In his response to the article on wind power written by Mark Lynas and me, Professor Gordon Hughes says that gas turbines need to be kept running because the amount of electricity generated by wind varies so rapidly. This short note examines the actual variability of wind power generation over the last three months and compares it to the variability of total demand for electricity. I show that the demand for power is typically over ten times as variable as the supply of wind generated electricity. The point is this: if the National Grid can cope with large half hourly swings in the demand for electricity, then it can cope with the erratic supply from wind farms. Because supply and demand must balance on an electricity grid, swings in demand have exactly the same impact as similarly sized variations in supply.
I analysed the electricity produced each half hour from 2nd July to today, 2nd October.
| Degree of variation between one half hour and the next | Number of instances 2nd July to 2nd October |
| Less than 50 MW | 2698 |
| 51-100 MW | 1087 |
| 101-200 MW | 550 |
| 201-300 MW | 91 |
| 301-400 MW | 11 |
| 401-500 MW | 2 |
| 501-600 MW | 1 |
| 601-700 MW | 1 |
| Average variation | 52 MW |
The average variation in wind output was 52 MW. I then compared this figure to swings in total electricity demand in the same period. The average variation in demand was 678 MW, more than ten times as great as the average variability of wind output. In fact, the maximum variation in wind output between adjacent half hours (674 MW) was less than the average variation in total demand. The maximum half hourly swing in demand was almost four gigawatts, or about six times the maximum variation in wind power output.
The National Grid can cope with much more rapid changes in the supply or demand for electricity than are currently ever likely from the use of the current number of wind farms.
Some criticisms can be made of my simple comparison. First, I am using data from a time of year when wind power generation is relatively low. In winter, variability of wind generation will be greater. But variations in demand will also be much greater in the dark months of December and January. Second, it can be contended that demand variations are more predictable than swings in wind power. This point has some validity: demand moves up and down each day according to a relatively predictable pattern. However unforecast variations from the predicted level of demand can and do occur and these will be far greater than today’s wind variability. Weather forecasting allows good prediction of when power will increase or drop. Third, what is true today may not be true when the UK grid has to cope with perhaps five times as much wind power as at present. However even if we multiply the maximum half hourly variability of wind power in the last three months five-fold, we would still see less variation in supply than the maximum variation in demand experienced over the last three months.
Wind does not impose on the National Grid a substantial extra burden to balance supply and demand than exists already.
-
Prof Hughes is an economic expert and seems to be linked to Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy foundation.
I find the near real time Grid data available at the NETA site informative
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
Especially seeing how the forecast wind compares with the actual and also the overall forecast Grid demand versus actual
-
A reasonably good presentation of the data. However to be above criticism, I think it should be made clear that the data you are using (I think) are half-hour averages of MW. I would be interested to see the short term variability – to compare that of wind with that of demand.
Also I think your statement “However unforecast variations from the predicted level of demand can and do occur and these will be far greater than today’s wind variability.” They do indeed occur, but it is not clear to me that you have demonstrated the “far greater”; to be squeaky clean you need to do so. You could look at the variation of “demand forecast error”, which I think would be much closer to the variation of wind output.
Regards
Dave W
-
A good and thorough analysis. One criticism that I can foresee however is the variation values are variations on the current, installed metered wind base of 5GW. As the base of installed wind power expands towards the 28GW 2020 target these absolute values of swing will increase in turn – a simple pro rata would suggest 250MW as an average, likely still far below demand swings, but it will no longer be a factor of 10 below the demand side swings.
-
I’d challenge you to think this through conceptually treating the cost of electricity as relevant – meaning efforts would be made to control costs if real inflation in the sector was significant.
If the wind turbines are not expected to be productive at peak demand periods, that means there will be more generator capacity, and therein lies the issue. Who will develop next generation coal and gas plants to run at 10% capacity factors instead of 80% capacity factors?
I think it is a highly questionable premise that a grid with any wind will, not could, but will, end up with as few emissions as a grid that took the base demand level, met that base load with what hydro is available, and nuclear, and developed the remaining need as efficiently as possible allowing greater capital investments in fossil plants (hopefully moving to carbon capture and combined heat and power).
The statements about demand variability being of greater magnitude than the variability in the wind supply is not well thought out. The two do combine at times; ‘must take’ renewables are essentially negative load. Sometimes they lessen load a lot, sometimes a little, and sometimes they will be moving from a lot to a little as actual load is also increasing.
The argument has been that the need for companion dispatchable generation makes nuclear power and renewables incompatible, but I suggest it’s true of any high capital cost generation.


5 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link: http://www.carboncommentary.com/2012/10/02/2603/trackback