Swedish site klimatsans.com posted a chart presented by Rolf Schuster showing Germany’s and much of Europe’s total wind power generation over the first 6 months of this year:
Wind power production Germany and Europe. Chart by Rolf Schuster, from klimatsans.com.
The first thing one notices is wind power’s extreme supply volatility. In February wind production peaked at 75 gigawatts – enough to power all of Germany (for a few hours). Relying only on wind power, most of Germany would have been completely dark since late March.
Every month wind power fell multiple times close to zero, meaning that it would not even be possible to even power little Luxembourg.
And even if the technology existed to store the energy for a couple of days, the best all the installed wind power capacity in Europe could hope to consistently provide is some 15 gigawatts – which would be enough to power something on the order of Belgium only.
If power could be stored for an entire week, it would only be possible to supply only about half of Germany – the rest of the continent, France, Spain, Portugal, Benelux, United Kingdom, Ireland, Scandinavia, Greece, Austria, Switzerland, all of eastern Europe and the Balkan countries would have to go without.
This gives us an idea of how ridiculous the pursuit of 100% renewable energy supply really is.
157 responses to “Folly: All Of Europe’s Wind Power Capacity Only Could Steadily Provide Enough Electricity For Tiny Belgium!”
“This gives us an idea of how ridiculous the pursuit of 100% renewable energy supply really is.”
El Hierro is running the second day on 100% renewables:
As you can see from the graph above, Germany produces about 50% of the wind power in Europe.
You can get a more detailed look on page 4 of this pdf:
so the high volatility and the close correlation to the German data is not a bug, but a feature.
This will change, when all countries approach 30% wind and off-shore starts to show up in statistics.
It is nice, that everyone here is very worried about the prospects of wind power. But you must not worry so much!
El Hierro runs 2 days in a row on renewables! Man, that’s SO impressive, I mean, El Hierro. How many inhabitants do they have, 5000?
Hey I was only off by a factor of 2.
Do they get money from the mainland to pay for the subsidies?
I mean, they won’t pay for the contraptions themselves, they’re a rural island population maybe with some hippies selling trinkets sprinkled in.
This is such an amazing economic model, it beats Keynesianism in its madness. (Keynes as you might remember praised war for its positive effects on the economy, making him the worlds foremost barking mad economist)
“El Hierro runs 2 days in a row on renewables!”
so why does the original post say:
“This gives us an idea of how ridiculous the pursuit of 100% renewable energy supply really is.”
Either it is easy, or “ridiculous”.
Other countries are doing it as well.
Well it *IS* ridiculous – as the tiny population of El Hierro got an entire pumped hydro storage lake infrastructure sponsored by *ME* (forced at gunpoint through taxation) and other productive members of society – through the Brussels dictators.
Call me when a population of 10,000 fishermen, hotel waiters and hippies digs their own pumped hydro storage lake in their free time. And erect a bunch of self-made wind turbines. *THAT* would be sustainable.
Ridiculous is the wrong word. Grand Theft and Larceny come to mind.
Thanks Dirk. This tiny “success” was based on hydro storage? By God man, at what cost?
Sods post, unknown to his brain, aptly shows the useless nature of wind and solar in grid applications.
Of course, the added-value-siphoning warmunist subsidy fraudsters are one of the key reasons for the disappearing growth in Western civilisations: When dictators direct capital towards money-destroying ventures, no sensible investment is possible.
You reward fraud, you get more fraudsters.
The fraudsters call this business model “sustainable”. Well as long as there is money to steal it sure is.
Uraguay gets 84% of its electricity from hydroelectric power. The Guardian article is one reason why no one believes Green propaganda, since it never mentions facts such as this. It is deceptive to show pictures of huge wind turbines, and crow about how Paraguay is running on renewable energy, without pointing out that less that 10% of the country’s energy comes from intermittent wind.
“Uruguay relies primarily on hydroelectric sources to meet its power needs. In 2014, 82% of the 10.3TWh consumed in the country came from large hydro plants, while 13% came from other renewable sources (biomass, solar and wind). The remaining 5% was supplied by plants burning oil, diesel and natural gas.
Uruguay — Climatescope 2015 [http://global-climatescope.org/en/country/uruguay/_green]
El Hierro completes a year of full operation; 35% renewables vs 65% diesel
“El Hierro completes a year of full operation; 35% renewables vs 65% diesel”
It was a year with a lot of tests.
The wind power is curtailed at about 60%.
The hydro power does basically never get used.
“The hydro power does basically never get used.”
You mean the taxpayer-financed hydro storage system DOES NOT EVEN WORK????
Yeah, the hydro gets used (see the link I gave below). They use it when the wind she don’t blow. And when the wind she blow too much, they use that power to pump water back up to the reservoir, because that’s ALL the excess wind power can do. But then the wind she gets all blown out, and the reservoirs drain out, they MUST go to diesel. It’s not quite Rube Goldberg, but it’s well on the way to becoming same.
Hence the “bottom line” in the quote I give below from there.
Get rid of the Diesel, and when the wind doesn’t blow and the water’s all drained out, what’s left for sod to do but smoke his crack pipe?
@ sod 12. July 2016 at 10:40 PM
“It was a year (2015-6) with a lot of tests.” Nice try.
It was its *second* year in operation, & *still* needed lots of tests.
“On 27 June, the Cabildo de El Hierro inaugurated the project Gorona the wind with the Canary Island is 100% self – sufficient in renewable energy.”
GdV is producing electricity at ~€1.00/kWh
@ sod 12. July 2016 at 10:40 PM
“The wind power is curtailed at about 60%.”
Another nice try.
Roger Andrews’ analysis:
“The facts are a) that it is and b) that there has been no significant relaxation of curtailment thresholds in a year of operation. Curtailment of wind power at or around 7MW is obviously considered necessary, presumably because too much wind power compromises grid stability, and short of a system redesign we can be reasonably certain that it will continue at or around these levels.”
If you have a better excuse, other readers would expect you to share it/them.
“If you have a better excuse, other readers would expect you to share it/them.”
El Hierro is currently not using it s hydro system at all (on any level that could be considered significant). My personal explanation for the curtailment of wind, is this lack of use of hydro. I think that too much water is used for irrigation.
My explanation is at least as good as the one given by Roger, whos opinion i really appreciate, by the way.
We are using a grid monitor, which is publicly available but which gives very little data.
For example we do only know a net number of hydro power, we can not see, when hydro is producing electricity AND is pumping at the same time.
This might also explain, why their number of renewable energy is higher than what Energy Matters gets from the monitor:
In another of his excellent earlier articles…
…he points out that…
“The basic problem is that GdV has every conceivable kind of smart gadget in its control room except for the one it really needs – a gadget that makes the wind blow to order.”
“a gadget that makes the wind blow to order.”
The wind is fine. The wind turbines are curtailed at 60% for no apparent reason (apart from the problem, that additional hydro being pumped would be wasted as basically all hydro is, for some unknown reason). .
The article I cited is about your precious El Hierro, where, as it reads:
“The low-wind conditions that dominated during the last four months of 2015 continued into January 2016, leading to only 22% renewables generation in that month.”
I.e., it is not “fine.”
And where and when are the alleged data in that graph from? No year, no location. What am I supposed to learn from it, other than you are as careless as ever.
P.S. – solar is NOT “fine!”
“P.S. – solar is NOT “fine!””
Solar is fine. The prices are dropping like a rock. This is a problem for some solar PV companies. But not a problem of solar PV.
““The low-wind conditions that dominated during the last four months of 2015 continued into January 2016, leading to only 22% renewables generation in that month.””
That is written there. But please look at the data and do not only read what you like to hear.
The graph i gave, is real wind data from the island. And it is from the airport, which has much worse wind than the ridge that the turbines are build on.
There is plenty of wind.
And the Energy matters site is tracking the full wind output. It would have covered 50% of the islands need.
And this is with curtailment at 60% output. (so above 60% wind power output would be easy, just stop curtailment)
This is directly contradicting your claim above:
“there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization.””
population 10,000 (approx.)
no link to REAL energy.
and funded by SOMEONE ELSE.
“The prices are dropping like a rock.”
Because there is an oversupply of shoddy panels …
and NOBODY wants them !!
“is an oversupply of shoddy panels …” – AndyG55
“Solar is fine. The prices are dropping like a rock. ”
Well genius. Price of a solar kWpeak drops by 50% once in a decade since the 1970ies. Partly through the experience curve (economies of scale of production), partly through process improvements.
This exponential is constant over decades and the decision of the SPD-CDU government to disrupt market economics with central planning only made a small temporary kink in the curve. (and ruined us)
At a certain point solar power can be produced in such tremendous amounts that it will become economic to pay for the conversion losses involved in storing it, and for the capital expenditure for the storage.
Assuming that no other power source like Cold Fusion takes the cake (is easier to produce power with).
I am not so much worried that the warmunist fraudsters will destroy our civilisation. I am worried that they misdirect economic gains to useless fraudulent crap in the now so we don’t have any money left to do what we should do – improve our and other peoples wellbeing in the now.
As I said before: The rampant overgrowth of parasites turns the West into a stagnant giant, losing out to more dynamic entities – controlled by less fraudulent elites.
Another reason for the drop in price of solar panals.
“…the problem of dumping. The Chinese, who are one of the world’s largest manufacturers of solar panels, have overbuilt capacity and are selling panels below cost, which has not only prompted accusations of undercutting other nations’ solar manufacturing industries, it’s also artificially lowered prices.”
Lots more there from this past May, when sod was asleep, I guess.
@sod 17. July 2016 at 10:23 AM
“This is directly contradicting your claim above:
‘there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization’.”
Nice link. (I used it myself)
But do read the WHOLE thing, and you’ll see statements like this:
“What does GdV’s performance tell us about the potential of renewable energy?
The answer is simple. Intermittent renewable energy is not going to replace dispatchable fossil fuel generation without adequate energy storage backup, and since THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY STORAGE NEEDED IS ALMOST ALWAYS PROHIBITIVE it follows that an energy future based entirely on intermittent renewables is not a realistic prospect”
That’s what I wrote, and what you said wasn’t true, based on your reference that agrees with me (because I used him. and others who wrote the same thing, as a reference).
I’d tell sod to stop making things up, but that appears no more possible than the 100% “renewable” energy he wants everyone else to believe in.
When the wind, she don’t blow…. Man did I laugh with that post!!! Brilliant!
Mr/Ms Sod, on windmills; useful in combination with batteries and back-up Diesel power for some remote off grid locations that are difficult to resupply. Useful also for water pumping where intermittent operation is acceptable. Pretty much useless for anything else, which is why they fell into disfavour long ago and why you won't find windmills in applications that don't attract substantial, mandated subsidies.
An appalling delusion
What’s wrong with the Grauniad? Are they suddenly trying to get readers?
Nuclear is al very well, but this this carbon capture stuff is idiocy to the max.
The atmosphere needs MORE CO2, not less, if we want to be able to continue to feed the world’s expanding human population.
Weather dependent Renewables European data published by EurObserER 2015 and some guesstimates of 60 lifetime costs
Very good visual. It is astonishing that the political powers can insist on a green power target that can’t work even if achieved on a mathematical level – the volitility would cripple the grid. Are they betting on a yet unknown breakthrough (fusion) to save the day?
Oil, gas and coal will still be 75% of energy use in 2050. The experts know this. But the truth doesn’t inform their proposals. All I can imagine is that they are dreamers unconciously believong a miracle will happen if they pray and believe hard enough.
“All I can imagine is that they are dreamers unconciously believong a miracle will happen if they pray and believe hard enough.”
It’s much easier -the Bundestag MP’s all own wind park shares.
So, the end will come when they stop making money on the deal?
They’ve already switched to renting out houses to ME asylum seekers (for whom the state pays taxpayer money)
Busy little bunco artist, aren’t they.
How can such an erratic energy source be assigned any value at all?
From the graph you can see that it cannot reliably power any type of load.
“It is nice, that everyone here is very worried about the prospects of wind power. But you must not worry so much!” – says silly sod
Disillusioned Danes Demur
There is one sure way to break the economies of the West — destroy their electrical grid!
Without this vast, finely regulated, reliable communal resource all that is left are disparate communities reliant on local resources. Without a correctly functioning grid nations will crumble to chaos. Without reliable electricity modern Western life ceases — no personal/national communication, no reliable food, water, gas supply, no heating, and only the very basics in medical resources; no personal, community, or national security.
So why are we allowing our elites experiment with this essential part of our infrastructure? Why are we not questioning any and every argument that espouses we compromise the grids integrity?
I ask what is so good about ‘sustainability’ when it so threatens your comfort, longevity, and health for generations to come? It’s nothing but a fancy word to hoodwink the gullible to believe that burning any fuel is bad. The UN’s version of ‘Sustainability’ is against sustaining human life and human endeavor.
Windfarms and solar panels are not, by any measure, able to be sustained. You can not generate enough electricity from them to allow the manufacture of even the smallest component of their structure. They are an advert to ignorance by the gullible clowns that advocate them.
The correlation between wind power from Germany and the rest of Europe means that when there is no wind, no country can obtain wind energy from its neighbours. That includes offshore. So, forget about large interconnectors.
“The correlation between wind power from Germany and the rest of Europe means that when there is no wind, no country can obtain wind energy from its neighbours.”
No. This is a completely false interpretation.
In the real world, there is a high correlation between Germany and the rest, because Germany is about 50% of the total.
“. That includes offshore.”
That is totally false as well. Offshore has a much higher capacity factor. so if this was all offshore data, we would see much less fluctuation and a much broader base amount.
“So, forget about large interconnectors.”
That is also false.
Energy matters has a good post about this (wind blowing nowhere). They come to a different conclusion, but here is, what the data says:
Very solid 5 GW output. Pretty solid 10 GW output. What more do you want?
For those who can’t view that pic or don’t want to: “Very solid 5 GW” by sod means a total of 2 GW in February over ALL OF EUROPE.
In other words, much better than say during the French revolution, where the only electricity available was gained by rubbing cat pelts.
No, Sod you are wrong!
The interpretation is utterly correct.
The reference you cite are interpreting the data totally incorrectly, smearing just as you do, a fragile gloss of optimism over the huge deficiencies in reliability.
You assert “Offshore has a much higher capacity factor. so if this was all offshore data, we would see much less fluctuation and a much broader base amount.” Is straight BS! Its real capacity factor (not the advertised version), is as crap as onshore. Also the maintenance cost for offshore are huge, reliability is (like all wind power) woeful.
Wind power does not work, except on the small independent installation with no requirement for reliable power.
There are at least 18 occasions in the graph when wind electricity for all of Europe drops to very close to zero.
From your comments you don’t seem able to understand a graph and are just desperately trying to keep belief in wind turbines going. Do you have a financial interest in them or are you just delusional?
“There are at least 18 occasions in the graph when wind electricity for all of Europe drops to very close to zero.”
No, it does not. So 5 GW is becoming the new zero now? that is 5 full nuclear/coal blocks running!
It also is not all of europe. Ireland (and Portugal and Italy) is one of those places, that might show less correlation with central europe winds
“From your comments you don’t seem able to understand a graph ”
I understand it, you do not.
The graph shows an average wind output of 20 to 25 GW.
Of those, 5 GW are there basically all the time and 10 GW about 90% of the time.
Your “zero” idea is utterly false!
Just look at june from the original article:
an average output of about 15 GW, and 7.5 of those are pretty close to baseload (and it is not all of europe and Germany is about 50% of it!!!).
@ sod 13. July 2016 at 7:07 AM
“So 5 GW is becoming the new zero now?”
5GW generated from >116GW of windmills is for all practicalities barely distinguishable from zero.
And a closer examination of the figure
shows it to be 0.5 to 2.5 for the lowest. sod yet again exaggerates, hoping we’ll not notice.
“Of those, 5 GW are there basically all the time and 10 GW about 90% of the time. ”
Again : “Basically there” in sod’s vernacular means “NOT there” – as February has just 2 GW over ALL OF EUROPE SUMMED UP.
you cannot read the graph. Those 18 occasions are all well below 5GW, below 2GW and in some cases much lower.
As for other countries, Ireland is a net importer of electricity. Portugal produces little and wouldn’t show up on the graph. That leaves your last hope Italy. Wait! You can add Lichtenstein, San Marino and Andorra to your phantom suppliers.
“shows it to be 0.5 to 2.5 for the lowest. sod yet again exaggerates, hoping we’ll not notice.”
Please provide data, your claim is plain out false.
here is your graph:
The lowest numbers are from june, but we have more detailed graph from June:
Where do you see 0.5 GW output in that graphs?
“as February has just 2 GW over ALL OF EUROPE SUMMED UP.”
This claim is also false. Please provide specifics. On what part of February do you see 2GW?
And again: this is not all of europe.
“Please provide data, your claim is plain out false.” – sod
LOOK AT THE @&#*#! GRAPH!!!
“LOOK AT THE @&#*#! GRAPH!!!”
No. There is no 0.5 in February. What are you looking at?
I’m not JUST talking about February, nor is that graph restricted to February.
The very first trough is in January, and it is just 0.5, with 3 other troughs, each below 2.5.
In February, there are 5 between 1 and 2.5, which means if YOU are talking about February, then you can’t read a graph if you say there are none below 5, WHICH WAS MY POINT!!!
More than half of the time the electricity generated was below 5GW FOR THE WHOLE MONTH.
Oh, what a wonderful thing wind is for generating electricity, NOT!
Correction. Missing text now added.
“More than half of the time the electricity generated was below 5GW FOR THE WHOLE MONTH.” should have been preceded by…
“Now lets skip to June, just for fun.”
What more do we want?
How about power when we NEED it?
Not when the weather gods deign to deliver it.
poor, deluded sod
It is even worse. With this high correlation – the rest of Europe delivers about the same as Germany and has about the same peaks and troughs in the output – and possible future increases of wind energy – poor sod says 30%! – it will become impossible for Germany to send surplus wind energy to its neighbours. That means Germany will have to curtail wind energy, bringing the capacity factor down from 18% to lower values. Offshore will not help here at all, it is in the same weather system as the rest of Germany.
sod, you really are unbelievably stupid. The graph you posted a link to shows a variation in excess of 10:1 from maximum to minimum output. How the hell do you seriously expect to run a modern society on that???
“Of those, 5 GW are there basically all the time”
You can’t read either. On February 8th the low point was barely 3 GW…
Good graph. It would be interesting to know the installed “capacity” (the figure the enthusiasts quote based on theoretical maximum output) and the actual average output and resulting % output.
The individual countries’ capacities can be selected from the ‘2015’ column of the table here:
From comments I take capacity to be about 116 GW, average output 20 to 25 GW. Of course grids to not operate off of average output, no matter how dismal.
This number is utterly irrelevant. Why are people here so obsessed with nameplate capacity?
How often are you using the maximum speed of your car?
Are you comparing your house to the most expensive palaces that money can buy?
By spreading wind out over all of europe, we increase the minimum output but we also significantly reduce the maximum. We will never see those 116 GW (or the even bigger number, if we include the countries that ruin these pictures, like Portugal and Ireland).
The June picture shows an average of 20 to 25 GW. of those 5GW are basically always there and 10 GW are pretty stable. This is stuff that the grid can easily work with!
@ sod 14. July 2016 at 8:09 AM
“Why are people here so obsessed with nameplate capacity?
…. The June picture shows an average of …..”
Averages & minimums are proportional to nameplate capacity
To folk suffering blackouts, reassure them with the platitude: “No power today, but not to worry, the *average* this month was x-GW”
“Averages & minimums are proportional to nameplate capacity”
No, they are of course not.
If you add more countries, you will see a higher (real) minimum and a (proportionally) lower (real) maximum, while nameplate maximum keeps growing.
The all of these graphs is about the effect of averages and minimums not being proportional, when we change the geographical spread of the wind power.
““Why are people here so obsessed with nameplate capacity?”
Because its so absolutely HILARIOUS to compare to what is actually produced. ! 🙂
Its like buying a car advertised as a 6L V8 and finding its run by a lawnmower engine.
sorry, wrong numbers. The average is between 10 and 15 GW.
Please look at the graph. This is remarkably stable!
The graph shows a pretty stable cyclical effect of daily ups and downs (coastal effects?) which should be very easy to compensate with solar PV.
Basically the posts graphic demonstrates to all rational minds that alternative energy costs, expensive and useless (requiring 100 percent back up) as the currently are, will of certainty increase with any increase in capacity. Sod asks why?
Because the costs of necessary conventional backup increase as their potential and PROVED efficiency is underutilized and decreased due Government granted wind and solar generated priority.
BTW Sod, that 20 to 25 GW is pathetic and worse then it appears. Why? Because less then 100 percent of the pathetic generated capacity is useful or generated when needed despite mandates that they get paid for what little they produce.
“BTW Sod, that 20 to 25 GW is pathetic and worse then it appears. Why? Because less then 100 percent of the pathetic generated capacity is useful or generated when needed”
On which days do you think an average of 20 GW is not useful at all?
Is this an argument against baseload?
And calling 20 GW pathetic is beyond bizarre! That is about, what the 20 German nuclear plants could provide at best times.
I am in utter despair at your crass stupidity and in absolute awe at your ability to keep flogging a dead horse
“I am in utter despair at your crass stupidity and in absolute awe at your ability to keep flogging a dead horse”
There have been no arguments here, only insults.
It is pathetic.
El Hierro just had a new record of 55 hours of 100% renewables:
And this is with strongly curtailed wind and a hydro system, that is not working at all. This picture (light green colour) shows the massive amount of wind that went into pumping water up, while the tiny blue spots is the hydro being used:
It is utterly clear from that picture, that there was no need for diesel over those 5 days at all (and that is with the wind being curtailed at an absurd low level!)!
I think it is useless to try to teach the poor sod about wind energy. He clearly cannot read or check graphs. It may be fun to see how he gets it wrong, but it is a total waste of time. Although sometimes people come with very good new arguments.
“I think it is useless to try to teach the poor sod about wind energy. He clearly cannot read or check graphs. ”
Look, you folks have no facts to offer, just moronic insults.
Here is, what a guy running the system says:
“80% renewables are no problem”
That is the guy, managing about 25% of the German grid. I know, the facts hurt. But you can not just stick to your opinion and ignore reality.
It is utterly absurd, that people here claim that 100% renewables is impossible, when El Hierro just demonstrated again, that it is not.
Just in case anyone is interested in reality:
Windfarm will produce offshore at 72€ per MWh:
That is a little bit below, what the new Hinkley nuclear is supposed to get and even allows wiggle room for transmission costs…
I used to think that sod might be a fictional creation by Pierre to provide arguments that other regular contributors could enjoy shooting down. I now realise that can’t be so because if Pierre created a character of that kind the arguments he produced would be much better researched and more convincing than the ones sod puts forward.
Rest assured, he’s for real. No creation of mine.
Kodiak Island is at 99+% renewables and is operating a heavy lifting crane with flywheel technology.
Wind is an important part, and has replaces the 30% diesel they had in addition to hydro in the past.
And the all of this is with prices being reduced….
Kodiak island population = 14,135
You have to be JOKING, little whinger !!
do you know the meaning on NICHE market ?
ie IRRELEVANT !!!!!
“The Terror Lake Hydroelectric Generating Station is the principal power plant for Kodiak Island, Alaska.”
That’s really not a surprise if you know the turf. That coastal arc from about Kodiak Island all the way down almost to Vancouver is a rarity – a temperate rain forest.
When ever someone says 99% renewables, you can almost BET that a large slice of that is hydro! 🙂
“When ever someone says 99% renewables, you can almost BET that a large slice of that is hydro! ”
It is funny, how your comments contradict each other.
If you have strong hydro, then adding wind to replace diesel can save you money. That is a good thing, because you save money. You dismiss it, because there was hydro to begin with.
When you look at King Island, you complain about the costs. But this is an experimental system, build from scratch with no massive hydro back up to begin with.
So what ever it is, it does not count for you.
Experimental, TINY, COSTLY, niche.
Of basically ZERO application to the REAL world.
You know that..
“Kodiak Island is at 99+% renewables and is operating a heavy lifting crane with flywheel technology.” – sod, the perpetually annoying
Wait, did you say FLYWHEEL TECHNOLOGY??!!
Do you know what this MEANS??!!
And thank you for playing “say something stupid.” You are definitely in the top 10.
“And the all of this is with prices being reduced….”
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816”
“Wait, did you say FLYWHEEL TECHNOLOGY??!!
Do you know what this MEANS??!!”
You do not know what a flywheel is. That is plain out stupid.
King Island is running one:
I am sorry, but your “HAHAHA” linked with your obvious ignorance of modern storage technologies makes you look very stupid.
King Island population = 1,732
You are SERIOUSLY a JOKE, little sobbing whinger. !!
I wonder how much wood and diesel King Island carts in to keep itself WARM in this cold winter we are having down here.
Sob obviously has ZERO idea about momentum, energy and flywheels.
But then, he has proven he has basically zero idea about ANYTHING.
At this present time, diesel is providing well over 50%, and that flywheel is USING energy., The little battery isn’t helping much either.
You are an IDIOT , sob !!!
Those King Island residents can be VERY THANKFUL that they have RELIABLE FOSSIL FUEL back-up.
And those King Island residents can also be very thankful that they are surrounded by water.
I live near Williamstown in NSW, its 5.9ºC at the moment, and King Island some 800km, south (southern hemisphere, remember) is registering 12ºC
Imagine is they tried to provide wind energy for somewhere like Canberra, population 400,000 (ish) and current temperature, 2ºC
How many of those USELESS wind turbines would be needed, considering the wind is only about 5km/hr
WIND ENERGY IS A JOKE !!
End of story !!
That’s the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
It doesn’t matter how many flywheels they have, if there isn’t sufficient energy to put into them.
“Several recent analyses of the inputs to our energy systems indicate that, against expectations, energy storage cannot solve the problem of intermittency of wind or solar power. Not for reasons of technical performance, cost, or storage capacity, but for something more intractable: there is not enough surplus energy left over after construction of the generators and the storage system to power our present civilization.”
I’ve posted that before, and I think others have posted it or similar material, but sod and other warmist drones ignore it every time.
“At this present time, diesel is providing well over 50%, and that flywheel is USING energy., The little battery isn’t helping much either.
You are an IDIOT , sob !!!”
Most people here are completely ignorant on all aspects of renewable technology.
This flywheel is a D-UPS. it will be taking up (“using”) energy most of the time.
You have not understood the subject at all. Your error is nearly as big, as the one above mixing up the flywheel with a perpetual motion machine.
Most of you are on a level of knowledge about renewable energy that had some substance about 10 years ago. Your understanding of the subject has utterly no connection to what renewables can do today.
“Your understanding of the subject has utterly no connection to what renewables can do today.” – sod
Little if any good, lots of harm. What’s not to understand?
“Little if any good, lots of harm. What’s not to understand?”
This is getting absurd. I accused you of not understanding renewables today, and of being stuck on information that is 10 years old.
And you really answer with a link to a blog post from 2009, which is mostly based on data from before 2007, which is exactly 10 years old.
Come on, can you not at least pretend to contradict my arguments???
And to just make one point, No, solar power does not cost “40 cents per kilowatt-hour”! That is total garbage.
10 year old information?
Yeah, that means they’ve known how bad it is for over a decade, so they should have quit, BUT THEY ARE STILL DOING IT!!!
“renewables” destroy the environment, threaten human health, wreck economies, and can’t ever provide sufficient power.
Also, re energy cost, how’s this for ya?
“Like Germany, Denmark Admits Wind Power Generation Is Too Expensive” – JULY 15, 2015
“The price of residential electricity in the EU is correlated with the level of renewable energy installed on a per capita basis. The data shows that more renewables leads to higher electricity bills.”
See also here.
And it’s only gotten worse.
“Renewables” are more malicious and/or stupid than you are, and that’s saying something.
“Yeah, that means they’ve known how bad it is for over a decade, ”
No. It simply means, that you are not up to date about costs of renewables. You used a source that claims a cost of 40ct per kWh for solar PV.
While in the real world, costs have dropped to 2.99 cents a kilowatt-hour:
“Like Germany, Denmark Admits Wind Power Generation Is Too Expensive” – JULY 15, 2015
This is a comment about the total cost of subsidy fees, which mostly are caused by investments done 10 years ago. So again, you are using old data. Your article also shows offshore wind, which is still more expensive.
So your random collection of links, posted to confuse readers, actually supports my position, instead of contradicting it (again).
“…your “HAHAHA” linked with your obvious ignorance of modern storage technologies makes you look very stupid.” – sod
And your ignorance of the fact that there’s nowhere near enough excess energy to be stored, and never will be – coupled with your ignorance of the fact that prices are going up, not down, in proportion to the amount of installed “renewable” folly makes you look like a buffoon.
You keep writing stupid transparent falsehoods. We keep correcting your idiocy, but you keep ignoring us. What’s not to laugh at?
Let’s repeat that…. 53% DIESEL !!!
Your imaginary knowledge of power systems is a laugh.
You are making out that the flywheel is something other than a starter motor for the diesel engines for when the wind doesn’t blow.
The energy they store is tiny, it is not any sort of storage technology.
Or are you so ignorant you don’t even understand how your own technology works !
YOU ARE AN IDIOT !!
“Let’s repeat that…. 53% DIESEL !!!”
Yes. this is on islands, which were using 100% Diesel before. Or had a little bit of hydro power. Now the Diesel is slowly replaced. What part of that do you not understand?
“Your imaginary knowledge of power systems is a laugh.”
so let us have a laugh at your knowledge. Mind if i bring up some facts again?
“You are making out that the flywheel is something other than a starter motor for the diesel engines for when the wind doesn’t blow.”
You are wrong of course. Here is real data (and it is from the link i gave above. So you do not only know nothing about the subject, but you are also utterly unable to learn anything about it!) :
The data shows that the D-UPS is moving fast between -400kW and +400kW. It does so, even while the Diesel is of (so your claim was, again, utterly wrong). You can also directly see, how it is keeping the diesel use low.
Seems it does have some short term storage capacity. A few hours maximum for a tiny population.
No go to your link http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au/project-information/diesel-ups
Look at the first graph. How often is the ups actually supplying power rather than consuming it?
Yet another IN-EFFICIENT stop-gap measure.
And how much has this all cost, for 1700 odd people?
Certainly its a fun LITTLE experiment, but of absolutely ZERO use for any decent size population.
“Seems it does have some short term storage capacity. A few hours maximum for a tiny population.”
Er no. From the page sod linked but has failed to understand
So the D-UPS is a separate 500kW diesel generator with big flywheel attached that is normally driven in sync with the grid frequency unless the frequency drops below a certain threshold. When this happens this diesel auto starts (from the flywheel inertia as you previously stated) and then automatically cuts off when the grid frequency rises back to normal
This following image is also from the page being discussed and demonstrated the operation as covering the gap between 2 of the normal diesels cutting over (#2 to #4).
Don’t discount your own knowledge so quickly, AndyG55 – ALWAYS check sod’s references.
“Don’t discount your own knowledge so quickly, AndyG55 – ALWAYS check sod’s references.”
My references are fine. The D-UPS does more than start a diesel:
As we see on El Hierro, taking up surplus electricity is also an important function to stabilise the grid. and buffering this back to controls fluctuations also is. And that is, what the D-UPS does all the time, as that purple line shows.
I was right, you folks were wrong.
OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.
And it is so VERY FUNNY,
watching you get dragged into a discussion about DIESEL power on an island that purports to be 100% renewable. 🙂
As I have said before.
sob…. YOU ARE AN IDIOT !!
“And it is so VERY FUNNY,
watching you get dragged into a discussion about DIESEL power on an island that purports to be 100% renewable.”
It is not funny. Just another sign, that you do not understand the subject. Here is what they say:
“We can distinguish between two types of 100% renewable energy, on the one hand that refers to the moment, such as achieved today, which is to keep the grid only alternative energy without a risk to system stability , and that is already a proven reality and increasingly is given in El Hierro more frequently and for longer periods lasting, “says Allende.
In this line, he said that achieving supply 100% of the annual electricity demand with renewable is a long-term goal but in which already works, “and proof of this is the new direction towards integrating sustainable mobility island, which will, surely, increase the threshold of 70% of annual demand supply which is technically capable of reaching the Central hydro-wind and that will be very soon when you have optimized system operation. ” “
OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.
your shouting shows, that your posts have zero substance. El Hierro has been running for 2 days on 100% renewables. it is increasing the level of renewable use this month again.
100% diesel will turn to 30% diesel. Even if you deny it.
What don’t you understand about
tiny, niche… NON-PRODUCTIVE and ..
OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY !!
All this is showing is that if you throw enough of OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY at a NON-PROBLEM, you can create an even bigger problem.
It will be fun to see the up-keep costs, and running costs over the years, as wind turbines need to be “renewed” on a regular basis.
And for what?
A small, insignificant, feel-good reduction in atmospheric plant food production.
(actually, all that machinery must have used a motza of CO2 fired power to make.
This should be factored in.
I doubt that this system will actually have ANY overall reduction in atmospheric CO2 over its whole life time, having used up so much in production.
“It is not funny”
YES it is, little minnow. 🙂
And getting funnier with each of your posts. 🙂
Effing wordpress is almost as stupid as sod. Let’s try again
You continue to demonstrate that you are the village idiot, sod. You cannot analyse what is plainly presented to you.
Look at the time scale on that lower chart and the correlation between the times the D-UPS is “storing” power vs when it is delivering. The big downwards “storage” spikes immediately follow an upward generating spike – the “storage” is merely bringing the big flywheel back up to normal speed after having fired up the diesel. The periods for which the D-UPS “stores” power only last for a few minutes and is always in the nature of a spike, demonstrating that it is a transient load, to overcome the inertia of the flywheel as is it brought back up to speed, and not continual storage. The overall effect of the D-UPS is a power consumer to maintain the flywheel speed to account for frictional losses.
The D in D-UPS stands for DIESEL.
yonason, thanks for the link. I had previously searched only for KIREIP (and similar) cost and never been directed to that. The cost is now higher than $46 million as the replacement battery had not been installed at the time of that press release.
King Island Project budget is $46 million.
That’s a set up cost of $27,000 per person.
Good thing there is the rest of the Aussie tax-payers to pay for it, hey 😉
It does reduce the amount of diesel used by about 2/3, which is a good thing.
But even after that $46 million, he project will not directly reduce the power price tariff as the overall cost to produces each unit of electricity (kWh) will still be above the rate that the community currently pays. The difference in cost is met be the State Government.
So a costly little NICHE experiment.. nothing more.
“King Island Project budget is $46 million.
That’s a set up cost of $27,000 per person.”
again, this is an experimental setup, a prototype. It is no surprise, that it is expensive.
We are collecting vital information with this type of project.
Supporters of old electricity systems should be very afraid. The very moment these type of systems get mass produced, will basically remove all relevant amounts of fossil fuel use from those islands. The islands also often are small, so electric cars will be a huge thing there, the very moment prices start dropping.
the 100% renewables (for growing percentages of time) will be upon us pretty soon. Just do not take all your information from JoNova-dot-com….
Do you have a reference for the $46 million cost for KIREIP, AndyG55? I have never found a costing in my various searches on the subject in the past.
I just did a search on…
$46 million cost for KIREIP
…and it came right up. 2nd paragraph here:
Ahh, the miracle of (un)renewables…
H/T – John Ray
1st article here…
New Zealand [basically two islands] is an interesting example. We currently produce 75% of our electricity from “renewables” The greatest % is hydro. Some geothermal and latterly some intermittent wind thrown into the mix. There was a time when our supply was 100% hydro, so technically it can be argued we are moving away from renewables. There have been occasions some years ago when hydro lakes were at extremely low levels and there were some reductions in output, “generating” shortages. It could be argued that intermittent wind generation can allow water to be stored rather than let through turbines on the occasions “the wind, when she blows” thereby producing a de facto storage. Although some water must always pass the dams or the rivers die! However a much more sensible solution would be the construction of another hydro dam, but unfortunately dopey ideology stands in the way of sense. Wind systems look like being short life span devices [perhaps in the order of 25 years] whereas hydro is there for the long haul. NZ is only a “young” country but we have hydro installations more than 100 years old and still going 24/7. An interesting fact regarding NZ and electricity, there is one single user,[aluminium smelter] which consumes 15% of our total electricity production. The smelter receives significant pricing concessions for electricity which is a bone of contention, as their vast consumption % has a significant effect on the supply/ demand/ pricing for the whole market.
Question for sod,
How many wind turbines would it take to run an aluminium smelter continuously? Or would sod concede it is not possible?
“Ahh, the miracle of (un)renewables…”
Your Australia example >(SA) is totally false as well, as these articles show:
An important interconnector was out. Businesses were warned, but did not buy in advance.
Seen from the other side, SA just got 83% of their electricity from wind alone. we are approaching those 100% pretty fast…
I invite you again to answer my question in my post above.
“Question for sod, How many wind turbines would it take to run an aluminium smelter continuously? Or would sod concede it is not possible?”
“An important interconnector was out.” – sod the delusional
Yes, “out,” as in IT DIDN’T EXIST!
There isn’t a functioning interconnector left in what remains of sod’s useless brain.
And what would they get with “interconnectors” anyway? Tell them, Vanna.
They would, if the interconnectivity existed, get RELIABLE electricity, because…
“…the average price of electricity produced in a system dominated by renewables will always be expensive without strong interconnection, such as in Denmark, to large, inexpensive, electricity-producing regions nearby, that produce most of their electricity from coal, gas or nuclear sources.”
And that means, no all “renewable” system is affordable, or can run independently of conventional power generation.
Oh, and btw, the Danes are right up there with Germany, having the highest electricity prices in the once civilized world. That means, that even if they “fix” the problem, they’ll still have it, just not quite as bad.
“Yes, “out,” as in IT DIDN’T EXIST!”
the “Heywood high voltage interconnector” does exist:
“the “Heywood high voltage interconnector” does exist:” – sod the incorrigible
From that link.
“We are not in that fortunate position. According to Deloitte, South Australia’s interconnectors with Victoria are able to supply only 23 per cent of South Australia’s peak demand”
WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO DO THE JOB. IT WASN’T/ISN’T THERE (yet?). IF SOMETHING ISN’T THERE, THEN BY DEFINITION IT DOES NOT EXIST.
Thank you for playing “guess how stupid I am.” But here’s a hint, next time don’t give it away so soon.
Oh, and please address how ultimately relying on the conventional fuel you claim can be eliminated serves to prove how wonderful this crappy product you’re trying to sell.
Yes it does – to Victorian brown coal (lignite) power stations that can actually supply power to South Australia when required, although only to a portion of South Australia’s demand (for now until the Victorian government destroys this fine infrastructure in an attempt to follow South Australia into de-industrialisation).
On this occasion the interconnections were running at full capacity but emergency measures had to be taken; i.e. restarting a shut down gas plant and using all diesel power available.
The S.A. energy minister blamed the other States for not being willing to embrace “the new electricity” and called for more interconnections (at other States expense) to coal fired power as the answer to S.A. power problems.
As it will take years to build these it looks like S.A. will shortly face blackouts because of the reliance on renewables without enough conventional backup.
By the way the nickname for the Energy Minister is “Silly Koot”.
Please follow the July data on El Hierro closely.
You can do so, by just clicking back along the days with the arrow at the bottom of the page, while looking at the turquoise graph on the right bottom. You will see, that the diesel was at 1.5 MW most of the time this month, with 2 days at zero (around the 12th) and one tiny episode of higher diesel use in the early days of the month.
You can see how this will look like, in comparison with June:
And June 2016 actually had a pretty high wind output already:
Why is it that every place you think has LOTS of renewables (except hydro), has a TINY population. 10,000?
Could it be that renewables are ONLY effective where there is no link to cheap reliable sources, and where SOMEONE ELSE is paying for the energy.
None of these tiny, niche projects would ever get off the ground without the mainland population having to pay for it.
“Why is it that every place you think has LOTS of renewables (except hydro), has a TINY population. 10,000?”
because that is, how stuff is getting tested. Those islands have two big reasons for attempting to go 100% renewables: They are small enough, to reach such a target in a short time and they pay a high price for electricity (diesel).
So it is these places going first.
And any huge change to the electricity system needs funding first, so it is also no surprise that these places need financial backup to make the transition.
In the long term, these places will save money, as the renewable systems get cheaper and pay back the initial investment. Investment in renewables often generates work and business at the places where it is installed, in stark contrast to diesel imports. So a pure cost analysis is falling flat, even without thinking about external costs (like diesel pollution and funding terrorists by buying their oil).
NO, its because that’s the only place it has a bat’s chance of ever being even half effective…
TINY, NICHE, IRRELEVANT..
OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY
“In the long term, these places will save money, as the renewable systems get cheaper and pay back the initial investment. ”
How would a population of 10,000 barkeepers and hippies even MAINTAIN that assemblage of renewables contraptions – or pay the specialists to come over to their remote spot and repair stuff?
They wouldn’t. This is a temporary distortion that will be abandoned once the Eurocrats stop pumping our money into it.
“How would a population of 10,000 barkeepers and hippies even MAINTAIN that assemblage of renewables contraptions – or pay the specialists to come over to their remote spot and repair stuff?” – DirkH
Oh, there are ways, DirkH, there are ways.
Once again sod,
Can you answer my question
“Question for sod, How many wind turbines would it take to run an aluminium smelter continuously? Or would sod concede it is not possible?”
To the nearest 100 would do!
But somehow I suspect you will be a bit quiet, although you have had plenty to say on this post so far.
““Question for sod, How many wind turbines would it take to run an aluminium smelter continuously?”
we will not use a single type of alternative power to do that. Your question is plain out stupid.
What will happen to the aluminium smelter if your single nuclear power plant blows up?
““Question for sod, How many wind turbines would it take to run an aluminium smelter continuously?”
“we will not use a single type of alternative power to do that.
Your question is plain out stupid.
What will happen to the aluminium smelter if your single nuclear power plant blows up?”
Thank you for your answer sod.
Who is the ‘we’ in your answer?
What do you mean by “alternative power”? Which types would “you” use to run a smelter?
“Our” smelter is not nuclear powered by the way, 100% hydro. I daresay this smelter produces a lot of the aluminium that will be found in electric supply and reticulation systems around the world, likely in “renewables” as well.
I think the point has been made before that wind generation can not deliver the continuous supply needed to keep up with the demand that exists. Therefore serious generating systems are indispensable, aren’t they.
Your replies, which usually contain statements like “Your question is plain out stupid.” indicate to me that you are not here for an amicable discussion. You seem to see things as always adversarial! When you resort to your “plain out stupid” stuff, it is showing a lack of intellectual argument. That’s all.
I did not know about the details of that. Thanks for making me look them up.
And, no, I’m not going to share, because sod should do his own homework.
“I think the point has been made before that wind generation can not deliver the continuous supply needed to keep up with the demand that exists. Therefore serious generating systems are indispensable, aren’t they.”
Why do you ask the question, when you know the answer?
You obviously will not run such smelters on 100% wind. It does not make any sense.
You also do not run a country on 100% wind.
100% renewables will be a mix of different technologies. So why did you ask your question that way?
So why did you ask your question that way?
sod, your track record here is not so good. You make a lot of outrageous claims.
I wanted to know if you would concede the obvious.
From your postings here it appears you harbour something of a hatred towards long established electricity and other energy supply structures, which have allowed the worlds people to prosper. I was interested to discover if your ideology allows for serious industries and large populations energy needs. The kind of needs which wind and solar are not so good at supplying.
““Our” smelter is not nuclear powered by the way, ”
“Ours” uses COAL-fired electricity.
Better for the environment… more plant food. 🙂
I am moving the discussion here, to make it eassier to read and quote:
“Look at the time scale on that lower chart and the correlation between the times the D-UPS is “storing” power vs when it is delivering. The big downwards “storage” spikes immediately follow an upward generating spike – the “storage” is merely bringing the big flywheel back up to normal speed after having fired up the diesel.”
The diesel is out (zero) for half of that day (red line):
You do not understand how those high percentage renewable systems work. El Hierro has just ended another 100% renewables day.
as you can see, they kept the diesel running at 1.5 MW flat before they turned it off and when they turned it on today, it also was at 1.5 MW flat.
They use the diesel for two purposes: They want it running, to have fast backup in case of any problem AND they keep it running because the big rotating mass is the first line of defence against frequency changes.
Both of these jobs are taken over by the D-UPS, without the diesel running. That is, why that purple graph is going up and down all the time and not only when the diesel is started.
I see. STILL defending a shitload of subsidies robbed from taxpayers for a bunch of hippies and barkeepers – who can only exist there due to constant infusion of tourists arriving on CO2-spewing jet planes.
You absolute fool. The D-UPS is a flywheel with a secondary diesel generator separate from the main diesel generators. Stop filtering out what is presented plainly to your eyes.
From the following press release
The flywheel inertia generates alone for maybe a few seconds while the diesel component of the D-UPS fires up. Hydro Tasmania are being misleading with their references like “Its diesel engine operates only rarely when the unit is required to provide power for an extended period“. They get away with that utter bollocks by not defining what the “extended period” is – especially as it will change depending on the amount of wind dropout. If there was significant energy storage they would quantify it and also not require the secondary diesel – it doesn’t take that long to fire up a conventional diesel generator.
Allowing yourself to be misled is foolish – not taking the opportunity to learn from others is even more so.
Here is the test output for you to ponder yet again.
Notice also that the D-UPS is almost ALWAYS consuming energy.
“Notice also that the D-UPS is almost ALWAYS consuming energy.”
Your lack of understanding is approaching bizarre levels. Please look at the graph again:
Wind output (green line) is far above load (brown line). Can you figure out why the flyhweel is mostly taking up load at such a time or do you need a 5 year to explain it to you in detail?
But it’s PURPLE INK!!! I think you just don’t appreciate the significance of THAT!!! 😉
Oops, was supposed to include this.
I wonder if he’s capable of comprehending this?
Continued reading tells how they use those to start the diesels, without which the lights would go out in a matter of moments.
“You absolute fool. The D-UPS is a flywheel with a secondary diesel generator separate from the main diesel generators. Stop filtering out what is presented plainly to your eyes.”
You are utterly wrong. Please stop making stuff up. There is a graph showing the D-UPS in action:
The 2secopndary2 diesel (red line) is not all that different from the “primary2 one (yellow line).
You are trying to invent diesel uses which do not happen. The red line in this graph is the diesel, please accept the facts!
“f there was significant energy storage they would quantify it and also not require the secondary diesel – it doesn’t take that long to fire up a conventional diesel generator.”
You do not understand the basics. The flywheel is being used to stabilise frequency. The fast changes are a feature, not a bug.
sod mistakenly says “The 2secopndary2 diesel (red line) is not all that different from the “primary2 one (yellow line).
about the following image
WRONG Utterly wrong. Since you cannot interpret the data in the image properly, let me spell it out for you in pieces from the full relevant text from
The conventional diesel that was tripped was the orange line (you must be colour blind too else you monitor badly needs calibration) – this is diesel #2. The conventional diesel that was started at the end of the test was the red line – diesel #4.
The D-UPS unit have their own separate generator – they flywheel size is totally inadequate to steadily supply the 500kW over 30 seconds that is shown by the purple line. See the little downward blip after the D-UPS stops supplying? That is the D-UPS getting back up to full speed – does that look like it balances the energy that was delivered by the D-UPS in the preceding 30 seconds?
Look how small the flywheel is
As for “You do not understand the basics”, make some size estimates of the piddly flywheel in the D-UPS pictures and do some moment of inertia calculations. As an engineering graduate, I will tell you that even if you consider the flywheel to be made of solid lead (or even depleted uranium), the inertia is totally inadequate to store 15 MJ of rotational energy without ridiculous rpm but verify it for yourself.
Hopefully my response, a wikipee article explaining that so even a moron could understand it, will come through soon. Still, I don’t hold out much hope for NN, as M.E. refers to him/her/it/whatever, “getting it.”