Will Wind Power Make the Grid Less Reliable?

[kristopher]

Will Wind Power Make the Grid Less Reliable?

by Carl Levesque, American Wind Energy Association

Q: My question is about the grid and wind power. If we were to add wind power into the generation mix, would the grid still be as reliable as it is today? -- Alan T., Portland, Maine

A: It's human nature to make assumptions based on everyday experience: from personal experience, for example, most of us know that the wind isn't blowing all the time, at least in most places with which we're familiar. But science and reality, we also know, often have a way of overruling our assumptions.

Nevertheless, some ask, can wind power, being a variable resource-meaning it generates electricity when the wind is blowing-be relied upon as a significant part of a system that provides reliable electricity to consumers without interruption. In fact, based on a growing body of analytical and operational experience, the answer is a resounding yes. According to many utilities and reliability authorities, wind power can readily be accommodated into electric system operations reliably and economically.

In Europe, Denmark receives over 20% of its electricity from wind energy, and in 2007 Germany got around 7% of its electricity from the wind. Both Spain and Portugal had periods in 2007 when wind energy provided over 20% of their electricity-in fact, Spain recently set a single-day record with over 40% of its electricity coming from its wind farms. Here in the U.S., Iowa leads the nation in the percentage of electricity it gets from wind, at 5.5%, while Minnesota is not far behind with 4.6%.

These are examples of how high penetrations of wind power can be a valuable part of a utility's "generation mix" that supplies electricity, reliably and without interruption, to consumers.

How it's done

How is this already being accomplished if, as everyone knows, "the wind doesn't blow all the time"? First, it's important to remember that the electrical grid is an amazing technical achievement of the 20th century, requiring operators to balance system demand for electricity with the system production of electricity from generation facilities (power plants), on a real-time basis-24-7, 365 days a year. This real-time need to balance load (i.e., demand, or the electricity users are requesting) with the supply of electricity, makes electricity very...

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/ate/story?id=52179

[ixion]

1. distributed energy systems will rely less on the grid

which is why they make more sense then one massive grid that needs to be tweaked 'round the clock in order to remain stable.

At some point in the very near future, people are going to be required to rethink their relationship to "the grid."

[kristopher]

2. Depends on what you mean by "sense"

The only thing stopping distributed generation is economics, so I suspect that would be the common "sense" take on it. Because of economy of scale in generation, distributed electricity is extremely expensive. That continues to be true with all foreseeable alternative energy sources now under review.

Anybody who wants to has been able to go off grid any time they want to for decades.

[ixion]

3. if alternative energy systems were funded and supplemented with our tax dollars as oil is

they would be affordable. It's simply a matter of wanting to go in that direction.

[kristopher]

7. Whether you pay directly our through tax dollars, it's expensive.

The grid receives very little in the way of subsidies and serves a lot of functions besides providing residential electricity. Apre you proposing we pull out 1/3 of the customer base, and cause a rise on the rates for all the businesses (including car refueling in the near future) and then subsidize with tax money residential use at probably 4X what it would cost on the grid?

Do you REALLY think that is a good idea?

[ixion]

12. the grid has been privatized, after being paid for with tax dollars

I'm not saying it has to be eliminated all together, but simply that shift to distributed system will be required at some point, so the sooner the better. It's going to be havoc for Big Energy either way.

[kristopher]

13. That really isn't what happened.

The grid was a controlled monopoly. Instead of many companies duplicating competing infrastructure it made sense to give it to one company and run the operation on a supervised cost plus basis. That has been and is the function of most public utility commissions. The privatization move is based on a belief that this monopoly can be avoided. So there has been diversification of ownership involved in the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity. It is an extremely complex system both financially and technically. You probably already know all of this, but if you're interested in a decent book (there are a lot of them on the topic) I'd recommend "Power Loss" by Richard Hirsh.
I don't see the system as "Big Energy" so much myself because the core of the system is the consumer. The real difference is reliability in my view. In the competitive model the consumer can expect two related problems. First is that the cost savings function within the corporation will push the quality of service down to maximize a profitability that is capped by either regulation or competition. This decline in service will continue until customer (many of the customers involved are other entities within the industry) complaint through the market or the governing body halts the decline. I think the competitive model's end point is thus ultimately a lower level of service with little increase in innovation.
This is because innovation is, in this case, technologies that, while grid oriented, are not 'plug-and-play' with the present configuration of the grid.
Distributed generation is a model built on the present widely distributed lifestyle. The typical response to restricted energy is clustering of social and economic activity in order to reduce transportation (human and commodities) costs. In this environment, (which may take a couple of generations to fully effect or it may happen largely in less than one), and with the renewables on the shelf, I just don't see a place for distributed generation at the individual level.
The future has two parts: Conservation and renewable generation. The scenario I'm painting incorporates both of those, not just at the individual level, but at the social infrastructure (work, recreation, family, commerce etc) level.

[Finishline42]

15. Good info.

The problem with the competitive model is that as companies are bought and sold, increased cost is added to the system without any benefit to the end user. Just as most of us have seen with cable companies, which are regulated on a cost plus basis, cost go up without an increase in the quality of service.

Major improvements are needed in the grid, which the current admin is ignoring.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madokie]

6. and just what does that other person bring to the debate, I ask

besides hate and discontent

[DCKit]

9. Entertainment value. You can't take it series!1!!1! n/t

[madokie]

10. but he takes himself so series!!!

I thought I was supposed to too;-)

[gear_head]

5. the problem is freeloaders

wind people expect others
to provide reserve for free

[kristopher]

8. When I forget that I don't know everything

I shoot from the hip also.

If you'd read the entire article:
"Our studies and experiences show that wind energy integrates effectively and reliably into our power systems with regional market operations to mitigate the impact of wind variability. In these cases even with 25% of the electricity on our system from wind we forecast cost for operating system reserves of approximately $5 per megawatt-hour, or roughly 10% of wind energy. As we gain experience with wind, we keep seeking ways to achieve low integration costs."

It is standard practice to calculate the costs of integration when the electricity is priced and contracts set.

[gear_head]

11. would you want to own machinery that must be kept on...

but somebody else gets the revenue?

[kristopher]

14. Not sure what are you talking about...

That is all taken into consideration in pricing and everyone is getting paid for what they are doing, so there are neither "free loaders" or free riders.
Renewables are no different in this regard than any other generations source. All require backup and the system is geared to calculate the cost of that backup and provide it. The difference is in the degree that this backup is required. There are huge swings in daily and annual production that match huge swings in demand. The variability of wind or solar is just one more element.
The problem with renewables is more pointedly a problem with dispatch-ability. Dispatchable power is ready to be called on when scheduled and the grid operator can plan around it. Solar and wind can meet this requirement now only to a degree limited by the abllity to forecast weather conditions accurately. And in the future by integration of a very large scale, wide spread network. The sun is always shining and the wind is always blowing somewhere. With other renewables (hydro, wave/current/tidal, geothermal, thermal biomass) and various storage strategies (V2G, pumped hydro CAES etc), the transition looks like it will be pretty smooth actually.
We can do this with existing technology, so major improvements are no longer a prerequisite, they are icing on the cake.