The next time somebody tells you that we can replace nuclear energy with renewables, you might want to pass along this article from Energy Pulse by David Dixon of the Department of Energy. He took a look at the performance of California's 2,500 MWe of wind capacity during this Summer's heat wave.
The results? Well, I'll let Dixon tell you himself:
Want more? Take a look at this graph that Dixon included with his article:
That's right, as demand grew during the heat wave, wind's performance slid off a cliff. If the state's nuclear reactors at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon had slid to 4% of capacity during the heat wave, I don't want to think about what would have happened to the electrical grid. But for wind power, that sort of performance is just another day at the office.
Does this mean that wind doesn't have a place on the electrical grid? No, and we've said that over and over again. But what it does mean is that wind can't hope to replace baseload capacity, and the presence of baseload supply from nuclear and coal are the only things that make wind's existence on the grid possible in the first place.
One more time: Wind has a place on the electric grid, both today and tomorrow. But suggesting that wind can replace baseload capacity on the grid is irresponsible and dangerous.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Wind Power, California
The results? Well, I'll let Dixon tell you himself:
So what happened in California during the mid-July heat storm when that electric grid was put to the test, and California avoided rolling blackouts amid a Level 1 Emergency in which Californian’s were asked to raise their thermostats to 77 and many manufactures and business voluntarily shutdown? By most people’s analysis, wind’s performance was disappointing. Specifically during this period of peak demand, statewide wind often operated at only 5% of capacity, or less. The specific data is plotted in the attached graph. The upper line shows the peak daily electric demand as recorded by the California Independent System Operator, CASIO, during the heat storm. Daily peak power usage increased fairly steadily in mid July, reaching its peak on July 24 at 50,270 MW. Wind’s availability during this same period is presented in the lower line. Specifically this is the percent of the CASIO available wind capacity, 2,500MW, which was actually putting electricity into the CASIO grid at the time of peak demand on each day plotted.Disappointing? How about disastrous? More often than not, we quote the rated capacity of wind in the U.S. at 33%. That's compared to nuclear industry's average industry-wide capacity factor of 90%.
By most measures these numbers are disappointing. On the day of peak demand, August 24, 2006, wind power produced at 254.6 MW at the time of peak demand. 254.6 MW represents only 10.2% of wind’s rated capacity of 2,500MW. Another perspective on the data, over the preceding seven days, August 17 to 23, wind produced at 89.4 to 113.0 MW, averaging only 99.1 MW at the time of peak demand or just 4% of rated capacity.
Want more? Take a look at this graph that Dixon included with his article:
That's right, as demand grew during the heat wave, wind's performance slid off a cliff. If the state's nuclear reactors at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon had slid to 4% of capacity during the heat wave, I don't want to think about what would have happened to the electrical grid. But for wind power, that sort of performance is just another day at the office.
Does this mean that wind doesn't have a place on the electrical grid? No, and we've said that over and over again. But what it does mean is that wind can't hope to replace baseload capacity, and the presence of baseload supply from nuclear and coal are the only things that make wind's existence on the grid possible in the first place.
One more time: Wind has a place on the electric grid, both today and tomorrow. But suggesting that wind can replace baseload capacity on the grid is irresponsible and dangerous.
Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Nuclear Power, Electricity, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Wind Power, California
Comments
Maybe you do, but I certainly do not. That's what the wind propagandists ... er ... enthusiasts say. I might say the capacity averages about 25% and call it an optimistic estimate. Look at the graph. It starts at 25% and only goes down.
"This completely ignores the potential development of options for storing energy from offpeak generation for use during peak periods if wind or other alts are below full capacity during peak periods."
Sure and add additional cost to already expensive wind generation. Will these development options for storing energy also be subsidized? (Not that I necessarily have anything against well-targeted subsidies or subsidies for wind generation in particular. I'm just asking.)
"It also picks apart a straw man; no one is claiming that wind can supply 100% of US electricity demand."
Ah ... but that's simply not true.
This is a nuclear blog. The only reason that we are discussing wind here is because there is a entire rogues gallery of organizations who do claim that nuclear (and often coal) is unnecessary because renewables like wind can fit the bill. For example, we've all heard stuff like the following:
"We can meet our energy needs through energy efficiency, renewable energy like solar and wind power, and responsible additions to supply. We can meet our energy needs and have a clean and healthy world without nuclear power."
If, like the Sierra Club, you oppose oil and gas, you oppose coal, you oppose nuclear, you oppose large hydroelectric projects, then what's left? Wind, solar, etc., will have to supply 100% of US electricity demand. And wind will need to do better than a mere 4% capacity or they'll never make it.
Straw man, indeed. It goes straight to the point of these groups' arguments.
Are you completely out of your mind, anon?! It's also completely ignoring the potential development of options for cold fusion, orgon accumulators and Free Energy from the tachyonic field of the earth. And it does so for a reason: all this stuff does not exist and therefore won't give us a single wattsecond of electricity.
You can speak up again if you have a solution to the storage problem and not just a vague idea. Until then, please stay in your dream land while grown ups talk about the energy needs of the real world.
/me shakes head
Don't forget perpetual motion machines.
What the tinfoil hat, aging hippie crowd always miss are the costs for some of their utopian solutions. Yet to be discussed - "shade pollution" from solar energy arrays. What is going to be the effect from taking relatively efficient soil out of production and covering it with relatively lower efficiency solar cells? I'm sorry, dear, but you can't run a house with a rooftop array of solar cells. You will have to give up your front and back yards and buy some more land, to boot.
Everything has a cost. Nothing is free. You have to take your pick. Either go out and saddle up Dobbin for a trip to the grocery store or grow your own.
Zero
re: comment regarding selective use of statistics. NOT! You can pretty much DEPEND on the wind to be undependable, NO WIND is an almost daily occurrence. His point was, can you imagine relying upon wind to power the whole grid? No nuclear, No coal what is left? Camping, that's what!
www.the-green-wind.com