I have to admire your calm use of the word "disappointing" to describe wind energy's performance during the recent California heat wave.

In many ways, it reminds me of my father's use of the word. NOTHING in the world made me feel worse than when he told me he was "disappointed" in my performance at school, doing chores, or in the swimming pool.

A widely used power source that has an average 4%-10% capacity factor during the very time when it is most needed is not just disappointing - it is darn near criminal. Taxpayers have provided huge quantities of cash to wind turbine operators, constructors and salesmen. It is time to recognize just what that cash has bought - a feel good, unreliable, unsightly waste of beautiful countryside.

Rod Adams

For obvious technical and economical reasons this fuel saving meme is less relevant for coal and even more irrelevant for nuclear.

Hence, wind power works best where hydro and/or gas make up a significant share of the baseload. And as quite a big part of the world use gas and hydro for baseload, wind power should not be dismissed out of hand.

Wind turbines are and should be built for one reason only: they're a cost-effective source of carbon-free energy. Energy, not grid capacity. The grid must have other means for coping with peak demand in cases where in-feed from wind farms is unusually low. Generally it does, as this summer's heat wave demonstrated. Those means need not be limited to activation of peaking units. They can include various measures for curtailing loads. One option is to request industrial users that have backup generators to run their generators and island themselves, as if there had been a power failure. Since all backup generators need to be run ocassionally for maintenance and to avoid problems with fuel gelling, running them during a power alert incurs very little cost.

The "raw" economic value of wind energy is limited to the cost of the fossil fuel whose consumption it displaces. For coal, I think that's about 1.5 cents / kWh, while for gas it's more like 4 cents. But that's with no carbon tax. If carbon fuels were taxed to include their external costs, then wind energy would look very attractive, even when valued "only" according to fuel displaced.

Of course, so would nuclear power. So environmentalists who can't bring themselves to embrace nuclear power after so many years of reviling it may prefer the current system of subsidies for renewables, rather than an honest carbon tax.

As a former industrial user of electricity in normally sunny central Florida (I was the GM for a small, privately owned injection molding plastic products manufacturer) I have a slightly different perspective.

We did not have a back-up generator - the economics did not make sense for us. The capital investment, required maintenance, fuel storage and emissions control requirements were enough to put the cost out of our reach. We had about 15 machines of various sizes, but a generator large enough to power even one of them cost about as much as the machine itself.

We were totally dependent on electricity for production - though the rest of our facility was pretty energy efficient. Our cooling system consisted of large, garage style doors and individual machine fans and most of our lighting was from sky lights.

When the power went out we were out of business until it returned, with the cost clock ticking very rapidly. If we had been asked to curtail production to help keep residential and office air conditioners running, we would have had to send our hourly operators home. In addition, we would have lost an hour's worth of production at a minimum, even if the curtailment only lasted a few minutes. It took that long to clean out the spoiled plastic in the barrel, get the machines stabilized again, etc. We would also have wasted a good deal of electricity in the process plus used up some potentially valuable raw material.

I know that other industrial users have different situations, but most of the small plants that I have visited over the years have similar concerns. The GM's cringe at the idea of turning off or even turning down their power right in the middle of the normal work day.

The criticism about wind energy in California being at a minimum during heat waves is not a new one. When the major wind farms experience a decline in wind, the entire State sees a drop-off in total generated wind. It is a problem being dealt with, but we will have to wait until next year to see how well. California's major wind farms were built in the 1980s. There was a time when 90% of the entire planet's wind energy was developed in that State. Some of the main turbines of the past were of only 65 kw, while a few were in the range of a couple hundreds of kw. There are wind turbines in the world today of up to 5 MW (not 20 MW as mentioned in the article). Also, the newer turbines better address the problems of working in low and high wind periods. In other words, they can generate electricity profitably when the much older turbines could not. There are efforts currently underway to replace the old turbines with much newer ones. The recent spate of wind farm building has seen the newest and best turbines installed outside of California.

While California was the world leader in trying to demonstrate the possibility of getting away from other much more dirty or dangerous fuels with wind energy, the development of alternative energy methods is an evolving field. Lessons have been learned, and must continue to be learned. Besides the need for more efficient wind turbines, another lesson that today's wind farm developers have learned to address is the problem of location. The worst locations in the U.S. for wind farms are in general in the Southwest and the Southeast. More dependable wind exists in the Northwest, the Midwest, and the Northeast. As a result, California utilities, while buying every available watt made within the state, are looking to sign contracts with wind farms situated in the Midwest. Last month contracts were signed with wind producers in Idaho and Montana.

There is another way of evaluating the contribution that wind energy has made within California, and that is in "average yearly production." Like I said before, I am not an expert, but even California's antiquated wind farms have been profitably operated for more than 20 years. If they can make a signifigant contribution to energy needs during most of the year, is that not important?

While tax credits have been asked for and given, I know that there have been reports in the news media of yearly tax breaks for the oil cartel of $30 billion per year. I know nothing about the tax breaks given to nuclear, but would not be surprised if they are considerable.

Regarding nuclear: there was a potentially major nuclear mishap in Sweden last month that did not even make the news here in the States. One of the nuclear reactors in Sweden had a mishap which they have compared to the incident at Three Mile Island. Reportedly the reactor was close to a meltdown, and as a result there was a Europe-wide scare. Fortuneately disaster was averted, but the Swedish government called for the immediate temporary shutdown of half of their nuclear reactors while they looked for similar problems in the other plants.

A point which I hesitate to make, but may be relevant. The author of the article is a nuclear engineer. I thank him for his lack of vitriol and for keeping name-calling out of this format, while raising important issues and asking good questions. Nevertheless, is it surprising that a nuclear engineer would have a perspective different from that of someone outside of that industry?

In general, anyone who has worked a lifetime in nuclear, coal, petroleum, or wind, geothermal, solar, or what-have-you, can be expected to find credit with that which he is familiar , and fault with that which he is not. It is just human nature.

As others have said much better than I am capable, wind energy is just one component of a total energy picture, not the whole answer.

Criticise the article's data with credible factual references if you can, fine. Leave the emotional stuff out of it. In what specific way do you feel that the author's "nuclear slant" has coloured the presentation?

As for capacity, the article is spot on--if you can't count on having the electricity when you need it (like during a heat wave) or if you have more than you can use another time, it is close to worthless, much like a zuccinni harvest in summertime. If California had a working capacity market I'm sure wind would lose out and perhaps be less fawnishly embraced by it's proponents. As for "average annual production" try putting one hand on the hot stove and the other in the fridge--on 'average' you feel just right. On 'average', there's enough sunshine falling on earth to power everything...but it can't simply because of temporal demand concentration.

"Regarding nuclear: there was a potentially major nuclear mishap in Sweden last month that did not even make the news here in the States. One of the nuclear reactors in Sweden had a mishap which they have compared to the incident at Three Mile Island. Reportedly the reactor was close to a meltdown, and as a result there was a Europe-wide scare. Fortuneately disaster was averted, but the Swedish government called for the immediate temporary shutdown of half of their nuclear reactors while they looked for similar problems in the other plants."

This incident was incredibly overblown in Swedish media, and even more in German media. In spite of this incident 80 % of Swedes support nuclear power. The incident had no effect what so ever on this support, in spite of intense lying anti nuclear media reports.

The incident ranked as a level 2 INES, on the 0-7 INES scale where 7 is Chernobyl and 5 is TMI. There have been about half a dozen level 2 INES in Sweden before.

The Swedish incident was nothing like TMI. There was never any risk of a meltdown. No one was killed. No one was hurt. No radiation was released outside or inside the plant.

It was just one of those unfortunate things that happen now and then.

For detailed information in English from the Swedish Nuclear Power Inspectorate: http://www.ski.se/extra/news/?module_instance=3&id=475

http://www.ski.se/extra/news/?module_instance=3&id=472

Ed Osann Potomac Resources, Inc.

Those who claim that wind installations are less environmentally hazardous than nuclear or fossil-fued plants must demonstrate there is an inverse relationship between the two--that is, the more wind installations we build, the less coal or nuclear facilities we'll require. It is unlikely they can do this, given that wind technology only produces energy, not capacity. To satisfy increasing demand (increasing at around two percent each year), new conventional generators will need to be built along with any new wind facilities. Rather than an either/or scenario for wind/coal, we'll have both, with no real improvement to the environment.

The huge subsidies for wind energy might be better used to create incentives for greater efficiency and conservation, which together would overwhelm any contribution that scores of thousands of intrusive, Rube Goldbergesque wind machines might make.

About these famous subsidies that Julie Gorte mentioned. They don't exist for the Swedish electric sector. I'm not going to go into the economics details here, but It was inexpensive electricity (and a superb educational system) that was the foundation of the modern Swedish economy. The Swedish electorate was taxed to (perhaps) finance those nuclear plants, but that same electorate was more than repaid in the form of a level of income and welfare that made them the envy of most of the rest of the world.

Of course, some of that welfare is being dissipated now, but we can discuss that later.

About wind power. I really feel uneasy about agreeing with Thomas Tanton, but on the basis of what I know about that scene in Scandinavia and Germany he is exactly right when he says that it may be a mistake to have too much faith in wind. My position here - for what it's worth, which admittedly may not be very much - is that cost-benefit calculations may have to partially be set aside in order to give the electorate what they want, or think that they want. The strategy here should be as much nuclear as possible, and as for wind....well, somebody else will have to fill that in.

And as long as new reactors and hydrodams are blocked in Sweden, wind power is a good bet. With 45 % hydro, intermittency should not be a problem, and even if wind might be a tad expensive it's still way cheaper than having blackouts.

And if we made ourselves ignore the EU commission rules about state support we could have government loan guaranties for the wind mills (and future reactors) and push costs down, as the guaranties would reduce interest rates for the plant projects. This would have quite an effect as both nuclear and (especially) wind are notoriously capital intensive.

Since 1999, Sweden has shut down 2 of its 12 nuclear reactors. There are plans in Sweden to go nuclear-free within about 30 years, when the natural lifespans of the nuclear reactors expire. Swedes have made a decision to eliminate nuclear from their energy mix. Sweden was hard hit by the Chernobyl accident.

There have been reports that Germany likewise has plans to go completely nuclear free, perhaps by about 2040.

Anyone wishing to check up on those stories is invited to do web searches on the internet with related titles.

Energy production seems to have become a very emotional subject. Perhaps we would all do well to try to keep our emotions in check. Best wishes to all, - Glenn

The inverse relationship between peak demand and wind generation is inherent in California. The wind is created by hot weather inland that causes the air to rise there, drawing in cool ocean air. When it gets hot on the coast two things happen. The wind virtually stops and air conditioning reaches a high peak. The combination of my investigation during a particularly high peak in the late ‘90s and Mr. Dixon’s information suggests that the 10% capacity factor used by PG&E applies, except during the very hottest periods that stress generation capacity.

There is an open question as to whether newer technologies can reliably generate more than 5% of capacity in the lightest winds. It would be very informative to see data (not opinions) on this point. It would also be interesting to see some facts about wind generation patterns in other parts of the world.

The history is what it is. New technology may or may not justify the 10% capacity factor on peak that PG&E used to use for wind in California. As more wind generation is built in California we need to deal with the air conditioning peak problem. Peak hydro production and peak imports are already included in capacity calculations. The options appear to be:

1. New transmission lines from the northwest for use on peak if there is sufficient diversity there to supply the capacity within environmental limits on peak hydro generation and with growing wind generation there; 2. New peakers in California; and/or 3. Load reductions on peak.

Historically, new transmission for summer peaking has been more expensive than new combustion turbines nearer the load. The cost and dependability of traditional load reduction programs over extended heat storms is controversial. Growing dependence on wind generation is somewhat problematic when viewed from inside the traditional regulatory box.

It was demonstrated in CPUC studies during the 1980s that the social investment required for gas air conditioning was less than for electric air conditioning. But regulatory rate structures signaled to retail customers that the opposite was true. I expect the same can be demonstrated for cold storage. What did regulators do with this information? Nothing. To anyone with a background in economics and/or marketing this suggests that the air conditioning peak is, to a significant extent, a regulatory artifact. Market pricing would have promoted a more efficient energy services market that would have many customers avoiding running air conditioning compressors on summer peaks.

The high total cost of meeting air conditioning demand has been created by regulators who were charged with keeping total costs reasonable. Perhaps a desire to use more wind power will force regulators to begin using reasonable pricing structures that encourage economically efficient use of energy services. This leads us to the interesting observation that if regulators can’t come closer to meeting a competitive market standard of efficiency, growing wind generation may eventually add to pressures to take pricing out of their hands.

"Since 1999, Sweden has shut down 2 of its 12 nuclear reactors." The two reactors, Barsebäck 1&2, had a combined output of 1200 MW. Since they were closed, Swedish nuclear capacity has increased by more than 1200 MW through uprates in the remaning 10 reactors. Even more uprates will be made.

""There are plans in Sweden to go nuclear-free within about 30 years, when the natural lifespans of the nuclear reactors expire." A goal without a plan is a fantasy. If no new reactors are built the current reactors will reach the ends of their lives in 2035-2045. No reactors will be closed in 2006-2010, no matter who wins the election. New reactors are likely to be ordered in 2010-2014 as the energy crisis intensifies.

"Swedes have made a decision to eliminate nuclear from their energy mix." Wrong. The Swedish elites have made the decision to say that they are going to eliminate nuclear power. Sometime in the future. Maybe.

Among the people, support for nuclear energy is compact (83 %). http://www.sweden.se/templates/cs/NewsML____12744.aspx?newsid=2651

"Sweden was hard hit by the Chernobyl accident." Relatively speaking, yes. Compared to other hazards, like falling in bathtubs, no.

It would be unadvisable to eat more than a few hundred kg of mushrooms from the Gävle area per year. Also avoid transatlantic flying (cosmic radiation), dental X-rays, bananas, the sun, houses made of blue/light concrete, other people and other sources of dangerous radiation.

A government report (in Swedish) about the health effects in Sweden can be found here: http://www.ssi.se/kaernkraft/Tjernobyl/tjernobyl_15.pdf#search=%22nedfall%20tjernobyl%20sverige%22

An excerpt (page six): "Health effects are very small or insignificant and it can't be expected that there will be any measureable increases in cancer frequencies that can be explained by radiation from Chernobyl."

If something disappears in the statistical clutter like that it's quite a stretch to call it a "hard hit".

"There have been reports that Germany likewise has plans to go completely nuclear free, perhaps by about 2040." Yes, perhaps. And perhaps peak oil is just an oil company scam.

Or perhaps not.

"Energy production seems to have become a very emotional subject. Perhaps we would all do well to try to keep our emotions in check. Best wishes to all, - Glenn " It has always been. Generally there have been a preference for emotions over facts and figures in the public energy debate, at least in Sweden.

Best regards, Arvid

Think of it this way, each day each WalMart in Ca. receives conservatively between 25 and 75 MWH of sun and solar CSP systems can top 40% efficiency generating electricity from it. Does anyone know what the peaking rate is there these days? I've heard as much as $300/ MWH. Does anyone know how many comparable buildings are in southern Ca.?

But one thing that they still know how to do is to build and operate nuclear plants that produce some of the most inexpensive electricity in the world. It's here that we see a problem though, Don, because that is precisely what the losers and mediocrities (in Sweden) don't want any part of, much less having to witness the Swedish nuclear sector becoming an engineering or scientific model for anyone.

The Swedish nuclear power plants carry their full life cycle cost, including the 8 billion euro waste handling and decommissioning costs. And they are still incredibly competitive. If fossil fuels had to carry all their life cycle costs every single coal, gas and oil plant on the planet would swiftly go out of business.

Swedish nuclear power is safe, unsubsidized and cheap. And this is the problem. I just talked to a bunch of social democrats. Even though I carefully explained to them that the cost of nuclear and hydropower does not increase as oil, coal and gas prices increase, they were adamant in saying that power prices just had to increase. It's idelogy to them. They _want_ electricity to be expensive.

And that is why they hate nuclear power.

The recent developments in energy, capacity and ancillary services markets in NE, NY and PJM will ultimately lead to efficient energy production solutions. This country must continue developing "location" based energy markets and continue to improve demand response markets (which still need considerable improvements). Regulators must provide incentives to utilities to install real time metering coupled with real time pricing mechanisms, and consumers must be prepared to used energy based on real time price, not based on the socialized pricing currently used.

Mr. Dixon's article only states that wind as an electric power asset, will find it difficult to be competitive because of it's inability to produce energy on peak (shortage periods, high prices). Producing energy in the early morning hours will prove to non-profitable (high supply, low prices).

Several important points need to be made regarding his analysis and subsequent comments. First, part of the rationale for developing wind is energy supply diversification. If a sufficienct quantity of solar generating capacity were available, it would nicely balance the drop off in wind during heat storm events. Most of this solar should be installed at the point of use in order to maximize efficiency and relieve transmission congestion.

To the extent that fossil fuels such as gas and coal are more affordable than wind at times is in part due to the decreased demand for these fuels achieved by conservation and generating electricity with wind and other renewable energy sources.

All the comments directed at the supposedly high subsidy of wind energy completely ignore major subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear in the form of externalized costs passed onto consumers. Costs of environmental damage, agricultural losses, medical costs, damage to other industries such as tourism, forestry, and fisheries, and national security are completely ommitted from this analysis.

Lastly, while the cost of wind generated electricity has steadily declined throughout its development, and continues to do so, The cost of nuclear generation has not and none of the major long-term issues that create public distrust of nuclear energy has been resolved, i.e. nuclear waste disposal, decommissioning costs, and safety. There is no danger of terrorists blowing up a wind turbine to kill and injure large numbers of innocent people.

When I look at the nuclear industry, I see a massive infrastructure of engineers and regulators and plant personnel who are all on the defensive. This leads me to just one conclusion. In the end, they are for-profit corporations (for the most part), and as such will charge what they can to compete. It is in no company's best interest to give away their product at too low of prices. When the energy crunch becomes much worse in the coming years, the nearly non-existant pressure to lower their prices will completely go away. Add to that the effect that if the whole world were to migrate to a nuclear economy, what will happen to all related costs? Fuel isn't the only cost involved.

I'm also a fan of the K.I.S.S. principle and a forced student of Murphy's laws. Putting these together forces me to hate putting all our eggs in one basket that's controlled by someone else. I'm not saying I dislike using this source, but I really dislike the incessant attitude of proponents that all other sources aren't worth the time to consider them. Maybe that's the whole issue for me.

Edwin, To what developments in NE (Nebraska) do you refer? To my knowledge, this state is competing for last place in the world for best use of available resources.

The total cost of wind must be considered, so at least we know what we are paying. Even if wind doesn't win out on a pure cost basis (I don't think anyone can truly argue that it will), unquantifiable issues such as carbon emissions and energy self-sufficiency and security mean that we need wind energy nonetheless.

The meteorology of the area practically guarantees that peak loads minimize wind generation and peak wind generation occurs during non-peak periods. The wind and fog in San Francisco means winds at the wind farm and cool air in the Central Valley. No fog in San Francisco means no cool ocean air and high temperatures in the Valley. People there then turn on their air conditioners but the windmills are not turning.

As to the claims that wind power will reach 35% capacity factor, one must respond with actual data like Mr. Dixon. According to the EIA data, wind power performed at 21% in 2003 and 25% in 2004. Adding an estimated correction for new units coming on line later in the year could boost those numbers to 22% and 26%. That would still require over a third improvement in turbine efficiency or better wind resources. The latter is unlikely as economics would tend to cause exploitation of the best wind resources first, allowing for nearness to loads and transmission. Wind advocates are selling hope, not reality.

As to nuclear engineers being defensive, that's so true! Look at the objective, verified report by Mr. Dixon and the ad hominem agruments against his dispassionate presentation of the facts - and the commenters here are relatively polite! Yet, the same old tired arguments against nuclear, rebutted over and over again, are still being tossed out without backup or new basis.

Perhaps you'd prefer nuclear engineers who are offensive? Would you like us to apply the same risk evaluation techniques and criteria to LNG terminals or coal plants? My point is that in any ranking of costs + externalities versus benefits, nuclear sits the easiest on the earth of all our energy options. However, helping to further the paralysis of our energy policy is in no ones' interest.

If the politically correct energy sources are unable to meet loads, the solution to some people is to coerce the users of electrical energy to change their consumption needs. I suspect that the current metering methods would be preferred by residential customers over time-of-day social engineering schemes advocated by some. I will grant that monthly rates somewhat hide the cost of air conditioning loads on the system. Building windmills only makes that worst.

Looking at the physics of wind power, the electrical demand patterns of our citizens, and the past and current performance of wind power must lead one to the conclusion that our energy policies have cause the waste of billions of dollars. Those policies should be changed to de-emphasize wind.

In the long run though we wont need to argue about this. The big boss of the Russian nuclear sector recently said that his country is aiming to put two new reactors a year into operation, apparently beginning construction next year, and eventually adding at least 42 reactors. The Chinese, of course, are almost certainly planning to do even better, and eventually the Japanese (and perhaps some others) will join this game. Frankly, I doubt whether windmills and solar panels will do the good people of North America and Europe much good if they plan to have any industry left by the end of the present century.

Every power source has pros and cons in different operating conditions, and market conditions, and has better or worse environmental impacts. They are part of a big picture - no one aspect of that generation need be the focus. Nuclear is a great base load but lousy peaker; gas is a great peaker but subject to huge price hikes. Wind's costs change little over the years.

I think we need to start looking at these different generation options as a portfolio of options that can play a part in the generation and demand mix at different times of peak or low demand, and high or low prices, with less or more pollution.

As for peak demand days, demand response is probably the best resource of all to tackle that, coupled with energy efficiency. That was proved this summer as CA avioded blackouts throught the use of DR.

Joseph, I don't recall Mr. Dixon referring to nuclear at all. His article clearly stated only facts related to the reliability of wind as a capacity source. I did feel that he was leading the reader to believe that nuclear should be used instead, but that may be a bias of mine having first read that he is a nuclear engineer. The nuclear debate overtook the wind/reliability debate later in the comments.

What I'm looking for is a solid debate along the lines that Rachel Freeman suggests. One where wind is graded on its energy contribution in the name of conserving fuel and pollution, not where it is expected to solely support the entire grid alone. I don't see why some previously agreed upon amount of an undispatchable source like wind can't be accomodated. I don't know what that amount is, but 20% seems to be widely used. Using the sun to backup for the times like the article cited would coincide nicely. To get this scenerio to fully reliable 100% capacity, we would have a large surplus capacity most of the year. Instead of shutting down during those times (when that electricity's price is cheapest), let's "store" it in some form useable for our transportation needs. Whether we go hydrogen or batteries, it looks probable that our future electrical grid will be a large source for our transportation needs. What's so wrong with building up extra capacity from any source, if that new load is just for storage? To whatever extent that we can reduce the high priced peaks, this should justify efficient CCGTs replacing their less efficient counterparts.

If this solar peaking power was used in a distributed layout, wouldn't that essentially just be DR as far as the grid was concerned? Wouldn't it reduce transmission costs, be cheaper/easier to impliment and be more reliable than pleading for people to turn OFF their air conditioners in 100+ weather?

I personally see this is the only workable solution. If we load our basket with too much nuclear, that over dependance will lead to disincentive to price competition. Maybe nuclear power is cheap, but my public owned utilities state just uprated our capacity and suppliment with cheap coal and our prices are going up just like oil.

High environmental outdoor temperatures requires increased indoor climate control (cooling) , requiring signifiicant increased load on the grid. High environmental outdoor temperatures over extended periods reduce local area differences in temperature and pressure ,thereby reducing the winds caused by these differentials. Conversely, high warming during day time exposure to the sun maximizes solar output although the diurnal cycle makes this source interuptible without overnight storage.

It makes sense to analyze load requirement patterns in relation to the causes of the loads ,providing a means for determine what supply technologies vary in relation to these causes, and what ones have inverse relationships to the causes ,and to what degree these relationships are effective. The timing of load peaking and supply factors must also be considered, and smoothing the differentials by storage capacity (local smoothing) and the grid (wide area smoothing) as a means to address the mismatches timewise.

It becomes obvious that the various methods of supplying energy as we become more dependant on renewable sources cannot be addressed individually. A systematic high level planning and implementation approach is required to balance the various contributions to load, taking into account the interdependencies of the sources, is neccesary. It doesn't take "rocket science" to identify and understand these relationships, although refinement to quanttative terms for modeling may. Lets start thinking about energy supply and usage on a broader scale, and not be surprised by the obvious when addressing useful means of generation mismatched with load requirements

A case in point is Massachusetts where an offshore windfarm is proposed By Cape Wind Inc. located on Nantucket Sound. For background, this windfarm will have a total of 130 GE 3.6 MW turbines with a maximum production of 454 MW at 31 MPH. With the expected average wind speed of around 19 MPH the farm will develop about 170 MW (a capacity factor of 37%) and over a year, some 1.5 million MWh which amounts to about 75% of the average load for Cape Cod and the Islands.

Let me make this case based on the meteorological test tower that has been operating in the center of that planned array for over three years now.

Although any single day’s operations are not statistics, let me say that during this last heat wave in the East (August 1, 2006) ISO NE did meet it highest ever peak load. Had the wind farm been operating, it would have been providing 184 MW at 1:47 PM (15 knots wind). During this time the ISO NE clearing price reached $1,000/MWh, the maximum legal limit.

By 2:36 PM, the next day (Aug. 2), another new record peak was reached. And the farm had it been operating would have been producing 236 MW of power (17 knot winds). A capacity factor of 51%. That day ISO NE went to “Action 12” which meant reducing system voltage by 5% to avoid rolling blackouts.

In addition, Cape Wind’s data tower previously reported strong wind conditions during each of the five previous record summer electric demand days in New England on August 2, 2006, July 18, 2006, July 27, 2005, July 17, 2006, and July 19, 2005. During the summer months, Cape Wind’s production is greatest during the later afternoon and early evening hours when electricity consumption is at its peak.

And even more important is the high wind contribution during the cold winter months in New England. During the cold snap crisis of January 14-15, 2004, there was a shortage of natural gas, limited by nearly empty storage tanks and limited pipe line capacity. Note, New England derives about 41% of its electrical power from natural gas. During that cold snap, some1,000 MW of gas generation was offline do to unavailability of gas supply. If the Cape Wind windfarm were operating, according to a report by the Department of Energy [Boston Regional Office, “Diversification Analysis – Natural Gas Supply/Wind Production,” dated 6/6/04] , the report shows that the wind farm would have supplied an average of 396 MW per hour over those three days. A capacity factor of 87%.

And the farm would have supplied, over that year (Apr 03 to Mar 04) 1.7 million MWh or a capacity factor of 42%.

For one offshore wind farm this is a significant contribution to the peak reliability of the New England grid even without additional conventional peaker capacity.

And last to the topic of energy storage, pumped storage that is. During the hay-day of nuclear, pumped storage plants were built (at considerable cost) to provide peak load capability since nuclear plants are on a “must run” dispatch meaning they are essentially base load plants that run all the time and simply can’t respond to peak loads. For example, Pilgrim nuclear (670 MW, in Plymouth, MA) has had a capacity factors of 98%... well run indeed.

Two large pumped storage plants were constructed in Massachusetts the 1970’s, Northfield Mountain at 1,080 MW and Bear Swamp at 570 MW. They store energy at night with cheap nuclear and coal power and deliver it during the daily peak periods at a high and profitable price. So whether the grid is supplying nuclear, coal, oil, gas, hydro, or wind electrical energy at night when it is not needed, makes no difference to the motors and turbines that pump the water uphill.

Thus, with a limited penetration of perhaps a few percent, it seems no new peaker capability in New England at least, is not needed for the beginning of the era of renewable wind power in this region. And furthermore, with wind bid into the grid at zero fuel cost, it will always bump higher priced fossil fueled sources off the top of the stack. Thus wind energy will always be used avoiding the dispatch of the most expensive fueled plants (oil and gas), a note well taken toward energy independence and security.

And last, on subsidies, let me point out that the energy bill just passed gives the same production tax credit to new nuclear plants as to wind power, that is 1.8 cents per kWh. And that ends in 2007.

Charles W. Kleekamp, P.E., Ret. Vice President, Clean Power Now kleekamp@adelphia.net

The Utility Wind Integration Group, with EPRI and APPA consulting, recently found that we could get to 20% wind penetration in the US with minimal balancing costs. The UK's Energy Research Center found a very similar conclusion for the UK this year. So please, let's not fudge the debate by creating straw men and then blowing those straw men down with a lot of hot air.

Wind is a fuel saver for gas and hydro. If you don't have any gas or hydro (including pumped hydro) as baseload or is planning on building it, wind is probably not a good idea.

But seriously, is there any major country that does not use either lots of gas or hydro?

Poland and France maybe, but that's about it.

The nuclera PTC also lasts for only eight years instead of ten, as is the case for wind power.

So on balance, they are comparable, though of course the monetary amount provided for new nuclear plants is likely to be far more than for new wind plants, at currenty capacity additions planned.

Yes, we need a portfolio of sources, but one-size-fits-all mandates cannot get us a balanced one, much less ones designed for each area and flexible to changes over time.

2) If all dispatchable reserve is used to backup wind gen, what about all the existing reasons for having reserves, eg. station failures, transmission line outages, substation outages, unexpected high peaks?

3) Seems rational to re-direct development effort to solar thermal, which actually has a chance to become useful and a potential to compete economically.

When it comes to nuclear being useless for peak load, I meant that it is foolish both from a technical and economical point of view to ramp nuclear production up and down to follow demand. Nuclear power plants have very hig capital costs and very low fuel costs. Hence it is most economical to run the plants at the highest capacity factor possible around the clock and let other generators (hydro and gas) deal with the demand peaks.

And I'm not an anti-nuke but a militant pro-nuke.

1) The UWIG report: http://www.uwig.org/UWIGWindIntegration052006.pdf

2) The UKERC report: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/259/953

As for nuclear not being good for peak, Arvid has it exactly right - nuclear power is not suitable for being ramped up or down, so other, more agile power sources are used world-wide for peak capacity.

As for solar thermal, I agree wholeheartedly this should be developed further - along with wind power. Wind power is about three times cheaper than solar thermal today, so it makes eminent good sense to continue to develop and build out wind capacity as an energy source, while also promoting the more promising peak capacity renewables such as solar thermal, which will certainly come down in price a great deal with economies of scale.

Tam Hunt Energy Program Director Community Environmental Council Santa Barbara, CA

But I can't find any source.

Anyway, as we are talking about Denmark this graph is useful.

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/stats/PDF_graphs/DKELEC.pdf

Please notice that it only shows domestic generation, not consumption, so imports of hydro and nuke power are excluded.

As Todd McK noted, just the words "nuclear engineer" tainted his whole perspective of Mr. Dixon's arguments. If the facts lead you to consider nuclear power, then join the club!

Further, I just don't get your logic here - "If we load our basket with too much nuclear, that over dependance will lead to disincentive to price competition." In a deregulated, nuclear power plants can compete against other nuclear power plants as well as against, coal, natural gas, wind, and solar. Keep an eye on Texas for an example. The result may well be that low cost power technology drives high cost production technology from the market yet owners of that low cost production would still compete.

While a debate on the usefulness of additional wind power is welcomed, our politicians have made a mess of it. I am heartened to read the debates here - they are definitely a step above most public discussion. Offical policy responses so far have distorted the economics and interferred with efficient operation of our electric infrastructure. A mandate for 20% renewables is a recipe for huge wastes of capital and unreliable grids. Even solar is really not peak-coincident as some claim - noon for peak solar insolation vs. 4 to 6 pm for most utilites.

For an example of the problems with wind power, check E.On's wind power report for 2005 (lately pulled from their website). On Dec 24, wind provided 6,000 MW - 48 hours later, only 100 MW. That means that 4 to 6 nuclear or large coal plants had to be on hot standby to pick up the load or else a dozen CCGTs had to start burning Russian gas.

Certainly, allowances for grid access by wind and solar to the electric markets (all small producers, really) is justified. On a level playing field, one need not worry about too much of these interferring with grid operation. Add political interference and favoritism and it can be a problem.

As the production tax credit for nuclear, I remain embarassed and will offer no defense except that nuclear's restart problems are largely political in nature. I'd give up nuclear's tax breaks if solar and wind went away too.

As to nuclear load following, it can and does happen. Look at France and Taiwan. Both have a very high nuclear capacity as percentage and both have to have some of their nuclear power plants "turn down" to match loads. The French PWRs experienced some additional wear on control rod guides, etc but that was easily remedied. BWRs offer superior responses to load following. Take away nuke plants and the peaks get bigger since there would be less base load generation.

I have to strongly agree that this debate is a cut above most, but I'm still dissapointed in the opinions promoting any single source as the only one needed. References to pipedreams and daydreamers without factual support simply detract from the points. As has been stated in prior comments, there are many methods for accomodating a varying percentage of renewables and they differ with source, geography and economics. The first step is to understand the capabilities of those sources. Your statement that "solar is not really peak-coincident as some claim" applies only when no storage is used. Granted the currently used technology (small scale PV and large scale thermal) is generally set up that way, but new technologies are coming soon. The delay is a direct product of governmental choice. To my knowledge, they only support PV & large scale thermal systems.

Small scale (distributed) thermal has the largest potential but qualifies for no support (or corporate welfare) at all. These systems will have 4-6 times PVs output (when CHP is figured in) and will compete directly with wind costwise. The emergency backup attraction of storage is relevant to the end user but money still drives decisions, luckily its storage economics are better than any other technique in existence and allow excess output to be shaped to any daily profile. This means that it can 'peak' at any programmed time or just provide baseload.

There are myriad locations that would benefit from or tolerate reduced sun without even using up additional land. One example is reduced A/C loading. With the potential that exists for solar thermal integrated into cities and across the country, the backup capacity exists for increased wind AND nuclear, allowing us to wean our transportation sector off fossil fuels at a faster pace. Why wouldn't a nuclear proponent support that?

Being only an internet surfer, I especially enjoy the views and comments of professionals in this area. When people from varied backgrounds contribute, one can certainly get a feel for the complexity of the energy issue.

And why isn't another referendum held in Sweden. It's not because Social Democrats hate nuclear and want high electric prices, Arvid Hallén, or because the electorate wants it, Mr Andersen, it's because - for the 1000th time - the Swedish government is the big winner in all this.The billions of Swedish crowns that they collect on energy taxes and from their equity positions in the Swedish electric industry are needed to pay their fees to the parasites in Brussels and elsewhere.

If the radiation dosis in Sweden from the Chernobyl disaster was relevant, we would all be dead from natural background a long time ago. About 40.000 Swedes received a dosis of more than 1 mSv. 70 % of the Swedish population received a dosis smaller than 0,04 mSv, in the first year. The average Swedish dosis for the first 50 years after the disaster will be a total 0,74 mSv, which is 0,0148 mSv per year. In some areas the 50 year dosis will be higher. In Western Norrland it will be more than 5 mSv.

To put this in perspective the average yearly radiation dosis in Sweden, without Chernobyl, is 4 mSv.

Check this graph. http://www.ssi.se/kaernkraft/Bonfortjrnobyl/Sidor/Svar13.html

Red is radiation from radon gas in houses, yellow is natural background, dark blue is medical examination, light blue is medical treatment and green is everything else, industry, fallout from nuclear weapons testing, nuclear power and the Chernobyl disaster.

So, radon in houses is 20 times as dangerous as the combined effects of all human meddling with radiation, with the exception of nuclear medicine. And I don't think anyone want to go without that.

Prof. Banks, Obviously the state has a large economic interest in keeping electrictiy expensive, but there is also an ideological end-of-the-world dimension. The oil is running out, the climate is crashing, and having cheap electricity in that situation would not be politically correct, they believe. Or at least some of them do.

"Worse, given the operational needs of grids, the fuel saved is likely negative as other generators ramp up and down (and hence are off-design more hours)" --Thomas Tanton

We often hear that the level of wind generation varies randomly, but that's a loose way of speaking. Gusting can cause the output from individual wind turbines to swing widely over the course of minutes, but it does not affect the output from a wind farm spread over a square mile or more. At that level, output is a function of large scale weather systems. Those change rather slowly. On a smoothed plot of wind farm output (filtered to remove the noise of small and easily managed minute-to-minute variations) it would be rare to see more than a couple of infliction points over the course of a day.

What that means is that the demand profile, after adjusting for wind supply, is not going to look much different, in qualitative terms, than it looked before adjusting for wind supply. It's likely to have a single major peak over the course of a day, and roughly the same degree of variation between the daily high and the daily low. That, in turn, means that the same dispatch capabilities that work for meeting daily demand variation in the absence of wind power will work when it is present. The presence of wind power does not usually affect the number of dispatchable generator starts and stops. It just affects their timing and the duration of runs.

Since the number of starts and stops is largely unchanged, the amount of fuel that is "wasted" while a dispatchable generator is warming up is also unchanged. There is no "efficiency penalty" for fossil fueled plants due to the use of wind energy. However, the average run time for the dispatched fossil-fueld generators is reduced. So there is an economic penalty for the owners of the dispatched generating capacity. Which probably explains why E-On is hostile to wind power.

Brussels, open borders, internationalism, anti-nuclear fanaticism and electric deregulation - all a part of the same package; and in case you missed that English lesson the key word is irrationality.

Wanting expensive power when you can have cheap power is of course irrational. But these people (like Ms Energy Minister) consider expensive electricity a tool for transforming society into their ideological wonderland, and as that wonderland excludes living in an highly industrialized welfare state I would prefer not going there.

From their point of view they are perfectly rational. LO is fighting them tooth and nail, but still they managed to close Barsebäck...

And those tens of billions from tax and Vattenfall revenue are highly appreciated by Mssrs. Nuder and Persson, so appreciated that they go along with the irrational ideologies of the nutter wing.

I don't really see what we are disagreeing on.

Offtopic: By the way, what have caused your intense dislike of the EU? The Swedish EU payments are only around 20 billion kronor a year or something like that. That's chump change compared to the GDP or total government budget.

(Not directed to Mr. Hallen): if it were true that the wind industry in the U.S. could not exist without heavy subsidies, then why (according to Reuters, Sep 13, 06) is China trying to have 30,000 MW of installed capacity from wind power by 2020? All around the world nations are trying to develop non-petroleum based power.

I'd guess the biggest health effect is that people eat less of those healthy berries, game and mushrooms, and instead eat useless and dangerous junk food because they feel Nature has been tainted by radiation. Not that Nature isn't bathing in radiation already... But this was a problem mainly during the first years after the accident.

Still, if all radiation sources were treated this harshly we would have to demolish all radon houses, not to mention deporting every one who lives in Colorado due to the high altitude which results in a thinner atmosphere and lots of extra cosmic radiation. Not that anyone have managed to show that the increased low level radiation create any cancers. But better safe than sorry...

Now, about 20 billion crowns being chump change. As far as I know, everybody in Sweden except maybe the prime minister and energy minister are intelligent enough to regard good health and good health-care as more important than the idle chatter and jet-setting of those ignoramuses in Brussels, which means that what they REALLY want is that 20 billion (per-year) used to buy more hospitals and health care professionals. But even so they, and probably you, voted for the EU. Now that is what I call irrational.

And incidentally, the cost of being a proud member of the EU isn't 20 billion. Taking indirect costs into consideration it's at least 40 billion, with the accent on 'at least'.

Bottom line:- wind has improvements to make, in much the same way as any form of generation has had to make during the course of history.

Very basic research shows that of the ~2324MW of wind installed in Ca, ~1646MW was installed prior to 1999. It took 11,368 turbines to produce 1646MW??

I'm not the sharpest pencil in the pack, but logic tells me that a capacity factor that includes some, if not all of the 11,398 broken down 20 year old, poorly serviced wind turbines, will distort the picture. Not saying that the number is wrong or miscalculated, but if you wanted a true picture of the future, it would probably be worth doing the analysis against the 283MW installed in Ca, since the end of 2002.

Given the improvements in wind turbines over the past 5 years alone, who knows what will happen in the next 15 years. My bet though it will boil down to a few people with courage and a "can do" attitude, who will take it to the next level.

It would be interesting to see the capacity factors of all wind turbines installed in the last 3 years - against the backdrop of what has been reported in this article. Will it be 20%, 25%, 30%? It will be significantly better than the 4-10% range.

The biggest impediment to energy supply is a distinct lack of "can do" and an overwhelming supply of "why do." We have too many brilliant minds who can see every reason why something won't work and not enough reasons why it will.

Of California's ~2323MW of installed wind capacity (July 31, 2006),

Bottom line:- wind has improvements to make, in much the same way as any form of generation has had to make during the course of history.

Very basic research shows that of the ~2324MW of wind installed in Ca, ~1646MW was installed prior to 1999. It took 11,368 turbines to produce 1646MW??

I'm not the sharpest pencil in the pack, but logic tells me that a capacity factor that includes some, if not all of the 11,368 broken down 20 year old, poorly serviced wind turbines, will distort the picture. Not saying that the number is wrong or miscalculated, but if you wanted a true picture of the future, it would probably be worth doing the analysis against the 283MW installed in Ca, since the end of 2002.

Given the improvements in wind turbines over the past 5 years alone, who knows what will happen in the next 15 years. My bet though it will boil down to a few people with courage and a "can do" attitude, who will take it to the next level.

I would caution that the heat - wind relationship in California may not be representative of that in other locations, e.g. Texas or Cape Cod, and again I am only advocating: 1) that other data, particularly for other locations, be distributed, and 2) that that grid planners avoid glib assumptions about winds contribution during periods of peak demand.

Finally I would be very pleased if this modest paper incouraged others to seriously study how to design a power grid that can realize the energy independence, and probably cost and environmental, benefits of wind while still meeting appropriate availability requirements. Solar has a similar problem with the night time. Yes, energy storage, nega-watts and backup generation are all part of the mix, but how does that mix change and what are the implications with 5% or 10% or 20% wind and solar? (And feel free to assume what ever amount of nuclear other think right. With modest changes, modern nuclear plants can do slow, daily load following, but I think it would be very, very difficult to design a nuclear plant to do rapid, hourly load following). I think there is serious grit here for many, many studies.

Again, I refer you and others to the UWIG and UKERC papers which address these issues in detail, finding minimal additional balancing would be required in the US or UK, respectively, to reach 20% of wind penetration - a level an order of magnitude higher than today's level.

All grids have an amount of backup built in already. In California, it's set at 17%. This in itself allows for considerable absorption of variable supplies like wind. But there are many other ways to mitigate variability, that don't cost anything or not very much.

It is possible and has been done - the ABWR can make wide and rapid load swings at high ramp rates - 25% to 100% to 25% in about an hour or so once thoroughly warmed up, all under automatic control. The operator or system dispatcher (outside the US) can punch in the desired load profile and let it run. It can also operate under generator frequency control.

Of course, one would only want to do so in off-normal conditions or with a grid highly nuclearized. Wear-and-tear would increase - it would be like going drag racing with a limousine.

As to Todd and others points about nuclear advocates not allowing for alternative technologies, I don't think that's a fair summary. As I stated, grids open to small producers is one of the points in favor of a deregulated market. We only insist that preferences in tax breaks, production tax credits and mandatory capacity additions be rationalized and that the proverbial "level playing field" be established.

That includes giving realistically low capacity credits to intermittent sources like wind and solar. Capital and operatiing costs for additional idle generation backup should be assigned to the cost of intermittent generators too.

Lastly, advocates of intermittent generation sources are asked to be honest with their claims - stop overselling what these sources can do for the American public and what the true costs are! Solar and wind can and should co-exist with nuclear power - just don't insist the former be implemented at the expense of the latter.

The issues presented by David are simple but very important.

1.Wind is not controllable by humans. (Nuclear, Fossil and Hydroelectric plants are highly controllable although the latter is subject to natural variability in rainfall) 2. Wind performance is not predictable. (It is difficult to predict even on a minute by minute basis the amount of electrical energy that is generated. 3. Wind Generators have appalingly low capacity factors. Mr. Hunt has indicated in previous replies that 30% capacity factors are good. Compared to Nuclear, fossil and hydroelectric 30% is appallingly low and I suspect even this 30% number is over optimistic.

All of these are key attriubutes of any power plant. Without some means of storing the electrical energy produced and controlling the output of the storage facility it is inconceivable that any grid operator would rely on them to produce large scale power. And of course they will not. Not only does the wind not blow all the time it does not blow consistently minute to minue. Mr. Hunt talks of 20% penetration but I doubt that is achievable. I suspect half of that without large scale storage.

The "back-up" capacity of 17% talked about by Mr Hunt in the preceding note is properly termed "spinning reserve". It is the amount of electrical power generation that can be loaded onto the grid moment to moment. It is already synchronised to the grid and can easily respond to changes in the grid load by varying the AVR or automatic voltage regulator on the field coils of the generator. Such load changes may be caused by variable generation (ie wind/solar) or variable consumption.

For the most part these spinning reserve generators are coal or gas plants whose response time to load variations is rapid. They are burining about 2% of their rated capavity to be on spinning reserve and this function is usually set aside to the high cost generators. Nuclear for the most part runs best at base load.

The irony of it all is that unless you ALSO install large storage capacity together with the wind generation the variabilities that are introduced into the system require MORE spinning reserve generators to instantly fill the gap left by the loss of wind power.

Now I said earlier that these spinning reserve generators are operating and burning fuel. The more wind generation you install the more fossil fuel reserve generators need to be in place to keep the grid within its operating limits of voltage and frequency.

So who pays for the additional spinning reserve generators that are necessary or the storage that is necessary. Not wind power producers for sure. But someone has to pay. Those plants are not free.

Another item for your collective consideration is Power Factor. In the ideal world all load is resistive and capacity factor is one. But the workld is not ideal and we use a great deal of electrical equipment that consumes reactive power to produce electric fields (motors are one such device) The more motors that are supplied the greater the reactive load and the lower the power factor. Grid systems must control the power factor by various means since it is inefficient to run the grid at PF's much lower than 0.9.

If the amount of wind generation increases to the 20% range (unlikely) PF control becomes much more difficult and costly.

The Alberta Grid has already set limits on the amount of wind generation it will allow (alot less than 20%) because of this very issue of grid instability caused by wind power variations. While more is planned the system will become unstable.

For this to be dismissed by Tam Hunt as some triviality that is readily fixed by a few teaks here and there simply underscores the large gaps in his knowledge of grid system operation.

Malcolm

Falling wind power is backed by exactly the same dispatchable resources that are used to meet rising load over the course of a day. Dispatch is based on hour-ahead forecasts, which are pretty reliable. Minute-to-minute variations only apply to individual turbine outputs, and are associated with turbulent wind conditions. In those circumstances, conservation of momentum guarantees that a sudden fall-off at one location is accompanied by a sudden rise at another.

As far as power factor is concerned, I don’t know what the historical experience might be in particular areas. Early, small-scale wind turbines may have been designed in a manner that had the current substantially lagging the voltage. Or leading it? But there’s no reason why a modern wind farm should have an ill-mannered interface to the grid. On the contrary, any competent power systems engineer would design the interface so that the wind farm could sell power factor correction as an ancillary service to the grid, even (or especially) when there was no wind. It’s just a matter of shifting energy from one part of the AC cycle to another. It’s what a synchronous condenser does. The power interface between a wind farm and the grid should act like a solid state synchronous condenser.

When I was on the ocean depending on the wind, I was the officer in charge of a 44 foot training sailboat that used high technology that had been refined and modified for hundreds to thousands of years of continuous design evolution.

There were frequent periods when there was no wind at all - even though we had no obstacles to the wind, being several hundred miles out to sea. There were also an equal number of times when the wind blew with more intensity that we really desired, causing us to need to change to smaller sails. I often spent entire watches with the wind at almost a continuous state of change. If there is a way to accurately predict the wind an hour in advance, I am sure that there are competitive sailors that would be interested in purchasing that service.

Our electrical and alternative propulsion power source was a diesel engine with several deep cycle storage batteries. Our cooking heat was provided by propane. At the end of each cruise - generally a week or less continuously at sea - the first place that most of us headed was for a hot shower - such a luxury was impossible.

I have also gone to sea twelve times on a nuclear powered submarine. There were few limitations on our ability to wash, operate entertainment devices, sleep in air conditioned comfort, of move from place to place. Whenever we needed more power, the plant was ready, if we needed less it readily responded to that signal as well. I will keep repeating this - nuclear power plants can be extremely responsive to load changes and there is a justifiable economic argument for designing them as machines that can serve a steady state load with an available high power mode just waiting for a customer. Remember, peaking power is already far more costly on a per kilowatt hour basis to produce.

Wind supporters love to talk about independence and small scale power, but what they really propose is enormous 300 foot tall towers with turbines that have blades longer than an American football field. They also demand that the grid support the fact that they will provide power on their schedule, not that of the customer or the power company. They ignore the temporal component of value - power that is delivered when the customer wants to buy it is far more valuable than power that comes after the customer goes to bed.

Though both wind and nuclear are sources of emissions free power, there is little doubt in my mind which one wins out under any kind of objective measure. Wind power LOST a competitive battle against primitive coal fired steam plants in the first half of the 1800s. It will lose again if objective measures are used. Perhaps that is why so many wind advocates have a hard spot with allowing nuclear power to flourish - it makes them as relevant as Clipper ships are to ocean commerce.

The folks up at NorthWestern Energy appear to be in dire need of your expertise. According to the 7/3/06 Billings Gazette, "The clean, green power from the Judith Gap Wind Farm that debuted last fall has been more intermittent than anticipated. And that is causing problems for NorthWestern Energy; the utility that must balance supply and demand on its transmission lines." The article was available at: www.energycentral.com/global/nsar.cfm?li=p&id=6093686

Use of synchronous capacitors is not trivial nor is it inexpensive. Joseph's admonition, "Lastly, advocates of intermittent generation sources are asked to be honest with their claims - stop overselling what these sources can do for the American public and what the true costs are! Solar and wind can and should co-exist with nuclear power - just don't insist the former be implemented at the expense of the latter. ", like pumped storage, holds water.

Nobody is claiming that wind speed at a single wind turbine is reliably predictable an hour in advance. Certainly not in turbulent wind conditions. It's the output from an entire wind farm covering several square miles that is reasonably predictable. A big part of what makes it predictable, however, is a good network of weather stations in the surrounding geographic region that make it possible to track the movement of weather systems.

Wind supporters love to talk about independence and small scale power, but what they really propose is enormous 300 foot tall towers with turbines that have blades longer than an American football field.

About load following with a nuclear reactor, of course it's possible. And on a nuclear submarine there's no alternative. But in the commercial environment in which utilities operate, it doesn't make economic sense. Even if it saved fuel and didn't increase wear and maintenance, the cost of fuel is such a small part of nuclear power's cost there would be very little point to reducing output. And as current generation reactors are designed and operated, there is both increased wear and zero fuel savings. Operating below rated capacity just means that there will be a higher concentration of unburned U235 in the "spent" fuel rods at the next scheduled change out. The operator would actually come out ahead by maintaining rated output, and dumping surplus power through a resistor bank during periods of low demand.

However different they are in other respects, nuclear and wind power are similar in that one sense: they both drive a need for responsive loads to optimize their operation. Wind requires responsive loads to utilize its irregular output, nuclear requires responsive loads to utilize its surplus output when other demands are low.

The folks up at NorthWestern Energy appear to be in dire need of your expertise.

The URL you gave didn't work for me. But by googling, I found the article at: http://kirbymtn.blogspot.com/2006/06/wind-farm-requires-purchase-of-extra.html

The problem there doesn't seem to be any basic inability to absorb the variability, but one of logistics. The relatively predictable daily load profile, in the absence of wind power, allowed Northwestern Energy to buy most of their power on low-cost, long-term contracts. The variability of the wind output has forced them to purchase more power at premium prices on the hour-ahead spot market. A nightmare for a TSO in a deregulated environment, and a genuine problem for ratepayers. One that should have been anticipated.

Northwestern needs to scare up some big responsive loads to swallow excess wind power output, and/or acquire their own load-following power plants so that they don't have to go out so much to the spot market.

I guess I should have made myself more clear. When I said "Wind supporters love to talk about independence and small scale power, but what they really propose is enormous 300 foot tall towers with turbines that have blades longer than an American football field," what I meant was that wind power marketers often cherry pick the best features of each when trying to sell wind power.

They use the favorable image of small, distributed power sources but also talk about wind power costs decreasing dramatically over the past 10 years. The only wind power costs that have dropped are the predicted cost per kilowatt hour for large scale projects with massive turbines that manage to capture "the economy of scale". My research indicates little progress in small turbine generation efficiency and a gradual increase in cost per turbine as the effects of materials costs (copper, steel, etc) have increased.

In addition, unless the small scale turbines are grid connected (which is quite unlikely) an honest assessment of their overall generation cost has to include the cost of the backup systems that ensure that power keeps flowing during the periods when the wind is not blowing. Deep cycle batteries are normally not enough, unless power needs are very small. True off grid power systems generally also include fossil fuel generators, fuel tanks, and (hopefully) some kind of emission controls.

One more thing about wind power marketing. Perhaps it is just a matter of photos that are "enhanced", but it seems to me that most of the pictures that I see in energy ads that include windmills are either not very accurate or they depict very poorly designed wind farms. In my energy conversion courses in college, I learned that turbulence requires that wind turbines have a spacing of about three rotor diameters in order to minimize the effects on individual turbine efficiency.

If spaced more closely, the flow off of other turbines reduces the ability of each turbine to produce power at its rated level. As a competitive sailor, this always made sense to me, turbulence off of other racers sails is a key factor in understanding why some identically designed boats on a course move faster than others. Many ads with turbines depict a tightly spaced forest of turbines instead of isolated turbines spread out over huge areas (admittedly a more difficult picture to display.)

I refer you again to the papers that address these issues head on - and find that we can get to 20% wind penetration with minimal additional balancing costs. These papers were written by engineers and policy experts, with consultation from highly credible sources:

1) The UWIG report looking at the US: http://www.uwig.org/UWIGWindIntegration052006.pdf

2) The UKERC report for the UK: http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/content/view/259/953

" Northwestern needs to scare up some big responsive loads to swallow excess wind power output...."

Like those resistor banks you suggested earlier?

I smile about the comments about Northwestern (aka Montana Power). Poor Northwestern has NO resources in Montana, as the Montana Power Company they fell prey to a bunch of nitwits who wanted more than a 10% to 15% return on investment--so they morphed into Touch America. Well, they were touched alright. They sold off all their generation, buried all the money in the ground as fiber optics and went bankrupt. A 100 year old utility gone over night. Now they buy regulation from Idaho across a skinny 230 and 160 kV interconnection. Judith Gap was supposed to provide a low priced resource to compete with PPL-MT (the owners of the former Montana Power Company's generation).

Fluctuation, Intermittency and lower Capacity Factors will continue to be the major constraints for intergrating wind power into Network. 10% will not pose problem, but beyond 15% may need additional investments for compatibility and to optimize saving of fossil fuel.

But the Technology is mature, which is proven by the results - capacity addition exceeding all targets ! In India, 19 out of 20 Wind Turbines installed in 1986 by the Utility to serve as demonstration Windfarm in Tamilnadu are still in operation. One of the main reasons for the acceptablity is Simplicity , free and non-polluting resource.

Capacity Factor may improve marginally due to technological upgradation, but there is growing opposition due to increase in share of Wind Power in Network and its associated problems. There is still a lot of untapped Wind Power potential .

Energy Experts have miserably failed in developing commercially viable resources for Energy Storage, the only solution for increasing Wind Power share !

Shanmugham Kangala Chennai, India

But if we allocate the pumped storage capital and O&M costs against wind mills, then their cost of power increases. They already seem to get premium prices as mandated by government.

Of course, if free pump storage were available to the grid, why would only wind mills get a chance at using it. Would not other power providers have a competitive opportunity to supply power off-peak and sell the stored energy on-peak? Of course, wind mills have essentially zero marginal cost but nuclear is not far behind and would also be worth capacity payments, which wind is not. With free storage, an intermediate load nuclear plant might make more sense.

Has ANY wind developer proposed to build an integrated wind mills / energy storage facility in an attempt to make wind more competitive? I haven't heard of any.

My point exactly!

Also, some areas have no geology allowing pumped storage. The highest point in the state of Florida is in the NW corner at 345 feet (105 meters) above sea level. The biggest load center is Miami, 500 miles away - that whole end of the state is barely above high tide in the best of times.

As I stated, the question is: how much? How much will it cost to firm up intermittent reneewables like wind? AND how much will it cost us, both directly in terms of energy costs, and indirectly in terms of environmetnal costs and climate change costs, to pursue other options like coal (the worst of the worst), natural gas (not much better if we use LNG as the fuel), or nuclear plants (which have significant life-cycle CO2 emissions from mining, refining, construction, decommissioning, waste disposal, etc., along with many other serious problems)?

What do you call firm? Wind turbines with a 35% availability must be installed in a minimum of 6 carefully matched locations to achieve 90% reliability of the output of 1 turbine; and, 20 carefully matched locations to achieve 99.99% reliability. If a combination of turbines plus storage can achieve your definition of firm at a lower cost, so be it. However, it would appear to require a minimum of 4 wind turbines of a given rated capacity, plus storage adequate to store the output of 3 of the 4 turbines to provide power when none of the turbines were operating. This would suggest an investment of 5-8 times the cost of a single wind turbine to provide firm output equal to the capacity of a single turbine at the 90% reliability level; and, a substantially higher investment to achieve grid-level reliability in the absence of substantial non-intermittent generation.

Wind power could become a reliable source of power; but, it would not be inexpensive.

http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2005/variability.pdf#search=%22iea%20wind%20variability%22

Wow! Tam, the anti-nuke, strikes again. Fortunately, the "convenient truth" can be found in UIC's Global Warming Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper 24, June 2004 at www.uic.com.au/index htm.

Interesting document you linked to. I'll give it a read.

And also, check Don Gieglers link about CO2 emissions of nuclear power. The Storm van Leewuen people are essentially lying.

Thanks for the reference. I seriously doubt that many of the "firming" approaches are low cost. Adding firm generating capacity, highly flexible transmission capacity, pumped hydro or compressed air storage, etc. are costly. Relying on regulators in adjacent states to permit overbuilding of capacity to serve your needs is fraught with risk. Relying on private investors to invest on your behalf to meet peaks, especially after "must serve" orders, is pure folly. DSM will remain very limited unless consumers are exposed to the real differences in power cost; or, DSM becomes a "top down" mandate.

This discussion began with CA. It is important to keep the discussion in context. The specific issue is a real wind availability of ~4% during extremely warm periods, which are also periods of high electric demand. The recent CA global climate change initiative, with its intent to force generators in adjacent states to change technology to serve CA, will not help. Nor will a 20% RPS in a state with a very limited conventional capacity reserve margin. Each of these situations is subject to analysis in isolation, but only at great peril.

Or did I miss something vital?

You missed CA environmental politics.

Make the new hydrogen fueling stations that are going in be all variably demand controlled. Then you could run more plants at baseload 24/7.

The proble in CA is not filling troughs, it is meeting peaks.

Well, the Californian nuclear moratorium is just silly and uninformed. But I won't gloat, we have a nuclear moratorium in Sweden too.

*Sob*

P.s. And I wouldn't call a nuclear moratorium "environmental politics". It's more like anti-environmental politics.

P.p.s. Wind and nuclear really, really complement each other in California due to the abundance of natural gas generation. Would an alliance between wind and nuclear supporters be entirely impossible?

Sure it would take more overall electrical generation than is available now, but that's displacing transportation energy so what's the difference? Some of the larger new following loads could even be located on main lines to reduce transmission requirements from say a large wind farm. Depending on the type of load used, VAR matching could be matched as well.

Wind energy is what it is--a fuel saver and emissions reducer par excellence, but not a particularly effective method of increasing capacity. It can be used to assist in meeting capacity needs, but only at the levels that analysis shows that it can handle. As others here have commented, wind's primary value is in saving fuel and reducing emissions. It's definitely feel-good, it ADDS reliability to power systems instead of detracting from it, and, according to public opinion polls, most people do not find it unsightly. Rabid supporters of other energy technologies may not find it attractive, but that's probably not a criterion we want to use to plan energy policy.

It's inexpensive, it's clean, and its use increases both domestic and international security.

Regards, Thomas O. Gray www.awea.org www.ifnotwind.org

Whoops, no, that would be a major error. The 4-10% number applies to wind's capacity VALUE, not to its capacity factor. The capacity factor at most U.S. sites ranges from 28% to 35%, with a few up in the 40s.

Regards, Thomas O. Gray - www.awea.org - www.ifnotwind.org

No, this is not correct. Here's the rebuttal: "We discuss four of the most prominent misconceptions [about wind energy] here, with additional detail in subsequent sections. First is the notion that every megawatt of wind generation must be backed up by approximately 1 MW of conventional dispatchable generation. Actually, the great majority of wind generation has been added to power systems as an energy source rather than a capacity source, so the generation needed to maintain system demand-generation balance is already present as part of the system. As discussed further below, a small amount of additional regulation or load-following capability is generally needed, but that is most often provided by existing units. And as a practical matter, with over 6,000 MW of installed wind power generation so far in the United States, not a single conventional unit has been installed as a backup generator for wind."--"Wind Plant Integration: Costs, Status and Issues," DeMeo et al, IEEE Power & Energy Magazine, November-December 2005, p. 39.

Regards, Thomas O. Gray - www.awea.org - www.ifnotwind.org

"I know nothing about the tax breaks given to nuclear, but would not be surprised if they are considerable."

Yes, that is correct. A report from the Renewable Energy Policy Project in 2000 found that at that point, the federal government had spent $150 billion subsidizing nuclear, wind and solar, with 96.3% going to nuclear. Wind still has a couple of decades of catching up to do in the subsidy realm. Press release on the report can be accessed at http://www.crest.org/repp_pubs/articles/resRpt11/preleasesubsidies.pdf.

Regards, Thomas O. Gray - www.awea.org - www.ifnotwind.org

(1) Some of the subsidies to wind wind up in local county tax coffers in the form of property taxes or payments in lieu of taxes (PILOT), or in the pockets of local farmers and ranchers who host turbines on their property.

(2) As stated above, over time, nuclear has gotten far more than its share of federal subsidies.

"As for capacity, the article is spot on--if you can't count on having the electricity when you need it (like during a heat wave) or if you have more than you can use another time, it is close to worthless, much like a zuccinni harvest in summertime. If California had a working capacity market I'm sure wind would lose out and perhaps be less fawnishly embraced by it's proponents. As for 'average annual production' try putting one hand on the hot stove and the other in the fridge--on 'average' you feel just right. On 'average', there's enough sunshine falling on earth to power everything...but it can't simply because of temporal demand concentration."

No, this is incorrect. Of course it is of value to save fuel and to reduce air pollution, water pollution, water use (wind uses no water, all thermoelectric and hydro plants use considerable quantities) and global warming pollution. The analogy to a hot stove and refrigerator is specious and without merit.

Regards, Thomas O. Gray - www.awea.org - www.ifnotwind.org

I know that new technologies in rotating machineries are coming into commercial applications. One such is from Global Kinetic Technology.Motor/generator developments using permanent magnet with zero hysterises losses and zero cogging will give rise to new wind turbine generators. I am currently developing a Business Plan ( as a start up company- Global Kinetic Technology Canada)to develop a prototype starting with small wind turbines for farm, residential and remote areas where there are no grid electricity.

Its not over yet.

Ellsworth Rustia,P.Eng. President Global Kinetic Technology Canada, http://www.global-kinetic.com

Peak load has little bearing, or, effect, on generation. Why are people bringing this up. Peak load only becomes in issue of base load generation fallshort for a few hours in a day. For decades, PG&E, which ran the bigget part of California's grid, combo nukes, hydro and traditional thermal plants, always had more than enough power. As load increased over the years, PG&E made a decission NOT to build more conventional power plants (or nuclear, after the political uproar over Diablo Canyon and SMUDs financial fiasco over poorly designed Ranch Secho) and just "import" power. Thus, peak periods in the summer time became critical at Power Control (now taken over by the ISO).

If PG&E had build a few more Diablo Canyon sized units (1100 MW s) and a few more Frame Units (GTs) most of the 2000 energy crisis would of been avoided (not to mention junking deregulation).

Nuclear power can be used to run an entrie grid if there is more capacity than there is load. Ramp up rates are comparable with conventional plants. It's just a case of bringing one's base load capacity up as close to peak load as financially possible.

David Walters Control Room Operator

While nuclear power is a great base load asset, it cannot be the only source on a grid. Nukes are meant to operate at full capacity and do not ramp well. (I was a reactor operator as well)

I have noticed one issue that has not been addressed with regards to wind. Everyone knows that to have wind on a system, there must be a dispatchable resource capable of both picking up load quickly as wind dies off, as well as shedding load quickly as wind picks up.

People seem to point to the cost savings in fuel, however, gas also has to be scheduled, and there are penalties for either "packing" or "drafting" the pipe in times of unscheduled gas usage. These costs can be significant depending on the gas contract. You can use gas storage to back this up, however you then lose the optionality value on your gas storage. Either way, it is a cost that is rarely brought up, but that is very real.

The energy triangle of the future has three main components - nuclear, wind + solar, and bio-renewables. During a heat wave, wind may die down, but the sun is shining in a typically relentless fashion. Pure wind solutions, or pure solar solutions, for that one leg, are not viable, but together, they form an admirable peaking capability for daytime needs. Combination wind and solar farms in the desert southwest (AZ, NM, TX) could supply a substantial amount of energy for the southern half of the country, provided the T&D were there to support it.

First Solar just announced $1.8B in contracts to provide thin-film technology PV panels (which have been in production and use for several years) to Europe, where they are spending less time debating and more time on action. We CAN engineer good reliable solutions with these technologies, cost-effectively, if we can agree to hybrid solutions to our energy issues.

I am a former member of the American Nuclear Society, and sat on one of their standards development committees a couple of decades ago, so I *do* like the nuclear leg of the triangle. The current nuclear industry should not view the other two legs of the solution as threats, but should embrace the design of a national energy system based on using nuclear for base loads, where it is a proven winner, and help design or promote clean alternatives for the peaking which is always going to be part of the mix.