Talk:Intermittent energy source: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 13:10, 3 April 2007

Revision as of 13:11, 3 April 2007

Line 586:

==Claim that technically close to (ie 94% say) 100% wind power is feasible in the UK==

ExtracedExtracted from forgoing:

1. If the entire UK national grid annual demand (which is very well defined [[Control of the National Grid (UK)]]and therefore a good example, but could be any other large grid where the facts are known) were supplied by wind power - typically 140 GW, 35,000 turbines, would be needed in the UK. Then self evidently, when the wind is not blowing, all the existing power stations can be started up in sequence to fill in the gaps. The cost of provdingproviding this cover is very roughly the Spark Spread and not overwhelmingly significant - about £7.MWh compared to supply prices presenltypresently of £70/MWh.

2. It is known that the UK Grid can easily cope with 3 GW swings in a few minutes, (last solar eclipse) and self evidently, 35,000 turbines spread around the coasts of the UK cannot all lose or gain 3 GW in 3 minutes from a change in wind speeds over the entire UK - winds simply do not change their average speed at anything like that rate. Graham Sinden’s paper (http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden05-dtiwindreport.pdf ) page 8 shows that the worst rate of change due to wind variation is likely about 20% and is likely to occur about once per year.

Line 594:

So for 60 GW of capacity that is a 12 GW change in 1 hour, or a paltry 0.2GW per minute, far less than the 3 GW change in minutes due to the last eclipse..

3. 35,000 turbines provdingproviding 60 GW of power cannot all suddenly fail technically simultaneously, therefore the Grid operating at that point in time, would require less back up than it already has (which is defined to cover the failure of the large 1.32 MW Sizewell set).

Consequently, it is technically the the case that intermittency even with 100% wind is not a serious technical issue for the UK even with things as they stand at the moment.

That’s not to say that close to 100% is the most desirable economic course – that remains to be settled by proper detailed half hour by half studies. However the above simply broad analysis does how that it is likleylikely to be perfeclyperfectly technicalltechnically possilbepossible AS THINGS STAND AT THE MOMENT.

There are however, already existing well used technologies than can be readily deployed to assist a 100% wind scenario;

1. In the UK there are already 5 Gw of existing switchable in real time storage heaters which can be set for freqeuecnyfrequency control to deal with clearly up to 5 GW of variation, and to store power for many hours. Since these only cover about 1/5th of the UK housing stock these can be readillyreadily extenededextended.

2. Potentially there are 3 kW x 20 million switch able in real time immersion heaters = 60 GW

Line 610:

4. There is the potential to add 6 GW at a cost of about £1billion 5. or 40 GW at say £7billion

5. Sinden's paper (http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/sinden05-dtiwindreport.pdf ) shows that it is rare that there are high winds simaltanoulsysimultaneously over the whole of the UK meaning it would be relativleyrelatively rare for the output of 140 GW of 35,000 turbines to exceed 100 Gw, meaingmeaning that virtually all power could be exported at that time - at which it has zero marginal cost, and can then be bouaghtbrought back as needed - from whoever on the continent can offer the lowest price - as there will alwasyalways be someone in the same position as us.

So it seems to me there is no doubt that the issue of intermittency does not stand in the way of 100% wind on the UK and any other large interconnected grid system.