The wind energy folks are very touchy about "backing up wind". I first became aware of this at a Utility Wind Integration Group (UWIG) meeting in Oklahoma 2006. I was there to learn and share how energy storage could be used to firm wind and make it dispatchable. I was under the impression that combining wind farms with energy storage would be a good thing!
However, the wind energy representative took me aside and invested considerable time explaining the industry line - that wind is an energy resource, not a capacity resource, and should not be compared with other generators. The purpose of wind energy is to replace energy from fossil fueled generators. Which I understood to mean that the generators are supposed to turn off when the wind is blowing. Somehow, to this representatives mind, the fact that the generator has to stand by and turn back on when the wind stops blowing, is not the same as "backing up" the wind.
UWIG issued a report back in 2006 on wind integration which included this finding:
"Since wind is primarily an energy – as opposed to capacity – source, no additional generation needs to be added to provide backup capability...", but went on to say, "...provided that wind capacity is properly discounted in the determination of generation capacity adequacy." In other words, as long as you already have enough generation to handle your load without wind, you don't have to add back-up generation just because you added wind - you already have it! But, the report went on to say, "However, wind penetration may affect the mix and dispatch of other generation on the system over time, since nonwind generation is needed to maintain system reliability when winds are low or not blowing."
Mr. Anthony, from AWEA, felt that Ken Silverstein was, "propagating myths and misunderstandings on energy storage and renewables" when he suggested that, "Energy storage could advance the cause of wind and solar power". I agree that wind power doesn't "need" storage - but it does need something to balance it's intermittant power, and storage is a much better resource than a coal plant.
Mr. Anthony recognizes that variable wind output needs to be balanced, but is hypersensitive to a direct pairing of storage with wind. He prefers to put the storage somewhere out on the grid, to balance wind at a distance, and spread the cost out over the entire grid. I understand his desire to avoid the appearance that wind needs to be burdened with storage. But I would suggest that the wind folks would be better off to embrace storage integration at the source of the problem, wind plants, and find ways to optimize their revenue with the dispatchability and grid support such a hybrid resource could provide. This will become more of an imperative as wind penetration increases, and grid participants become less patient with footing the bill for integration. The additional cost of balancing wind has to fall somewhere, and wind generators will be required to mitigate this cost in one fashion or an other.
