed. The governments of the industrialized world are mandating not only environmental results policy but the means in which it must be achieved. If you do not have full global participation (i.e. including China and India) it is a recipe for economic disaster.

My last post confirms no such thing. It contains no references to green emissions, Co2, or anything other than an attempt to respond to Barney Sperlins thoughts on a smart or dumb grid. The point is as I do not have a definition of a smart grid, therefore I cannot use this as an answer to his question regarding the take up of alternative energy.
As I take onboard new information, my viewpoint may well veer away from the view I put across to Barney.
It was not a "retort" to your last post, there are so many irrelevancies and inconsistencies in your previous posts that that I get the feeling that you are not really taking the time to read and think about the points being made before replying, and trying to develop a mutually informative discussion with you is probably a waste of time. Notice I am not saying that none of your points are valid or worthy of further discussion, only that I am finding it increasingly difficult to find some meaningful common ground within the context of the Philips original submission.

Barney. The wind power industry or its advocates cannot provide any independent quantitative performance data that demonstrates it is helping the envirnonment or is an effective economical alternative. It also will not admit to the high costs of development, integration and preferential treatment which is very heavily subsidized by both taxpayers and ratepayers. A very good resource for learning about the wind industry and its impacts can be found at WINDPOWERFACTS.INFO. The author is John Droz, JR who is a physicist by training and who has been an environmental activist for 25 years. Good luck with your research.

And just to keep the information flowing, try:
www.electricitystorage.org and...ong time.
And also www.earthscan.co.uk/Portals/0/Files/Sample Chapters/9781844074662.pdf
People who live in glass houses...........
Just another couple of points. What is wrong with Spain exporting power because it cannot use it there and then? Didn`t I already say that it´s a good thing Spain is connected to a European wide system for this very reason?
Saying that despite the rapid take up of renewables Spain´s CO2 footprint has got larger is facile. The real question is that if we didn´t have the renewable input how much bigger again would that footprint be.
John Droz may have trained as a physicist and be dogged in the defence of certain parts of the countryside, but that does not mean he is infallible or that his presentations are not as slanted as the next mans´.(whether accidently or by design) There are several slides in his presentation that are arguable, but the biggest thing about it is the apparent total lack of any mention of the environmental aspects of fossil fuels. Must be careful though, his last page makes it clear we cannot mention any part of it.
And lastly, just for the record, I no longer have any financial interest in any renewable energy production,
most of my working life has been in oil and gas production and the associated utilities, working in some very big projects on and off shore in a hands on situation. Now I have moved over to training and currently teach production technology.

Ooops! for some reason my last post was corrupted.
First reference. www.electricitystorage.org/site/technologies. Scroll down to pumped storage and enlarge the chart. The US has had some large scale storage for a long time.
Second reference: www.earthscan.co.uk/Portals/0/Files/Sample Chapters/9781844074662.pdf
Hope it works this time!