Energy Central Sponsors
A Service of Energy CentralEnergyBlogs.com Logo

The Denmark Challenge - Lessons From an Emerging Wind Power - The people of Denmark have a story to tell in their own Nordic unassuming way. You hear it from quietly proud Per Volund, an engineer, as he takes a group of Americans out on a small boat to tour the Middlegrunden wind farm in Copenhagen harbor.

By reading carefully the story, two further lessons can be extracted by applying the EWPC market architecture and design paradigm to the article:

Lesson #1: Transmission (and distribution) investment should be done at least costs.

Under the EWPC article Financing and Developing Wind Projects, I wrote “Optimal transportation should be the result of expansion planning where all potential wind projects (see also Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm) are taken into consideration at the same time for a give planning horizon. Such expansion planning is to be done in the environment suggested in the article Free Market and Central Planning, Under R1E2.”

This is what Martin Rosenberg wrote relative to the lesson:

"Denmark has invested heavily in its power grid, viewing its as a necessary resource, according to Lise Nielson, program coordinator for Energinet, which develops and owns Denmark's electricity and natural gas transmission lines. "Utilities and grids in Denmark have always worked on a nonprofit basis," she said. The grid operators are dedicated to spurring development of all viable generation resources. "We will build grid out to any generation." Furthermore, Energinet has long sought the highest levels of reliability, building its power grid in a robust circular design similar to fiber-optic telecommunications networks in the United States. Costly, perhaps, "but what is the cost of a blackout?" Nielson asked."

"As for those Americans who say the design of the current power grid is an impediment to widespread wind generation, Danes say America must make needed investments in the grid to make it more reliable."

According to Joseph T. Kelliher, chairman of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “Today, there are more than 500 transmission owners…,” which is interpreted by Martin as a “balkanized grid.”

"Peter Wenzel Kruse, Vestas vice president, forthrightly declared, "The U.S. grid is worn down. You're just walking a thin line of collapsing the economy." Investing in the grid would allow wind generation to go forward. "There is tons of cheap wind power in the Midwest," he said."

Lesson #2: Distribution needs to be integrated with transmission.

Under the EWPC article Innovation and Risk Taking in the Power Industry, I wrote: “When demand is inactive, distribution is also inactive, and the interface between transmission and distribution can be assumed to be simple and dependent. When demand is active, in time and space, distribution is very active, and the interface between transmission and distribution becomes highly interdependent and complex, under power system planning, operation and control. Transmission and distribution integration is a must to reap the value creation of the smart grid transportation (T&D) utility.”

In relation to this lesson, Marty wrote:

While the Danes feel they have a superior grid – the power network's nervous system – they are intent on developing its intelligence as well. Power systems have for ages relied on a handful of large central generating stations. With the advent of wind and other renewable energy forms, more small sites will go on and off line depending on a variety of factors. These resources must be integrated and used in the most efficient ways. To meet these complex requirements, Danish scientists have launched Syslab, a research facility for distributed power systems in Roskilde, located on a fjord west of Copenhagen. The development of a futuristic intelligent power system is a daunting task, said Henrik Bindner, at the Riso National Laboratory, where Syslab is located. "The challenge is to have millions of inputs," he said. "It's up in the air how to control such a system."

member photo The missing information in this article is the record of Danish wind power in contributing to peak demand. Do power companies have to buy reliable capacity they cannot use to back up unreliable wind power capacity?

Ed Bair
# Posted By Edward Bair | 2/6/08 5:19 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I would be interested to know the basis for considering my above comment foul and/or inappropriate.

Ed Bair
# Posted By Edward Bair | 2/6/08 5:36 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Ed,

Thanks for your posts.

Before I complete my answer, Did you fully understand the meaning of "3) Wind generation variability is an important consideration, but wind generation uncertainty is even more important. Power system systemic risk management of system failure (system security) responds to uncertainty. Supply side management of systemic risk of system failure should be complemented by demand side management of systemic risk of system failure" in the article "Wind Integration: An Emerging Paradigm."?
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 2/6/08 8:12 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Certainly, but having stated the obvious, the article does not give any clues to how wind in Denmark compares with wind in California or wind in South Dakota or with other sources that are not inherently dependable. The key question in my mind is the probability that a power provider can honor a contract to deliver 50 megawatts of power at 1 pm on July 23, for example.

Ed Bair
# Posted By Edward Bair | 2/7/08 9:09 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Ed, I asked if you fully understood the meaning of system security, to test whether you knew that it is a function of the whole power system and no a function of one of its parts – the generator. In a market environment in which system security responds to uncertainty, and your power provider has a contract to deliver 50 megawatts (with unreliable base load generators that have forced outage rates of say 5% to 15%) and trips at 1 pm on July 23, for example, other generators, including wind generators, will sell electricity resulting in an economic transaction under EWPC to be paid by the base load generator. It is the very old power pool idea that is important to provide system security at very high system reliability, while providing back up to all the unreliable base load generators. That is how contracts will be honored under EWPC.

Sam Insull's idea of the two part rate is obsolete is the basis for your comment on peak demand. It was design to encourage people use more electricity. Insull and his descendents IOUs would no do business without the demand charge. The widely held belief on the myth that electric generation is a monopoly ended in 1978 and was later revived with The BIG California LIE please hit the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/9/1... . As EWPC emerged, the myth has ended.

Fred C. Schweppe et al, in their book "Spot Pricing of Electricity," state very clearly that "demand charge do not send good price signals," and "demand charges are not a good way to recover capital costs." In fact, they say "Since the price signal sent by a demand charge bears little relationship to hourly spot prices . . . customers are not motivated to adjust their usage patterns to match the utility's capabilities." This motivation is the key in demand side system security.

Another problem that I infer from your statements is that generation is owned by financial capital. Since EWPC results in a stable market environment, generation and retail should be owned by production capital.

I hope that you can see the importance of the two lessons (to be) learned that I wrote. The second lesson is that system security is not just about transmission, but transmission integrated with distribution, which I term transportation. The first lesson is that Americans should expand the transportation system at least costs, instead of the crazy rush now in place to invest heavily without much coordination.

By the way, Denmark has now a 20 per cent penetration of wind generation and is planning to go to 50 percent. They are using the Nordic electricity market rules to store wind generation with hydro generation. Just like America, I believe the Nordic market needs a lot of leadership as you can see in the EWPC article Handling Sweden's Electric Reform Threats in the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2007/10/...
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 2/7/08 6:56 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo In any conflict between regulation and physics my money will be on physics for the long term even if it is foul and inappropriate in the short term. I was unaware that Denmark is using its wind power for pumped hydroelectric storage. That is the kind of information I was looking for. I will look it up.
Ed Bair
2/8/08
# Posted By Edward Bair | 2/8/08 8:56 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Thanks Ed,

The information on Denmark's Wind Story (the original energybiz article) was in the first link of my article.

I bet that the most important belief is between the system and the parts. Unreliable parts can be put together to make a reliable system. That is what system security is all about. That is neither physics, nor regulation.

But EWPC re-regulation is key to have a controlled market that enforces system security with a proper mix of supply side and demand side that comes from an open retail and wholesale market. By developing the resources of the demand side a lot of energy storage (a lot of physics!) will be at the dispossal of power system planning, operation and control. The third lesson is, thanks God, that uncertain generation (wind, solar, etc.) is here to stay!
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 2/8/08 9:40 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Regarding Danish windmills.... I can't help but note that Denmark's retail electricity prices are the highest in the world, roughly three times American prices at $0.295 per kwh in 2005 (link below). At that price, I could make electricity with $5 corn and gerbils and call it renewable. I could be mistaken, but I do not believe that most consumers, in America at least, would find tripling their power bills to be a workable solution.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih...
# Posted By James Carson | 2/28/08 8:11 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo In the 2006 review of major world electricity markets released this week by NUS Consulting, South African power prices remained the lowest of the fourteen leading economies surveyed. At 4,05 US cents per kWh, electricity prices in this country are more than 20% lower than those in Australia, the next lowest priced country in the survey, which had tariffs averaging 5,29 US cents per kWh. South African power prices are less than one-third of those applying in Denmark, the most expensive country at 13,41 US cents per kWh. All the economies surveyed reflected increases in electricity tariffs, but the South African increase of 2,3% in the past year was the lowest of the fourteen, stretching our advantage over other economies. The next smallest increase was Australia at 2,8%. All European countries surveyed, with the exception of Germany, suffered from double digit increases. They were particularly susceptible to the influence of rising oil prices, and were also hit by new environmental or "green" taxes on
electricity purchases.

Check the link http://www.eepublishers.co.za/view.php?sid=5096
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 2/29/08 5:14 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo James,

I found out more up to date prices on the Internationa Energy Agency 2007 report. They have as the latest figures (obviously not 2007) 0.0759 US/kWh for industry and 0.3237 for households. So the figures might mean that households should invest in renewables, to give industry a big subsidy. That is why I suggest the EWPC article "Shrinking the Regulator's Jobs" in the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2008/2/2...

That is also why I suggest the EWPC article "The World Shouldn't be Running Out of Electricity " in the link http://www.energyblogs.com/ewpc/index.cfm/2008/2/2...
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 2/29/08 10:36 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I'm a bottom line sort of person, and James Carson's comment tells the whole story: the electricity price in Denmark would be unacceptable in many countries, and would in fact be unacceptable in Denmark if things were not going so well for them at the present time. I don't usually concern myself with prices however, since I prefer looking at costs. Sweden and Norway probably still have the lowest electric costs in the world, and a little algebra will show that nuclear costs in Sweden are about on the same level as hydro in Norway (and Sweden). And as I tell my students, the cost of electricity generated by hydro is the lowest in the world.
# Posted By Ferdinand E. Banks | 3/26/08 11:00 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo I also prefer to look at costs, but on the demand side after all risks and externalities are taken care of. It is important in the case of the Nordid countries and elsewhere to separate tax, subsidies and cross-subsidies from the prices to get a better feel for what people write about.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 3/27/08 10:13 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Professor Banks' comments are well taken for the most part. Norway and Sweden are indeed fortunate in their resources and their political will to use them. Unfortunately, hydro and nuclear power are politically radioactive (forgive the mixed metaphor) in much of the world, especially the United States. They are anathema to the Left.

Professor Banks also commented that he prefers to look at costs rather than prices. This is where we differ. Price subsumes both the supply side as well as the demand side, giving us a broader picture than cost alone can give.
# Posted By James Carson | 4/8/08 11:26 AM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
member photo Agree. Fred is talking about supply side costs.

Now, when I said that I prefer costs on the demand side, it is because customers have also outages costs and transaction costs that need to be taken into account. Electricty costs are then the sum of energy costs plus outage costs plus transaction costs.

Under EWPC one of the early differentiators of 2GRs is precisely customers' outage costs, which give an even broader picture than prices. On the Third Industrial Revolution that we are already experiencing, retail transaction costs are getting lower and lower as time goes by, enabling true customers' choice.
# Posted By Jose Antonio Vanderhorst-Silverio | 4/8/08 8:53 PM | Report This Comment as Foul/Inappropriate
 
Toolbox
Blog Editor
Search
Calendar
Recent CommentsRecent Comments
RSS
Energy Central
Power Network


Copyright © 1996-2008 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
Energy Central ® is a registered trademark of CyberTech, Incorporated.
CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central.
2821 S. Parker Rd. Ste 1105 Aurora, CO 80014
Contact: Phone - 303-782-5510 Fax - 303-782-5331 or service@energycentral.com.