Letters from Readers -
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.
As I see their position, they want to raise wind penetration levels up to the 20% in the US circa 2030. A laudable goal. One of the key ways to do this is for America to modernize and nationalize its grid. I don't disagree: with some 200,000 miles of line fragmented into 500 suppliers, US wind farms can't do what Denmark has been doing: export of Danish wind power FREE to Germany which acts as a big battery.
Given the massive investment of upgrading our grid, I'm gathering the AWEA doesn't want to see added costs to future wind energy to come in the form of batteries. But is the AWEA's position a little too much forced on the short-term? In a friendly debate we had in the comments of this article, AWEA's Michael Goggin wrote:
As I see their position, they want to raise wind penetration levels up to the 20% in the US circa 2030. A laudable goal. One of the key ways to do this is for America to modernize and nationalize its grid. I don't disagree: with some 200,000 miles of line fragmented into 500 suppliers, US wind farms can't do what Denmark has been doing: export of Danish wind power FREE to Germany which acts as a big battery.
Given the massive investment of upgrading our grid, I'm gathering the AWEA doesn't want to see added costs to future wind energy to come in the form of batteries. But is the AWEA's position a little too much forced on the short-term? In a friendly debate we had in the comments of this article, AWEA's Michael Goggin wrote:
"Kevin,
You are correct that at very high levels of wind penetration, energy storage may become an attractive option for the electric grid. However, this is not likely to occur until the penetration of wind energy on the U.S. electric grid drastically increases from its current level. The U.S. Department of Energy recently released a major report that concluded that the U.S. can obtain 20% of its electricity from wind energy by 2030 without the need for energy storage. While we are excited by advances in energy storage technology, transmission limitations and other obstacles to continued renewable energy growth are more pressing issues for the foreseeable future.
There is also no reason to think that wind energy needs to be "firmed" or "backed up." Wind energy is primarily an energy resource and not a capacity resource, meaning that it is primarily used to reduce fuel consumption, not meet peak demand. As my colleague Jeff mentioned, a number of studies have documented that it is far more economically efficient to use other generators and other sources of flexibility on the grid to provide capacity as needed to balance supply with demand than to couple wind generators with storage."
(The full story w/comments is here: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story...
More pressing issues? My take is that the AWEA is worried that if the additional cost of storage becomes too standard in wind power generation, the additional expense will result in too low of take up of wind power in America.
Perhaps, but does Toca's point that "additional cost of balancing wind has to fall somewhere" enter into their equation?
While I support a modernization of America's grid, how easy will that be given it very fragmented ownership and the balkanization of American political will? Not to mention the host of NIMBY issues of getting wind power generation in America's heartland out to the coasts.
As the NYT recently reported, the Maple Ridge wind farm near Lowville, N.Y has been forced to shut down when regional electric lines become congested. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid....
And I love to hear Mr. Anthony's response to Toca's point: "...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."
Isn't their room for common ground here? A modern "national" transmission grid will be great for America. But why is storage bashed -- or at best seen way out in the future -- part of that policy equation?
And what about the remote area supply market (RAPS) that some storage providers are targeting? In these "off the main grid" communities, diesel engines are typically THE power source for a localized grid in a remote area power system. The integration of storage within a hybrid wind and/or solar with a diesel system can enhance efficiencies and improve reliability. Not to mention the reduction in fuel consumption/costs and pollution emissions from diesel generation.
While individually small, collectively this is a significant market for wind power adoption. How does the AWEA's plan help wind penetration to these remote folks?
he AWEA touchy?
As I see their position, they want to raise wind penetration levels up to the 20% in the US circa 2030. A laudable goal. One of the key ways to do this is for America to modernize and nationalize its grid. I don't disagree: with some 200,000 miles of line fragmented into 500 suppliers, US wind farms can't do what Denmark has been doing: export of Danish wind power FREE to Germany which acts as a big battery.
Given the massive investment of upgrading our grid, I'm gathering the AWEA doesn't want to see added costs to future wind energy to come in the form of batteries. But is the AWEA's position a little too much forced on the short-term? In a friendly debate we had in the comments of this article, AWEA's Michael Goggin wrote:
"Kevin,
You are correct that at very high levels of wind penetration, energy storage may become an attractive option for the electric grid. However, this is not likely to occur until the penetration of wind energy on the U.S. electric grid drastically increases from its current level. The U.S. Department of Energy recently released a major report that concluded that the U.S. can obtain 20% of its electricity from wind energy by 2030 without the need for energy storage. While we are excited by advances in energy storage technology, transmission limitations and other obstacles to continued renewable energy growth are more pressing issues for the foreseeable future.
There is also no reason to think that wind energy needs to be "firmed" or "backed up." Wind energy is primarily an energy resource and not a capacity resource, meaning that it is primarily used to reduce fuel consumption, not meet peak demand. As my colleague Jeff mentioned, a number of studies have documented that it is far more economically efficient to use other generators and other sources of flexibility on the grid to provide capacity as needed to balance supply with demand than to couple wind generators with storage."
(The full story w/comments is here: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story...
More pressing issues? My take is that the AWEA is worried that if the additional cost of storage becomes too standard in wind power generation, the additional expense will result in too low of take up of wind power in America.
Perhaps, but does Toca's point that "additional cost of balancing wind has to fall somewhere" enter into their equation?
While I support a modernization of America's grid, how easy will that be given it very fragmented ownership and the balkanization of American political will? Not to mention the host of NIMBY issues of getting wind power generation in America's heartland out to the coasts.
As the NYT recently reported, the Maple Ridge wind farm near Lowville, N.Y has been forced to shut down when regional electric lines become congested. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/27/business/27grid....
And I love to hear Mr. Anthony's response to Toca's point: "...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."
Isn't their room for common ground here? A modern "national" transmission grid will be great for America. But why is storage bashed -- or at best seen way out in the future -- part of that policy equation?
And what about the remote area supply market (RAPS) that some storage providers are targeting? In these "off the main grid" communities, diesel engines are typically THE power source for a localized grid in a remote area power system. The integration of storage within a hybrid wind and/or solar with a diesel system can enhance efficiencies and improve reliability. Not to mention the reduction in fuel consumption/costs and pollution emissions from diesel generation.
While individually small, collectively this is a significant market for wind power adoption. How does the AWEA's plan help wind penetration to these remote folks?
The AWEA's position (against the need for integrated storage) would be reasonable -- provided that they were consistent, and only expected wind energy to be purchased at the average avoided fuel cost for its local region. Those plants that are shut down when the wind is blowing, after all, still have fixed costs to cover. So do we hear AWEA saying that wind energy should be sold at 2 cents per kWh? That's roughly the average fuel cost in most regions if they have substantial coal, nuclear, or hydro resources. Noooo, I don't think we'll hear them say that.
Even if we allow for the more generous calculation at the fuel cost of the natural gas generation that usually trades off with wind, that's still only 4 - 5 cents per kWh. That's well below what wind energy is sold for under mandated renewable energy portfolio standards. Wind farms are getting a hefty but hidden subsidy at the expense of dispatchable generation sources in their regions.
Wind advocates may legitimately counter that that's OK, because the dispatchable generation sources (other than hydro) are also getting hidden subsidies, in that the fossil fuel they're burning is not taxed for its external costs. Those external costs include not just the environmental costs of CO2 emissions, but the environmental costs of mining and drilling operations as well as the "depletion cost" from consumption of a finite resource. Fair enough, but wouldn't it be more efficient if we could simply levy an appropriate carbon tax, and then let the market sort out the most economically efficient generation technologies?
The AWEA's position is misguided, in any case, in that integrated storage can actually prove profitable for wind farm operation. It provides smoother and more predictable power, and allows the wind farm to serve as a provider of ancillary services in support of the grid. A wind farm with integrated storage becomes a resource, rather than a problem, for the beleagured TSO.