We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
First blackout of the wind power heavy system
Options
Comments
-
Kinda but you are putting some propaganda spin on it
I am saying wind needs to be forced to invest in stability because it is more risky
Also it's not the same because a CCGT will be connecting to the grid directly via a AC AC connection. These tend to be very robust
The wind farm will have more points of failure
First you have the converter station offshore which converts AC to DC then you have the converter station onshore which turns this DC back into AC. You have added two additional points of failure. Actually three additional points of failure because the DC cable from the wind farm to onshore is also a point of failure. So that is there points of additional infrastructure that can and will at Some point fail Taking out instantly the whole output of the wind farm
Actually perhaps even a fourth layer of weekness which might be software
Presumably these have much more software than a gas fired stations which might be only run by analogue instrumentation or digital but independent from the internet
This isn't the end of wind power it just means they need to account for and mitigate the additional risk to the grid they pose. This might be as simple as collectively the wind farms having to build and operate a 1GW 2GWh battery which night add a cost of £500 million to 20GW of wind power which isn't a huge additional cost but an additional cost nonetheless
Firstly, thank-you for rising above the nonsense and writing what I thought was a measured and reasonable response - albeit one which I am about to challenge
Although I understand what you are saying about points of failure, you haven't done enough to convince me that wind generation has more points of failure than, say, gas generation. You have highlighted points of failure that exist in the wind generation chain that don't exist in the gas generation chain. But there are also gas points of failure that don't exist for wind - jets, burners, alll the gas supply infrastructure, etc. So I don't think this is a sound argument.
What I do agree with, however, is that the current wind infrastructure (assuming it is how you say) has a number of single points of failure (such as shared DC-AC conversion, offshore-onshore cabling, etc.) which will inevitably impact it's reliability. On the face of it, wind generation should be inherently reliable because of the sheer number of inidividual turbines generating the electricty - it's only the way these are connected up that makes it unreliable. It shouldn't take too much engineering or cost to get to the stage where wind generation is very reliable because of the much bigger potential for eliminating single points of failure.0 -
Firstly, thank-you for rising above the nonsense and writing what I thought was a measured and reasonable response - albeit one which I am about to challenge
Although I understand what you are saying about points of failure, you haven't done enough to convince me that wind generation has more points of failure than, say, gas generation. You have highlighted points of failure that exist in the wind generation chain that don't exist in the gas generation chain. But there are also gas points of failure that don't exist for wind - jets, burners, alll the gas supply infrastructure, etc. So I don't think this is a sound argument.
What I do agree with, however, is that the current wind infrastructure (assuming it is how you say) has a number of single points of failure (such as shared DC-AC conversion, offshore-onshore cabling, etc.) which will inevitably impact it's reliability. On the face of it, wind generation should be inherently reliable because of the sheer number of inidividual turbines generating the electricty - it's only the way these are connected up that makes it unreliable. It shouldn't take too much engineering or cost to get to the stage where wind generation is very reliable because of the much bigger potential for eliminating single points of failure.
No system is 100% reliable but the existing fossil fuel system has been quite reliable because it has few points of total instant failure. Even if you have some of the gas problems you note it's typically not instant because there is momentum/inertia in the system. Think of it like this of you car fails while moving you don't come to an instant stop which would smush you, instead you come to a gradual stop as you have momentum
What's more the whole system has momentum
If there are 30 gas fired stations and one goes off instantly the other 29 pump out more juice because the frequency goes down so they automatically by design all pump more out this is a physical property it's not programmed in or someone presses a button. That's to say the frequency tried to go down but it can't because there is inertia in the system. One of the problems when we had the blackout was that there was less inertia in the system because there were fewer CCGTs in the system (because wind output was higher)
This is why 'synthetic' inertia is now needed and more is needed as you have more and more wind power in the system
This isn't an impossible problem
It just means the wind farms will have to invest in batteries somewhere else on the grid
It won't make wind uneconomical because it's not the vast batteries needed for storage it's a modest amount needed for frequency control. Something like 1GW power 2GWh capacity would be sufficient for this job and that might cost £500 million but shared among 30GW of wind capacity would not make wind power much more expensive (but will make it marginally more expensive)0 -
HiFirstly, thank-you for rising above the nonsense and writing what I thought was a measured and reasonable response - albeit one which I am about to challenge
Although I understand what you are saying about points of failure, you haven't done enough to convince me that wind generation has more points of failure than, say, gas generation. You have highlighted points of failure that exist in the wind generation chain that don't exist in the gas generation chain. But there are also gas points of failure that don't exist for wind - jets, burners, alll the gas supply infrastructure, etc. So I don't think this is a sound argument.
What I do agree with, however, is that the current wind infrastructure (assuming it is how you say) has a number of single points of failure (such as shared DC-AC conversion, offshore-onshore cabling, etc.) which will inevitably impact it's reliability. On the face of it, wind generation should be inherently reliable because of the sheer number of inidividual turbines generating the electricty - it's only the way these are connected up that makes it unreliable. It shouldn't take too much engineering or cost to get to the stage where wind generation is very reliable because of the much bigger potential for eliminating single points of failure.
With the distances involved on the Hornsea projects, I'd be surprised if the energy would be transmitted as DC as the cost viability crossover point (160-200km, power capacity dependent *1) is greater than the distances involved (~145km). With most developed sites being much closer to shore the advantages of using HVDC transmission don't really make economic sense.
Anyway, looking at the Hornsea presentation to Ofgem (link), the infrastructure seems to be describing AC transmission & connectivity to the grid ... if not, why else would a 'Reactive Compensation Station' be necessary? ...
HTH
Z
(*1 - Source - AC/DC Offshore Wind Connection )"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle
0 -
HiGreat_Ache wrote: »how very dare you question whether dc will be used! GreatApe has spoken and the question has therefore been aswered for all eternity. if greatape says dc then dc it is. you renewable boys will soon learn to respect the nuclear boys authority and power in our forum!
we have taken over and no one can stop us!
ken and greatape will soon be here to duff you up
On a purely technical basis, I'd like to see them try, particularly considering the weight of evidence & relevant qualifications that have already been stacked up to rage & spin against! ...
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
Hi
On a purely technical basis, I'd like to see them try, particularly considering the weight of evidence & relevant qualifications that have already been stacked up to rage & spin against! ...
HTH
Z
Flattered as I am by Great Ache’s continued support, ( I am struggling to cope with the adulation - it’s like being a rock star) I won’t be putting forwards any technical arguments for you to rage and spin against.Northern Lincolnshire. 7.8 kWp system, (4.2 kw west facing panels , 3.6 kw east facing), Solis inverters, Solar IBoost water heater, Mitsubishi SRK35ZS-S and SRK20ZS-S Wall Mounted Inverter Heat Pumps, ex Nissan Leaf owner)0 -
HiFlattered as I am by Great Ache’s continued support, ( I am struggling to cope with the adulation - it’s like being a rock star) I won’t be putting forwards any technical arguments for you to rage and spin against.
Unlike the example of a typical spinning approach quoted above, there's no spin involved in the Hornsea post from this end, sources provided stand on their own merit ...
... If anyone wants to spin against them or claim that they're just another example of RE propaganda then it's up to them ... wouldn't be too wise on the credibility front though, so I'd reckon that the post will be left to stand as a matter of supported & supportable fact as opposed to the finger in the air postulation we've recently come to expect from some repeatedly displaying an anti-RE technology bias similar to that employed over many years by a serial disruptor under various guises ... :whistle:
HTH
Z"We are what we repeatedly do, excellence then is not an act, but a habit. " ...... Aristotle0 -
Returning briefly, if I may, to the point of this thread, nobody has yet really responded or commented on what to me seems to be the central point here. I'm not sure if this has been overlooked in the merriment or whether you are avoiding the issue because of the somewhat embarassing situation that GreatApe may, indeed, have made a valid point on this occasion. Or perhaps it's just me, in which case happy to have this explained....
Put aside, for a moment, the question of how resilient wind farms are, whether transmission is AC-DC, whether this can be called a wind farm failure or whether it would be better characterised as a grid failure. All interesting stuff, and I understand the points made.
My question concerns contingency when there is a large proposrtion of wind generation.
As I understand it, what normally happens when a power generator fails (wind or otherwise) is that other power stations should ramp up and cover the shortfall between them until something else comes on line. This works fine most of the time when we have a large proportion of gas / FF which are by and large able to do this pretty much instantly. This didn't happen on Friday because a large proportion of the other power sources were themselves wind farms and unable to ramp up because you can't make the wind blow harder (or whatever). Obviously there is always going to be a limit and if enough power stations fail there's going to be power cuts, but the question is, are we more likely to have power cuts on windy days because if a power station goes offline it's less likely that there will be enough responsive power elsewhere to take up the shortfall?
This isn't meant to be anti-RE, and I'm a big fan of wind (which I've suffered from most of my life). It's a genuine question and I'd be interested to hear views on this.
At a practical level, I'm installing a rainwater harvesting system at the moment and I'll need electricity to be able to flush the loo. I do have contingency plans (in the form of a bucket) but I'm wondering if I should look to something more convenient.
p.s. Greta, if you're reading this, you're welcome to borrow the bucket for your transatlantic crossing if you need it - the blue one on the TV news didn't look big enough for all of you for a fortnight.......0 -
Put a header tank in the loft then fill WCs from it by gravity.At a practical level, I'm installing a rainwater harvesting system at the moment and I'll need electricity to be able to flush the loo. I do have contingency plans (in the form of a bucket) but I'm wondering if I should look to something more convenient.NE Derbyshire.4kWp S Facing 17.5deg slope (dormer roof).24kWh of Pylontech batteries with Lux controller BEV : Hyundai Ioniq50 -
Returning briefly, if I may, to the point of this thread, nobody has yet really responded or commented on what to me seems to be the central point here. I'm not sure if this has been overlooked in the merriment or whether you are avoiding the issue because of the somewhat embarassing situation that GreatApe may, indeed, have made a valid point on this occasion. Or perhaps it's just me, in which case happy to have this explained....
Put aside, for a moment, the question of how resilient wind farms are, whether transmission is AC-DC, whether this can be called a wind farm failure or whether it would be better characterised as a grid failure. All interesting stuff, and I understand the points made.
My question concerns contingency when there is a large proposrtion of wind generation.
As I understand it, what normally happens when a power generator fails (wind or otherwise) is that other power stations should ramp up and cover the shortfall between them until something else comes on line. This works fine most of the time when we have a large proportion of gas / FF which are by and large able to do this pretty much instantly. This didn't happen on Friday because a large proportion of the other power sources were themselves wind farms and unable to ramp up because you can't make the wind blow harder (or whatever). Obviously there is always going to be a limit and if enough power stations fail there's going to be power cuts, but the question is, are we more likely to have power cuts on windy days because if a power station goes offline it's less likely that there will be enough responsive power elsewhere to take up the shortfall?
This isn't meant to be anti-RE, and I'm a big fan of wind (which I've suffered from most of my life). It's a genuine question and I'd be interested to hear views on this.
At a practical level, I'm installing a rainwater harvesting system at the moment and I'll need electricity to be able to flush the loo. I do have contingency plans (in the form of a bucket) but I'm wondering if I should look to something more convenient.
p.s. Greta, if you're reading this, you're welcome to borrow the bucket for your transatlantic crossing if you need it - the blue one on the TV news didn't look big enough for all of you for a fortnight.......
Simplifying it a bit but the way electricity generation works is you have a thermal plant (coal gas nuclear). These are big spinning generators and the spinning itself has energy
When a plant trips, say there are 30 gas fired stations on the system and nothing else, when one trips the other 29 have this inertia this momentum in the spinning itself. So it takes a while for the frequency to fall (the spinning turbines still in the system to slow down a bit)
I'm not sure how long this is it might only be half a minute to a few minutes but this is enough time for a response of pumped hydro or perhaps spinning reserve gas turbines to kick in.
Now if you don't have this inertia, as wind farms don't then you don't have this vital few seconds to a few minutes to respond so you have to shed load and being the frequency back up to normal range. If you don't you can risk a total failure or disorganized cascading disconnections of generators which will have to disconnect themselves if the frequency gets too low
As I have said this isn't something that puts an end to wind power it just means wind power has to invest in 'synthetic inertia' aka batteries so as to provide this vital few seconds to fee minutes for other generators to kick in
However I'm guessing national grid will get the blame and nation grid will end up buying huge batteries and then pass this cost onto all generators when it should really only be placed onto wind and PV
What you're thinking of is the more medium term the period say after 5-10 minutes when you have to get a very rapid source of energy onto the grid to make up for the lost wind. Be that pumped hydro be that mass batteries or be that rapid response gas turbines or diesel generators0 -
p.s. Greta, if you're reading this, you're welcome to borrow the bucket for your transatlantic crossing if you need it - the blue one on the TV news didn't look big enough for all of you for a fortnight.......
As someone who has done a bit of sailing, although thankfully not too often on such spartan boats I'd have to point out that the technique is "bucket and chuck it"...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards