Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Wind can provide at most 6% of Ontario's electricity

Expand Messages
  • joedoves
    Buck up Dave, you are far too gloomy(Canadian?). Ontario has 2000 miles of the Great Lakes shoreline alone! Here s a report that suggests there is 7500 MW of
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 30, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Buck up Dave, you are far too gloomy(Canadian?).
      Ontario has 2000 miles of the Great Lakes shoreline alone!
      Here's a report that suggests there is 7500 MW of available land-
      based wind sites(page 38). At 2000 hours a year of full flow that's
      15 TWH of electricity. Lake Eire alone is estimated by the US to
      have a total of 144 TWH( approximately equal to Ontario's annual
      usage of 150 TWH?).

      http://www.appro.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf

      Currently Ontario has maximum of 18980 MW of electrical demand (50%
      is nuke,22% hydro). Figuring 8000 hours of operation we get ;
      (2000x7500)/(8000x18980)=10%. The report above finds 13.7% for 7500
      MW.
      The experience of Denmark has shown that the grid can handle up to
      20% of its requirement by fluctuating wind energy. Ontario has huge
      hydropower resources which could store peak wind energy ( at 75%
      efficiency) if the wind share exceeded 20%.

      What's more---here's a report that Ontario can get 88.5 TWh of
      electricity from biomass.
      http://www.biocap.ca/files/Ont_bioenergy_OPA_Feb23_final.pdf
    • David M. Delaney
      ... Gloominess has nothing to do with it Joe. Arithmetic and understanding how wind energy interacts with the grid has everything to do with it. ... I assume
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "joedoves" <joedoves@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Buck up Dave, you are far too gloomy(Canadian?).

        Gloominess has nothing to do with it Joe. Arithmetic and understanding
        how wind energy interacts with the grid has everything to do with it.

        > Ontario has 2000 miles of the Great Lakes shoreline alone!
        > Here's a report that suggests there is 7500 MW of available land-
        > based wind sites(page 38). At 2000 hours a year of full flow that's
        > 15 TWH of electricity. Lake Eire alone is estimated by the US to
        > have a total of 144 TWH( approximately equal to Ontario's annual
        > usage of 150 TWH?).

        I assume your figures are correct. They seem plausible. They have
        nothing to do with the limits I estimated. They could be 10 times
        bigger and still not invalidate that estimate. The basic problem is
        that grid stability requires having the grid supply three units of
        suitable non-wind backup energy for each unit of wind energy accepted
        by the grid. For a combination of reasons, only hydro can serve as
        that backup, and hydro is limited, which limits the amount of wind
        energy the grid can accept. (This assumes the grid cannot store wind
        energy and cannot control demand load significantly in real time.)

        > http://www.appro.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf
        >
        > Currently Ontario has maximum of 18980 MW of electrical demand (50%
        > is nuke,22% hydro). Figuring 8000 hours of operation we get ;
        > (2000x7500)/(8000x18980)=10%. The report above finds 13.7% for 7500
        > MW.

        Again, you have not understood the import of the analysis in my post,
        see above.

        > The experience of Denmark has shown that the grid can handle up to
        > 20% of its requirement by fluctuating wind energy.

        No. Denmark's grid cannot handle 20 percent of its requirement by
        fluctuating wind energy. The true statement about Denmark is that 20
        percent of its electrical energy production is from wind. Very
        different statement. Denmark can produce this much wind energy only
        because Norway accepts 40% of it by dynamically decreasing its hydro
        generation to allow the imported energy into the Norwegian grid. Coal
        provides 80 percent of Norway's consumed electricity. Wind makes up
        only 12 percent of the consumption. The remaining 8 percent of
        consumption is imported. Coal provides the 3 x 12 = 36 percent of the
        total energy supplied by the network that must be in a form suitable
        for the backup required for the 12 percent of fluctuating wind energy
        that Denmark's grid actually handles, at the cost of increasing coal
        energy consumption and CO2 emissions well above the level they would
        have if Denmark cut back its wind production and coal production to
        the level that could be supported entirely by hydro imports from
        Norway, namely 8%, with total imports of 24% of its energy requirement
        from Norway. Presumably coal is cheaper and/or more available than
        Norwegian hydro. See Andrew Ferguson, "Wind power with coal" in
        http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/wind-power/eon5.pdf

        E.ON Netz, which operates 40% of the German electrical network has the
        largest absolute amount of installed wind nameplate capacity of any
        network operator in the world, 7000 MW. It currently gets about 10% of
        its total energy from wind, due to an average infeed from wind of 20%
        of wind nameplate capacity) of wind. Network stability considerations
        have caused it to plan to reduce the proportion of wind energy in its
        network to 4% by 2020. See the E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005, at
        http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/Wind-Power-Resources.html

        > Ontario has huge
        > hydropower resources which could store peak wind energy ( at 75%
        > efficiency) if the wind share exceeded 20%.

        My post calculated how much wind Ontario energy hydro capability could
        support before Ontario would have to start storing wind energy by, for
        example, using it to pump water up hill. That limit is 1/3 of total
        hydro energy production, at most, assuming all hydro can be dedicated
        to supporting wind without decreasing its energy cointribution.
        Current hydro production is currently 26 percent of total Ontario
        electrical production. My post could have been titled "The Ontario
        electrical grid can accept at most 1/3 of Ontario's hydro electrical
        production in the form of wind energy before having to store wind
        energy or control the demand load in real time" (It might accept more
        by using coal as backup, but is committed to doing away with coal.)

        David Delaney, Ottawa
      • joedoves
        Gloominess has nothing to do with it Joe. Arithmetic and understanding how wind energy interacts with the grid has everything to do with it.-DD I ve argued it
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Gloominess has nothing to do with it Joe. Arithmetic and
          understanding how wind energy interacts with the grid has everything
          to do with it.-DD
          I've argued it that myself! I am not a supporter of 'the grid'. I
          remember the 2003 collapse of the grid in the US/Canada. Frankly, I
          prefer converting excess wind electricity to hydrogen gas by
          electrolysis(currently 75%) and piping it to local fuel cells(60%)
          with intermediate underground storage. Hydrogen of course can also
          be used for vehicles. Unfortunately, the overall efficiency would be
          about 40%. Since this is less than pumped hydro's 75%, I mentioned
          that option. All this means is we need to double the number of wind
          turbines.

          http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/Pipeline/H2Pipeline.htm

          We need wind to take over from dirty coal and faultering nuclear.
          I know this seems like an tremendous undertaking, but I think only
          the US and Canada have the physical and financial resources to make
          this possible.





          > I assume your figures are correct. They seem plausible. They have
          > nothing to do with the limits I estimated. They could be 10 times
          > bigger and still not invalidate that estimate. The basic problem is
          > that grid stability requires having the grid supply three units of
          > suitable non-wind backup energy for each unit of wind energy
          accepted
          > by the grid. For a combination of reasons, only hydro can serve as
          > that backup, and hydro is limited, which limits the amount of wind
          > energy the grid can accept. (This assumes the grid cannot store
          wind
          > energy and cannot control demand load significantly in real time.)
          >
          > >
          http://www.appro.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf
          > >
          > > Currently Ontario has maximum of 18980 MW of electrical demand
          (50%
          > > is nuke,22% hydro). Figuring 8000 hours of operation we get ;
          > > (2000x7500)/(8000x18980)=10%. The report above finds 13.7% for
          7500
          > > MW.
          >
          > Again, you have not understood the import of the analysis in my
          post,
          > see above.
          >
          > > The experience of Denmark has shown that the grid can handle up
          to
          > > 20% of its requirement by fluctuating wind energy.
          >
          > No. Denmark's grid cannot handle 20 percent of its requirement by
          > fluctuating wind energy. The true statement about Denmark is that
          20
          > percent of its electrical energy production is from wind. Very
          > different statement. Denmark can produce this much wind energy only
          > because Norway accepts 40% of it by dynamically decreasing its
          hydro
          > generation to allow the imported energy into the Norwegian grid.
          Coal
          > provides 80 percent of Norway's consumed electricity. Wind makes
          up
          > only 12 percent of the consumption. The remaining 8 percent of
          > consumption is imported. Coal provides the 3 x 12 = 36 percent of
          the
          > total energy supplied by the network that must be in a form
          suitable
          > for the backup required for the 12 percent of fluctuating wind
          energy
          > that Denmark's grid actually handles, at the cost of increasing
          coal
          > energy consumption and CO2 emissions well above the level they
          would
          > have if Denmark cut back its wind production and coal production to
          > the level that could be supported entirely by hydro imports from
          > Norway, namely 8%, with total imports of 24% of its energy
          requirement
          > from Norway. Presumably coal is cheaper and/or more available than
          > Norwegian hydro. See Andrew Ferguson, "Wind power with coal" in
          > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/wind-power/eon5.pdf
          >
          > E.ON Netz, which operates 40% of the German electrical network has
          the
          > largest absolute amount of installed wind nameplate capacity of any
          > network operator in the world, 7000 MW. It currently gets about
          10% of
          > its total energy from wind, due to an average infeed from wind of
          20%
          > of wind nameplate capacity) of wind. Network stability
          considerations
          > have caused it to plan to reduce the proportion of wind energy in
          its
          > network to 4% by 2020. See the E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005, at
          > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/Wind-Power-Resources.html
          >
          > > Ontario has huge
          > > hydropower resources which could store peak wind energy ( at 75%
          > > efficiency) if the wind share exceeded 20%.
          >
          > My post calculated how much wind Ontario energy hydro capability
          could
          > support before Ontario would have to start storing wind energy by,
          for
          > example, using it to pump water up hill. That limit is 1/3 of total
          > hydro energy production, at most, assuming all hydro can be
          dedicated
          > to supporting wind without decreasing its energy cointribution.
          > Current hydro production is currently 26 percent of total Ontario
          > electrical production. My post could have been titled "The Ontario
          > electrical grid can accept at most 1/3 of Ontario's hydro
          electrical
          > production in the form of wind energy before having to store wind
          > energy or control the demand load in real time" (It might accept
          more
          > by using coal as backup, but is committed to doing away with
          coal.)
          >
          > David Delaney, Ottawa
          >
        • Roger Arnold
          David, Your statements about Denmark and Norway make no sense to me. The figures you give for Norway s energy usage are almost certainly garbled: 80% coal,
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            David,

            Your statements about Denmark and Norway make no sense to me. The figures
            you give for Norway's energy usage are almost certainly garbled: 80% coal,
            12% wind, and 8% imported. That's 100%, and leaves 0% for hydro. Norway
            has huge hydro resources, but I don't think you just wrote "coal" when you
            meant "hydro". I'm pretty sure that Norway does get some of its electricity
            from coal.

            I can buy the statement that Denmark is able to get 20% of its power from
            wind "only" because Norway buys its surplus and uses it to conserve its
            hydro reserves. Sounds like a perfectly sensible deal for both countries.
            But when you start talking about coal's contribution and the result being
            more CO2 than if no wind power were used (at least I *think* that's what you
            said), you lose me completely. Could you try again? Maybe use shorter
            sentences, for the sake of my faltering mental faculties? I think there's
            something important in what you're saying, and I'd like to understand what
            it is. Thanks.

            Roger Arnold
            Sunnyvale, CA

            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "David M. Delaney" <ddelaney@...>
            To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:11 AM
            Subject: [energyresources] Re: Wind can provide at most 6% of Ontario's
            electricity


            > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "joedoves" <joedoves@...> wrote:
            >>
            >>
            >> Buck up Dave, you are far too gloomy(Canadian?).
            >
            > Gloominess has nothing to do with it Joe. Arithmetic and understanding
            > how wind energy interacts with the grid has everything to do with it.
            >
            >> Ontario has 2000 miles of the Great Lakes shoreline alone!
            >> Here's a report that suggests there is 7500 MW of available land-
            >> based wind sites(page 38). At 2000 hours a year of full flow that's
            >> 15 TWH of electricity. Lake Eire alone is estimated by the US to
            >> have a total of 144 TWH( approximately equal to Ontario's annual
            >> usage of 150 TWH?).
            >
            > I assume your figures are correct. They seem plausible. They have
            > nothing to do with the limits I estimated. They could be 10 times
            > bigger and still not invalidate that estimate. The basic problem is
            > that grid stability requires having the grid supply three units of
            > suitable non-wind backup energy for each unit of wind energy accepted
            > by the grid. For a combination of reasons, only hydro can serve as
            > that backup, and hydro is limited, which limits the amount of wind
            > energy the grid can accept. (This assumes the grid cannot store wind
            > energy and cannot control demand load significantly in real time.)
            >
            >> http://www.appro.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf
            >>
            >> Currently Ontario has maximum of 18980 MW of electrical demand (50%
            >> is nuke,22% hydro). Figuring 8000 hours of operation we get ;
            >> (2000x7500)/(8000x18980)=10%. The report above finds 13.7% for 7500
            >> MW.
            >
            > Again, you have not understood the import of the analysis in my post,
            > see above.
            >
            >> The experience of Denmark has shown that the grid can handle up to
            >> 20% of its requirement by fluctuating wind energy.
            >
            > No. Denmark's grid cannot handle 20 percent of its requirement by
            > fluctuating wind energy. The true statement about Denmark is that 20
            > percent of its electrical energy production is from wind. Very
            > different statement. Denmark can produce this much wind energy only
            > because Norway accepts 40% of it by dynamically decreasing its hydro
            > generation to allow the imported energy into the Norwegian grid. Coal
            > provides 80 percent of Norway's consumed electricity. Wind makes up
            > only 12 percent of the consumption. The remaining 8 percent of
            > consumption is imported. Coal provides the 3 x 12 = 36 percent of the
            > total energy supplied by the network that must be in a form suitable
            > for the backup required for the 12 percent of fluctuating wind energy
            > that Denmark's grid actually handles, at the cost of increasing coal
            > energy consumption and CO2 emissions well above the level they would
            > have if Denmark cut back its wind production and coal production to
            > the level that could be supported entirely by hydro imports from
            > Norway, namely 8%, with total imports of 24% of its energy requirement
            > from Norway. Presumably coal is cheaper and/or more available than
            > Norwegian hydro. See Andrew Ferguson, "Wind power with coal" in
            > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/wind-power/eon5.pdf
            >
            > E.ON Netz, which operates 40% of the German electrical network has the
            > largest absolute amount of installed wind nameplate capacity of any
            > network operator in the world, 7000 MW. It currently gets about 10% of
            > its total energy from wind, due to an average infeed from wind of 20%
            > of wind nameplate capacity) of wind. Network stability considerations
            > have caused it to plan to reduce the proportion of wind energy in its
            > network to 4% by 2020. See the E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005, at
            > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/Wind-Power-Resources.html
            >
            >> Ontario has huge
            >> hydropower resources which could store peak wind energy ( at 75%
            >> efficiency) if the wind share exceeded 20%.
            >
            > My post calculated how much wind Ontario energy hydro capability could
            > support before Ontario would have to start storing wind energy by, for
            > example, using it to pump water up hill. That limit is 1/3 of total
            > hydro energy production, at most, assuming all hydro can be dedicated
            > to supporting wind without decreasing its energy cointribution.
            > Current hydro production is currently 26 percent of total Ontario
            > electrical production. My post could have been titled "The Ontario
            > electrical grid can accept at most 1/3 of Ontario's hydro electrical
            > production in the form of wind energy before having to store wind
            > energy or control the demand load in real time" (It might accept more
            > by using coal as backup, but is committed to doing away with coal.)
            >
            > David Delaney, Ottawa
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
            > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • David M. Delaney
            Hi Roger ... figures ... coal, ... Norway ... when you ... electricity ... Actually, Norway doesn t do any electricity production by coal. And Denmark doesn t
            Message 5 of 7 , Jul 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Roger

              --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Arnold"
              <roger.arnold@...> wrote:

              > Your statements about Denmark and Norway make no sense to me. The
              figures
              > you give for Norway's energy usage are almost certainly garbled: 80%
              coal,
              > 12% wind, and 8% imported. That's 100%, and leaves 0% for hydro.
              Norway
              > has huge hydro resources, but I don't think you just wrote "coal"
              when you
              > meant "hydro". I'm pretty sure that Norway does get some of its
              electricity
              > from coal.

              Actually, Norway doesn't do any electricity production by coal. And
              Denmark doesn't have any hydro. I had a grey moment when I was writing
              the passage and wrote "Norway" when I meant "Denmark". Here's the
              corrected passage:

              /Start of corrected passage

              Coal provides 80 percent of Denmark's consumed electricity. Wind
              makes up only 12 percent of the consumption. The remaining 8 percent
              of consumption is imported. Coal provides the 3 x 12 = 36 percent of
              the total energy supplied by the network that must be in a form
              suitable for the backup required for the 12 percent of fluctuating
              wind energy that Denmark's grid actually handles, at the cost of
              increasing coal energy consumption and CO2 emissions well above the
              level they would have if Denmark cut back its wind production and coal
              production to the level that could be supported entirely by hydro
              imports from Norway, namely 8%, with total imports of 24% of its
              energy requirement from Norway. Presumably coal is cheaper and/or more
              available than Norwegian hydro. See Andrew Ferguson, "Wind power with
              coal" in http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/wind-power/eon5.pdf

              /End of corrected passage

              >
              > I can buy the statement that Denmark is able to get 20% of its power
              from
              > wind "only" because Norway buys its surplus and uses it to conserve its
              > hydro reserves. Sounds like a perfectly sensible deal for both
              countries.
              > But when you start talking about coal's contribution and the result
              being
              > more CO2 than if no wind power were used (at least I *think* that's
              what you
              > said), you lose me completely. Could you try again? Maybe use shorter
              > sentences, for the sake of my faltering mental faculties? I think
              there's
              > something important in what you're saying, and I'd like to
              understand what
              > it is. Thanks.
              >
              > Roger Arnold
              > Sunnyvale, CA
              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "David M. Delaney" <ddelaney@...>
              > To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:11 AM
              > Subject: [energyresources] Re: Wind can provide at most 6% of Ontario's
              > electricity
              >
              >
              > > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "joedoves" <joedoves@> wrote:
              > >>
              > >>
              > >> Buck up Dave, you are far too gloomy(Canadian?).
              > >
              > > Gloominess has nothing to do with it Joe. Arithmetic and understanding
              > > how wind energy interacts with the grid has everything to do with it.
              > >
              > >> Ontario has 2000 miles of the Great Lakes shoreline alone!
              > >> Here's a report that suggests there is 7500 MW of available land-
              > >> based wind sites(page 38). At 2000 hours a year of full flow that's
              > >> 15 TWH of electricity. Lake Eire alone is estimated by the US to
              > >> have a total of 144 TWH( approximately equal to Ontario's annual
              > >> usage of 150 TWH?).
              > >
              > > I assume your figures are correct. They seem plausible. They have
              > > nothing to do with the limits I estimated. They could be 10 times
              > > bigger and still not invalidate that estimate. The basic problem is
              > > that grid stability requires having the grid supply three units of
              > > suitable non-wind backup energy for each unit of wind energy accepted
              > > by the grid. For a combination of reasons, only hydro can serve as
              > > that backup, and hydro is limited, which limits the amount of wind
              > > energy the grid can accept. (This assumes the grid cannot store wind
              > > energy and cannot control demand load significantly in real time.)
              > >
              > >> http://www.appro.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf
              > >>
              > >> Currently Ontario has maximum of 18980 MW of electrical demand (50%
              > >> is nuke,22% hydro). Figuring 8000 hours of operation we get ;
              > >> (2000x7500)/(8000x18980)=10%. The report above finds 13.7% for 7500
              > >> MW.
              > >
              > > Again, you have not understood the import of the analysis in my post,
              > > see above.
              > >
              > >> The experience of Denmark has shown that the grid can handle up to
              > >> 20% of its requirement by fluctuating wind energy.
              > >
              > > No. Denmark's grid cannot handle 20 percent of its requirement by
              > > fluctuating wind energy. The true statement about Denmark is that 20
              > > percent of its electrical energy production is from wind. Very
              > > different statement. Denmark can produce this much wind energy only
              > > because Norway accepts 40% of it by dynamically decreasing its hydro
              > > generation to allow the imported energy into the Norwegian grid. Coal
              > > provides 80 percent of Norway's consumed electricity. Wind makes up
              > > only 12 percent of the consumption. The remaining 8 percent of
              > > consumption is imported. Coal provides the 3 x 12 = 36 percent of the
              > > total energy supplied by the network that must be in a form suitable
              > > for the backup required for the 12 percent of fluctuating wind energy
              > > that Denmark's grid actually handles, at the cost of increasing coal
              > > energy consumption and CO2 emissions well above the level they would
              > > have if Denmark cut back its wind production and coal production to
              > > the level that could be supported entirely by hydro imports from
              > > Norway, namely 8%, with total imports of 24% of its energy requirement
              > > from Norway. Presumably coal is cheaper and/or more available than
              > > Norwegian hydro. See Andrew Ferguson, "Wind power with coal" in
              > > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/wind-power/eon5.pdf
              > >
              > > E.ON Netz, which operates 40% of the German electrical network has the
              > > largest absolute amount of installed wind nameplate capacity of any
              > > network operator in the world, 7000 MW. It currently gets about 10% of
              > > its total energy from wind, due to an average infeed from wind of 20%
              > > of wind nameplate capacity) of wind. Network stability considerations
              > > have caused it to plan to reduce the proportion of wind energy in its
              > > network to 4% by 2020. See the E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005, at
              > > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/Wind-Power-Resources.html
              > >
              > >> Ontario has huge
              > >> hydropower resources which could store peak wind energy ( at 75%
              > >> efficiency) if the wind share exceeded 20%.
              > >
              > > My post calculated how much wind Ontario energy hydro capability could
              > > support before Ontario would have to start storing wind energy by, for
              > > example, using it to pump water up hill. That limit is 1/3 of total
              > > hydro energy production, at most, assuming all hydro can be dedicated
              > > to supporting wind without decreasing its energy cointribution.
              > > Current hydro production is currently 26 percent of total Ontario
              > > electrical production. My post could have been titled "The Ontario
              > > electrical grid can accept at most 1/3 of Ontario's hydro electrical
              > > production in the form of wind energy before having to store wind
              > > energy or control the demand load in real time" (It might accept more
              > > by using coal as backup, but is committed to doing away with coal.)
              > >
              > > David Delaney, Ottawa
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
              > > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
              > > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              >
            • Roger Arnold
              Hmmm. So which figure is correct for Denmark s wind energy: the 12% quoted below, or the 20% mentioned earlier? And why is there no mention in the passage
              Message 6 of 7 , Jul 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Hmmm. So which figure is correct for Denmark's wind energy: the 12% quoted
                below, or the 20% mentioned earlier? And why is there no mention in the
                passage below of wind power exported to Norway? Perhaps the 8% that's
                listed as "imported" is Norwegian hydropower equal to the surplus windpower
                exported?

                In any case, I'm still confused about what the strategy is supposed to be
                that would lead to lower CO2 emissions if Denmark were to cut back its wind
                production. I see nothing that prevents wind-generated kWh from trading
                off, 1 to 1, against coal-generated kWh.

                There's always the argument about "inefficient peaking units", but that's
                largely bogus. Even without hydropower to supply backup, coal-fired plants
                can accommodate a pretty wide power variation without losing efficiency.
                Not individual turbines, which *do* lose efficiency if they are throttled
                beyond their fairly narrow optimum operating range. But a typical
                coal-fired plant has up to a dozen turbines, which are regularly brought on
                or taken off line. One boiler can feed several turbines, and the boilers
                are somewhat more efficient when operating below their rated capacities.
                Reduced flows and reduced thermal gradients.

                Sorry to be a pest about this, but it's a crucial issue that comes up over
                and over in discussions about renewable energy. I'd like to get it right.

                Roger Arnold
                Sunnyvale, CA

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "David M. Delaney" <ddelaney@...>
                To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 12:05 PM
                Subject: [energyresources] Re: Wind can provide at most 6% of Ontario's
                electricity


                > Hi Roger
                >
                > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Arnold"
                > <roger.arnold@...> wrote:
                >
                >> Your statements about Denmark and Norway make no sense to me. The
                > figures
                >> you give for Norway's energy usage are almost certainly garbled: 80%
                > coal,
                >> 12% wind, and 8% imported. That's 100%, and leaves 0% for hydro.
                > Norway
                >> has huge hydro resources, but I don't think you just wrote "coal"
                > when you
                >> meant "hydro". I'm pretty sure that Norway does get some of its
                > electricity
                >> from coal.
                >
                > Actually, Norway doesn't do any electricity production by coal. And
                > Denmark doesn't have any hydro. I had a grey moment when I was writing
                > the passage and wrote "Norway" when I meant "Denmark". Here's the
                > corrected passage:
                >
                > /Start of corrected passage
                >
                > Coal provides 80 percent of Denmark's consumed electricity. Wind
                > makes up only 12 percent of the consumption. The remaining 8 percent
                > of consumption is imported. Coal provides the 3 x 12 = 36 percent of
                > the total energy supplied by the network that must be in a form
                > suitable for the backup required for the 12 percent of fluctuating
                > wind energy that Denmark's grid actually handles, at the cost of
                > increasing coal energy consumption and CO2 emissions well above the
                > level they would have if Denmark cut back its wind production and coal
                > production to the level that could be supported entirely by hydro
                > imports from Norway, namely 8%, with total imports of 24% of its
                > energy requirement from Norway. Presumably coal is cheaper and/or more
                > available than Norwegian hydro. See Andrew Ferguson, "Wind power with
                > coal" in http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/wind-power/eon5.pdf
                >
                > /End of corrected passage
                >
                >>
                >> I can buy the statement that Denmark is able to get 20% of its power
                > from
                >> wind "only" because Norway buys its surplus and uses it to conserve its
                >> hydro reserves. Sounds like a perfectly sensible deal for both
                > countries.
                >> But when you start talking about coal's contribution and the result
                > being
                >> more CO2 than if no wind power were used (at least I *think* that's
                > what you
                >> said), you lose me completely. Could you try again? Maybe use shorter
                >> sentences, for the sake of my faltering mental faculties? I think
                > there's
                >> something important in what you're saying, and I'd like to
                > understand what
                >> it is. Thanks.
                >>
                >> Roger Arnold
                >> Sunnyvale, CA
                >>
                >> ----- Original Message -----
                >> From: "David M. Delaney" <ddelaney@...>
                >> To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
                >> Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 7:11 AM
                >> Subject: [energyresources] Re: Wind can provide at most 6% of Ontario's
                >> electricity
                >>
                >>
                >> > --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "joedoves" <joedoves@> wrote:
                >> >>
                >> >>
                >> >> Buck up Dave, you are far too gloomy(Canadian?).
                >> >
                >> > Gloominess has nothing to do with it Joe. Arithmetic and understanding
                >> > how wind energy interacts with the grid has everything to do with it.
                >> >
                >> >> Ontario has 2000 miles of the Great Lakes shoreline alone!
                >> >> Here's a report that suggests there is 7500 MW of available land-
                >> >> based wind sites(page 38). At 2000 hours a year of full flow that's
                >> >> 15 TWH of electricity. Lake Eire alone is estimated by the US to
                >> >> have a total of 144 TWH( approximately equal to Ontario's annual
                >> >> usage of 150 TWH?).
                >> >
                >> > I assume your figures are correct. They seem plausible. They have
                >> > nothing to do with the limits I estimated. They could be 10 times
                >> > bigger and still not invalidate that estimate. The basic problem is
                >> > that grid stability requires having the grid supply three units of
                >> > suitable non-wind backup energy for each unit of wind energy accepted
                >> > by the grid. For a combination of reasons, only hydro can serve as
                >> > that backup, and hydro is limited, which limits the amount of wind
                >> > energy the grid can accept. (This assumes the grid cannot store wind
                >> > energy and cannot control demand load significantly in real time.)
                >> >
                >> >> http://www.appro.org/Wind_Power_Task_Force_Report,_February_2002.pdf
                >> >>
                >> >> Currently Ontario has maximum of 18980 MW of electrical demand (50%
                >> >> is nuke,22% hydro). Figuring 8000 hours of operation we get ;
                >> >> (2000x7500)/(8000x18980)=10%. The report above finds 13.7% for 7500
                >> >> MW.
                >> >
                >> > Again, you have not understood the import of the analysis in my post,
                >> > see above.
                >> >
                >> >> The experience of Denmark has shown that the grid can handle up to
                >> >> 20% of its requirement by fluctuating wind energy.
                >> >
                >> > No. Denmark's grid cannot handle 20 percent of its requirement by
                >> > fluctuating wind energy. The true statement about Denmark is that 20
                >> > percent of its electrical energy production is from wind. Very
                >> > different statement. Denmark can produce this much wind energy only
                >> > because Norway accepts 40% of it by dynamically decreasing its hydro
                >> > generation to allow the imported energy into the Norwegian grid. Coal
                >> > provides 80 percent of Norway's consumed electricity. Wind makes up
                >> > only 12 percent of the consumption. The remaining 8 percent of
                >> > consumption is imported. Coal provides the 3 x 12 = 36 percent of the
                >> > total energy supplied by the network that must be in a form suitable
                >> > for the backup required for the 12 percent of fluctuating wind energy
                >> > that Denmark's grid actually handles, at the cost of increasing coal
                >> > energy consumption and CO2 emissions well above the level they would
                >> > have if Denmark cut back its wind production and coal production to
                >> > the level that could be supported entirely by hydro imports from
                >> > Norway, namely 8%, with total imports of 24% of its energy requirement
                >> > from Norway. Presumably coal is cheaper and/or more available than
                >> > Norwegian hydro. See Andrew Ferguson, "Wind power with coal" in
                >> > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/wind-power/eon5.pdf
                >> >
                >> > E.ON Netz, which operates 40% of the German electrical network has the
                >> > largest absolute amount of installed wind nameplate capacity of any
                >> > network operator in the world, 7000 MW. It currently gets about 10% of
                >> > its total energy from wind, due to an average infeed from wind of 20%
                >> > of wind nameplate capacity) of wind. Network stability considerations
                >> > have caused it to plan to reduce the proportion of wind energy in its
                >> > network to 4% by 2020. See the E.ON Netz Wind Report 2005, at
                >> > http://www.geocities.com/davidmdelaney/Wind-Power-Resources.html
                >> >
                >> >> Ontario has huge
                >> >> hydropower resources which could store peak wind energy ( at 75%
                >> >> efficiency) if the wind share exceeded 20%.
                >> >
                >> > My post calculated how much wind Ontario energy hydro capability could
                >> > support before Ontario would have to start storing wind energy by, for
                >> > example, using it to pump water up hill. That limit is 1/3 of total
                >> > hydro energy production, at most, assuming all hydro can be dedicated
                >> > to supporting wind without decreasing its energy cointribution.
                >> > Current hydro production is currently 26 percent of total Ontario
                >> > electrical production. My post could have been titled "The Ontario
                >> > electrical grid can accept at most 1/3 of Ontario's hydro electrical
                >> > production in the form of wind energy before having to store wind
                >> > energy or control the demand load in real time" (It might accept more
                >> > by using coal as backup, but is committed to doing away with coal.)
                >> >
                >> > David Delaney, Ottawa
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
                >> > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
                >> > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >> >
                >>
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
                > Drop me (Tom Robertson) a note at t1r@...
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.