Denmark gets 47% of its electricity from wind in 2019

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Renewables could have largest share of installed capacity in countries with high hydro capacity and large volume of reservoirs.

and

2 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

But China build it mainly because for flood control. 30 billion USD cost of the dam, was paid off I do not remember in 3 or 4 years. It just stopped catastrophic flood on Yangthe about the year 2010. 

and now for a message from our sponsor

Denmark gets 47% of its electricity from wind in 2019

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

But China build it mainly because for flood control. 30 billion USD cost of the dam, was paid off I do not remember in 3 or 4 years. It just stopped catastrophic flood on Yangthe about the year 2010. 

Denmark ... electric ... wind ... China?

Mate you have a problem   

5 minutes ago, remake it said:

and now for a message from our sponsor

Hahahaahah you beat me to it  😅

Edited January 10, 2020 by Guest

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Renewables could have largest share of installed capacity in countries with high hydro capacity and large volume of reservoirs. For example 3 Georges Dam has about 5 TWh of maximum storage,  with 22 km3 flood capacity and hydraulic head 80-110 m.

And grid has to be strong.

Denmark has about 19 MW of Hydro however it has interconnections with Scandinavia so is able to use their Hydro capacity. Basically on windy days Norway buys Danish wind energy and preserves its Hydro. On calm days it sells electricity to Denmark. As the Hydro is dispatchable Norway generally uses price signals to determine the best time to sell. 

Works well for both Countries. 

[Marcin2 + 725]

Discussion is about renewables and their sustainability. I just like to conduct discussions, and to have meaningful discussion about  sustainability of renewables you have to understand complex interactions and know how much these interactions cost.

Hydropower and wind&solar power are best matches in renewables.

Till you have wind capacity<hydro capacity, wind is reasonable choice and relatively cheap one, provided you have good grid.

When the higher wind-hydro capacity difference the more expensive wind power becomes, cause you need a lot of spare natural gas/coal capacities, and wind becomes many times more expensive per kWh than baseload sources.

Germany 11 GW of hydro, 60 GW of wind, 50 GW of solar.

You have expensive electricity in Germany cause they have high wind&solar capacity share, yet wind&solar just give 25% of output.

Are there any reports how many times renewables in Germany are more expensive than coal/nuclear/natural gas generation ?

Like 2, 3 times more expensive?

To calculate this you assess the cost of electricity generation in Germany without renewables and compare it with current costs of generation. But need to take under consideration also all capital costs of these spare capacity, costs of addtional grid, not only these green subsidies. Costs are huge, and Germany does not bear all of them yet, some are hidden in legacy base load capacity.

Situation is different when you are islands without natural resources like Japan and any energy independence is gold.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Marcin2 + 725]

4 minutes ago, NickW said:

Denmark has about 19 MW of Hydro however it has interconnections with Scandinavia so is able to use their Hydro capacity. Basically on windy days Norway buys Danish wind energy and preserves its Hydro. On calm days it sells electricity to Denmark. As the Hydro is dispatchable Norway generally uses price signals to determine the best time to sell. 

Works well for both Countries. 

But is very expensive and small scale (Denmark scale) like roof top solar.

98% of people live in countries larger than Denmark, 2% of people live in countries size of Denmark or smaller.

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Let me quote you and whom you quoted... and snip the rest 🙄  See bolded enlarged underlined edition.  🙄

Alpine regions are 1) Not large 2) Not buildable as you cannot get the materials to the location without herculean effort 3) have gigantic gust conditions making wind power a massive destructive force tearing apart any wind turbine where bottom blade might have 2X the wind speed as stop blade and vice versa.  Why OCEANs and PLAINS are chosen with zero obstructions for wind turbines with a few rare exceptions along the bottoms of very constant consistent valleys/ridges and 4) Why tower height is the #1 criteria for low maintenance, high reliability, and high capacity factor.  No gust conditions and wind varies much less and has the added bonus of being faster as well.  Thie above is why the UK, specifically Scotland has such wonderful wind potential and is being built as fast as possible.  Also why the Danes in the North Sea are doing so well in Wind.  Good wind, shallow water. 

You may note the articles comment of high winds in the western Med which further suggests wind resources during the cold spell. 

Coming to a deep water location near you. 

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/worlds-first-floating-wind-farm-delivers-promising-results/

These will open up a lot of opportunities for Countries that don't have lots of shallow sea floor to exploit. Portugal, Spain, Italy, South of France, Greece come to mind in a European context

https://globalwindatlas.info/

[Marcin2 + 725]

You can have at least 2 weeks with low/no wind conditions, and need to plan for this intermittancy.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[NickW + 2,714]

22 minutes ago, Marcin2 said:

I remember that when for a short time was doing projects in wind power, the rule of thumb was that you can have at least 2 weeks with low/no wind conditions (in Central Europe plains, but the towers where smaller, cause these were times of 1.5-2 MW turbines), since then I do not know.

In plains 80m or 120m tower makes difference ?

Hug height makes a significant difference. 

I work in a 100 metre tall building in London and there is significant difference in wind speed between top middle and bottom. I have an anenometer 

Wind conditions and stability and quite different in the Central European Plain  from the North Sea, Irish Sea and Western Seaboard. 

This is an interesting site

https://globalwindatlas.info/

[remake it + 288]

38 minutes ago, NickW said:

Hug height makes a significant difference. 

Depends if your partner is height challenged otherwise it is true that HUB height makes a huge difference.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

9 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Yes.

I am reasonably confident (read 100 % confident) that the green party in Germany does not have 51 % of the votes... Of they have enough votes to influence, but not enough to dictate... 

Just sayin' 

[remake it + 288]

2 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Hydropower and wind&solar power are best matches in renewables.

You should be reading Lazard's LCOE papers as you might be a bit behind on your idea of what comparable costs are.

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 1/10/2020 at 11:34 AM, remake it said:

You should be reading Lazard's LCOE papers as you might be a bit behind on your idea of what comparable costs are.

The paper does not account for the costs of the intermittent nature of renewables (it cannot, cause they are different in each country grid and also depend on load factor of renewables).

 

Costs of intermittency could be even higher than LCOE costs of renewables, in which event total costs of renewables could be 2 or more times higher than base load plants.

Wind, solar  or any other intermittent source of power mathematically can never be cheaper cause will always have to pay for capital and fixed O&M costs of  base load power plants.

 

It would only be possible in the very unlikely  event of very high variable cost per 1 MWh of base load power, higher than LCOE of wind power PLUS levelized costs of capital and O&M of baseload plant.

So wind power in the example of Germany has Lazards LCOE 70 USD/MWh plus about the same 60-70 USD/MWh of the cost of intermittency.

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

On 1/9/2020 at 10:54 AM, DayTrader said:

Yeah, loads of us think of this event I'm sure when we consider a ''lack of wind''   😂

Maybe you and @Papillon ?

The rest of us picture ''no wind'' Jan. 

I do anyway. I'm weird like that.

The best bit is that you mentioned even the month 🤣🤣 , like we are going ''oh yeah, I remember''.

You're hilarious.

Don't change  x

To those who enjoy studying history it is a matter of fact that the winter of 1944 was one of, if not the, coldest European winter on record. The severe weather played an important part in the battle.

Jan likely included the month/year/battle as many people could relate to that reference.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

12 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

But China build it mainly because for flood control. 30 billion USD cost of the dam, was paid off I do not remember in 3 or 4 years. It just stopped catastrophic flood on Yangthe about the year 2010. 

And except for the fact that the dam displaced thousands, submerged many historically valuable site and the engineers failing to take into account the massive weight of the water and the resulting crustal subsidence, it is an engineering marvel!

[Marcin2 + 725]

On 1/10/2020 at 3:14 PM, Douglas Buckland said:

And except for the fact that the dam displaced thousands, submerged many historically valuable site and the engineers failing to take into account the massive weight of the water and the resulting crustal subsidence, it is an engineering marvel!

Ecological footpring of large dams and reservoirs is always substantial, you need to balance positive and negative effects.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
typo

[Marcin2 + 725]

For hydropower enthusiasts the largest hydropower plant is still to be built, it is Grand Inga 40 GW.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Marcin2
Typo

[remake it + 288]

5 hours ago, Marcin2 said:

Wind, solar  or any other intermittent source of power mathematically can never be cheaper cause will always have to pay for capital and fixed O&M costs of  base load power plants.

That is simply a very poor assessment of how renewables scale into existing infrastructure so your Maginot has collapsed on you.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

14 hours ago, NickW said:

Coming to a deep water location near you. 

https://www.windpowerengineering.com/worlds-first-floating-wind-farm-delivers-promising-results/

These will open up a lot of opportunities for Countries that don't have lots of shallow sea floor to....

This IS SHALLOW water anchored.  Not deepwater. 

[Papillon + 485]

On 1/9/2020 at 2:54 AM, DayTrader said:

Maybe you and @Papillon ?

The rest of us picture ''no wind'' Jan. 

Wonderful sir, but I fear that I too indeed picture no wind, as the image of, in effect, picturing nothing is rather simplistic to do, when compared to a battle scenario of seventy five years ago. Call me old fashioned sir, many do.     /sarc

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

This IS SHALLOW water anchored.  Not deepwater. 

This particular project - the first in the World is relatively shallow

Turbines fixed to the sea floor through a foundation can go to about 50 metres. 

Floating and anchored up to 1000 metres. The area this potentially opens up is 3-4 magnitudes of scale. 

 

https://map.openseamap.org/

 

Edited January 11, 2020 by NickW

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,133]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

This particular project - the first in the World is relatively shallow

If you believe that is how economics/engineering work... yea ok.  The deeper you go, the more $$$ you have to have not in linear length of cables, but in dynamics of said linear lengths of cables.  So, cables have to be larger making it yet more expensive as depth becomes greater.

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If you believe that is how economics/engineering work... yea ok.  The deeper you go, the more $$$ you have to have not in linear length of cables, but in dynamics of said linear lengths of cables.  So, cables have to be larger making it yet more expensive as depth becomes greater.

We have solved this problem for small and big projects

 

[PE Scott + 563]

16 hours ago, Douglas Buckland said:

And except for the fact that the dam displaced thousands, submerged many historically valuable site and the engineers failing to take into account the massive weight of the water and the resulting crustal subsidence, it is an engineering marvel!

I'll try to find the article, but I saw something in a scientific journal that suggested the mass of that damn and all the cement in that localized area has actually altered the rotation of the earth, like a wheel out of balance. In fact, it asserted that might have something to do with global warming.

To be fair though, there wasn't a lot of evidence to verify some of the articles claims. Still interesting though.

[Douglas Buckland + 6,308]

But common sense will tell you that when you back-up that much water (the weight of the dam itself becomes irrelevant) that there is a damn good chance (no pun intended) that subsidence will be an issue.

In my opinion, the Chinese wanted an ‘engineering marvel’, which it is, but did not perform the required due diligence.

This is a bit spooky as can you imagine the consequences downstream if this thing let’s go?

[remake it + 288]

1 hour ago, PE Scott said:

I'll try to find the article, but I saw something in a scientific journal that suggested the mass of that damn and all the cement in that localized area has actually altered the rotation of the earth, like a wheel out of balance.

This is  true although in China it is said that it really is about where the true balance of global power now lies.