Talk:Intermittent energy source: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 12:55, 3 April 2007

Revision as of 13:01, 3 April 2007

Line 588:

Extraced 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, 3500035,000 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. That is not deniable – self evidently? The cost of doingprovding this cover is very roughly the Spark Spread and not overwhelmingly significant - about £7.MWh compared to supply prices presenlty 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.

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. Again35,000 turbines provding 60 GW of power coming from 35,000 turbines 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 mustis betechnically obvious?the Self evident? Thethe 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 studies (see for example -

Consequently, it must be obvious? Self evident? 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.

But then one has to mention all the other already existing technologies than can be readily deployed to assist a 100% wind scenario;

Line 604 ⟶ 607:

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.

That’s not to say it is the most desirable economic course – that remains to be settled by proper studies. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Engineman|Engineman]] ([[User talk:Engineman|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Engineman|contribs]]) 12:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->