Too much wind power

How about plug in hybirds, buy AND selling to the grid? These acting as a big 24/7, disaggregated storage battery for wind and Solar.

(Pumping water up hill to generate hydro is a net enrgry loser.)

Icarus

 

Plug-in hybrids would be great, not so much because of the storage capability, but because they would let wind and solar power really begin to take a direct bite out of oil imports.

With all due respect to Ms. Souder, her article is a bit over the top. Wind farms do deliver variable amounts of electricity, but the rate of change in their output is much slower than what happens when a large conventional (coal or nuclear) plant suddenly goes out of service. With wind forecasting, utility system operators should not have a problem dealing with variations in the wind just as they do with variations with customer demand throughout the day.

Storage is rarely considered, not because folks are unaware of it, but because there are almost always cheaper options--more transmission, more gas peaking units, etc.

Regards,
Thomas O. Gray
American Wind Energy Association
PowerOfWind.com
American Wind Energy Association
20% Windpower by 2030

 

There are some places where the wind blows much more often than it does not. I hapen to live about 7 miles from one of the biggest wind farms in the US, in the San Gorgonio Mountain pass near Palm Springs, CA. In the same area there are some natural gas peak generator stations that can jump on the grid during times of peak demand or still air.

Wind power is a very logical way to develop power without producing CO2.

Photos: More Windmills, Palm Springs: un álbum de Flickr

 

I realize that, and I should have been more careful with my wording. My point is that pumping water up hill only to have it run down through a turbine is a very inefficient way to generate power. You could however, justify it if you were using power that might other wise go to waste, ie wind or solar, but in fact you would be way farther ahead to put it into the grid first, or batteries second.

Icarus

 

Whenever someone points out that:
1) Windfarms kill birds.
2) Windfarms are not dependable
3) Windfarms are intermittent
just shows that they did not bother with any homework. None at all. They just fired a bad opinion from the hip.

1) Where are the studies showing modern wind turbines kill birds? (How many prop driven airplanes kill birds?)

2) Wind power is vastly more dependable than user variations in load. Note that even with just coal and nuclear power plants, power companies still need to have home load management systems to handle user demand cycles.

3) One of the short time averaging items fielded are flywheel storage systems
Beacon Power
There are many others being examined, but I know I could adjust my loads to match power source variations with little problem.

 

Thanks for you input. One item I would like to add. Little advocation has been advanced for users to vary their loads to match generation variations. With very little automation the following things could be done:
1) Heat the hot water when the generation is optimum
2) Run Non-Time dependent loads (pool pumps, air compressors, etc.) at power company notified periods.
3) Put light loads (lighting, computers) on a UPS system that allows for load management.

Admittedly, there would need to be economic incentive to do so, but then there actually is a economic reward for doing so for the producer and the user.

 

The very reason we need more wind farms is the variable nature of the wind.
In sailing a way to get an advantage over an opponent is to find a piece of water where the wind is blowing harder at the time you are on that piece of water. The wind as we all know is never constant, it can be blowing hard on one side of town while not at all on the other.

The best way to achieve stability of supply is to have wind farms all over the place, better still stop thinking farms and think turbines. Why not single turbines where ever they can placed? No need to have a minimum number greater than 1. This way, especially in a land mass as big as Texas, if the wind isn't blowing on one part of the state it will be blowing on another. When the wind blows across the state, sell the energy to neighbouring states, when there is little wind across Texas, buy from other states or take the opportunity to fire up the old coal or gas fired power stations as the power from wind slowly drops as the calm air moves over the state.

Of course drops in wind speed shouldn't come as a surprise, with Doppler radar wind speeds can be detected hundreds of miles away giving early warning that wind speeds are going to fall allowing early action to be taken.

I think the idea of using excess wind and solar energy from high production periods or low demand periods to pump water into dams is a good idea, although it would require a large body of water below the dam. Even though the losses are big, the energy would otherwise not be used at all. I think a preferred method would be to use hydro only when there was a demand wind and solar were not able to meet and completely shut down hydro when wind and solar can meet demand. This saved that potential energy of falling water for when it is needed like a battery.

There is currently under development a base-load solar technology using the sun and concentrator dishes to heat ammonia, that heat can be stored and recovered to produce steam to drive a conventional steam turbine power generator.

AdelaideNow... Whyalla solar project set to shine

The big advantage of solar is, when you want to turn your air conditioner on, it works its best. A diverse range of energy inputs spread across the state or the nation are what is required to successfully use natural energies to replace fossil fuel power.

 

#8+#9
What we need here is the wisdom and prospective of a Master Electrician and Innovation. Computer synchronization of a wind grid with battery back up and storage if need be.

If Toyota can couple an ICE with a battery pack what’s the difference?

I think the key stumbling block here is initial investment. If a municipality where to have lets say a block of storage batteries located through-out a metro, convert utilities such as street lights or similar types of utilities to dual purpose (conventional vs halogen bulb) and do a constant draw with back up, and take every other street light off the grid as power was drawn down this would take a lot of power off the grid to start with.

Coal or gas could have a committed turbine for back up if all else fails.
Or #9

 

From the OP's question:

Many hydroelectric systems already utilize what they call "pumped storage". Here's the Wikipedia article:

Pumped-storage hydroelectricity - Wikipedia

or just type "pumped storage" into your favorite search engine. You'll be amazed at the number of plants that use pumped storage. May even be one in your neighborhood. Are there efficiency issues? Of course. Does it sometimes make economic sense anyway? Apparently. So, it could be possible with wind energy, especially if that energy is captured in an area that already has a pumped storage facility (reduces the overall infrastructure costs). It's only a cost/benefit question.

This from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory report on the Altamont Pass wind resources area:

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) produced a report in 2003 that estimated that somewhat more than 1,000 birds were being killed annually by the wind turbines in the Pass. One-half of the birds killed are raptors. This is significantly more than that estimated by studies in the 1990s. However, the study also estimated that only 24 golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos) are killed annually, about one-half of that estimated earlier. The golden eagle is a protected species. Most of the raptors killed are red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis).

The study also concluded that the mortality rate per turbine is nearly ten times that of the previous estimates. Earlier studies suggested the mortality rate ranged from 0.02 to 0.05 birds killed per turbine per year. The NREL study puts the death rate at 0.19 birds/turbine/year.

 

Thanks for setting that straight. Less than 1 bird for every 5 turbines each year. Some would have us believe they use a front end loader and semi-tipper to remove the dead birds from under the turbines each day, it really gets hyped up by the NIMBY crowd.
It is sad that any birds are killed but I wonder how many are killed by fossil fueled power stations?

 

Pat,

The Altamont area is "notorious" for the deaths of its raptors.

Please note that the same studies indicate that part of the issue at Altamont is the size of the turbines - they're too small! With diameters of 18 - 30 meters, the Altamont turbines reach to within about 6 - 9 meters of the ground at the bottom of their stroke. This appears to get raptors at the bottom of their stoop as they are pulling up before taking out that juicy field mouse. Or maybe taking off just after snagging that same mouse.

While there are few installed (and none with long track records) in similar situations (bird type/population) the data seem to indicate that larger turbines (60 - 75 meters swept diameter) result in fewer bird deaths, particularly raptors. The numbers there seem to be about 0.05birds/turbine/year. The theory twofold: the blade tips are higher above ground even at perigee, and it takes fewer turbines to capture the same amount of power (it seems that blade tip areas are the most lethal, so fewer blade tips overall, even though bigger, means fewer deaths). When you multiply out a fourfold reduction using larger turbines, and another five to eight-fold reduction in the number of turbines...

Just what the NIMBYs want to hear, you have to make the turbines bigger.

 

I expect at some point I'll put a small wind unit on my house to generate at night when the PV is "sleeping".

But....not yet.

 

This method is already used commercially, and isn't too bad when done on a very large scale. Batteries don't scale very well, so tend to be impractical for large scale storage. If they are there already, like they would be with plug-in cars, then they might work. Putting the power into the grid first is obvious. Even better than that is to use the power directly instead of turning it into electricity - obviously again.

Tom

 

Compressed air storage in geologic structures is another way to store wind energy. There is a pilot project in Iowa, I think, trying this out.

The other problem with altamont is that it is sited in a horrible location from the avian point of view. Also, the towers that the turbines sit on are not solid tubes like the more modern and considerably larger turbines. Rather, they are open and allow for roosting. Altamont is a poor choice for talking about modern turbine impact on avian populations.

 

I stand corrected! I appreciate the citation so I can read it for myself. In a commercial size unit they are speaking of efficiencies of 70-80%. On the smaller scale it is much less.

Icarus

 

The US Audubon Society strongly endorses wind power, as the lesser of two evils (the other being to continue to produce electricity from fossil fuels):

"Summary: Audubon strongly supports properly-sited wind power as a clean alternative energy source that reduces the threat of global warming. Wind power facilities should be planned, sited and operated to minimize negative impacts on bird and wildlife populations."

Full citation here:

Audubon's Position on Wind Power

Their mission is to protect bird sand bird habitats. I can only assume they studied this pretty closely before endorsing it. And a little research shows why: Altamont is an exception. Most wind turbines produce no documented bird kills at all.

The NREL report cited above was a study of Altamont Pass, specifically done in the context of re-powering the wind units there. It was not a study of wind turbines in general and the death rates there should not be taken as indicative of averages for wind turbines in general. My take on it is that they were studied so intensively because the death rates were so high. Here's the Altamont study:

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/33829.pdf

By contrast, here are studies of two sites where there were zero bird kills over an extended (12 month) period, again from NREL:

http://search.nrel.gov/cs.html?url=...ite:rredc.nrel.gov+||+bird&col=nrel&n=2&la=en
http://search.nrel.gov/cs.html?url=...ite:rredc.nrel.gov+||+bird&col=nrel&n=4&la=en

Looking at the lit review in that first study, wind turbines hardly even rank in terms of manmade objects resulting in bird kills. Number 1 killer is windows. Tall lighted towers and chimneys kill a lot of birds, as do airport ceilometers (lights used to measure the height of cloud cover -- the light disorients the birds). The first document above says this (page 13):

" ... no studies of wind turbines have revealed anywhere close to the numbers of fatalities or collisions as reported for TV towers, tall chimneys (in excess of 150 m), or even ceilometers and tall buildings. The reason for this difference may be related to the height of bird migration ... at altitudes greater than 200 feet ... most nocturnal migration by songbirds occurs between 300 and 2,000 feet ... Waterfowl and shorebirds actually migrate higher during their nocturnal and diurnal flights (Kerlinger and Moore 1989). Wind turbines extend into the lowest strata of bird migration. In addition, turbines less than 200 feet in height are not lighted so are unlikely to disorient or attract migrants. Hawks sometimes migrate at very low altitudes (<100 feet), but these birds migrate in daylight when they can see obstacles and take evasive action. Because almost no hawk fatalities have been reported from communications towers of any height, it does not appear that towers are a risk to these birds except in rare instances. The Altamont WRA of California is one such instance. (emphasis mine)."

The report goes on to say that (at the time of writing) there had been no documented bird kills from eastern US wind towers.

So with full information in hand, it is not a surprise that Audubon endorses wind power. There's a real problem at Altamont, but that is clearly an exception to the rule. Bird kills at Eastern US wind towers are essentially nonexistent, based on the NREL-sponsored study.

Not relevant to birds, but on topic, here's a NREL publication that says we could convert 20% of the grid to wind and would only need enhanced power transmission, no mention of storage. We're so far from that, I don't see the storage as being an issue in the near future:

NREL: Wind Research - Wind Energy Could Produce 20 Percent of U.S. Electricity By 2030

 

Godiva,

Before you make a serious investment in small scale wind I suggest that you read some of the posts in the following" Wind Power Generation - Solar Electric Discussion Forum

The general consensus among people who have installed small scaled systems is that they almost NEVER make sense. The hardware is unreliable, most peoples perception of the amount of wind they really have is over inflated, the service costs are too high etc.

In the RE world we generally consider small scale (Home owners sized) to be the absolute last RE dollar to spend. Most people are way further ahead to increase the size of their PV systems.

Icarus