CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power wind energy australia

Published on January 3rd, 2012 | by Zachary Shahan

9

Common Wind Energy Myths Busted (& Rehash of How Wind Energy Reduces Price of Electricity)

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

January 3rd, 2012 by Zachary Shahan 

 

wind energy australia

We’ve covered how wind energy reduces the cost of electricity a number of times here on CleanTechnica. But this piece below does a good job of explaining that and I figure we’re ripe for another post on it anyway. Also, it delves into a couple of other myths (other than the myth that wind energy is expensive). It offers up some pretty interesting statistics from down under on how little back-up power is needed and used when a lot of wind power is on the grid. Check out this full piece from Australia’s Climate Spectator:

The most common critique of wind energy, and renewables in general, in the mainstream media and anywhere the issue is discussed is that it is expensive.

The problem is, this is only half true. Or at least, it only tells half the story. While the levelised cost of energy from wind farms is higher than that of baseload coal and gas, the deployment of wind energy here and overseas is having a surprising impact on energy market prices: it is causing them to fall.

And it’s not the only myth that a new analysis of the South Australian market has busted: wind is succeeding in displacing coal, it is also having a dramatic impact on the state’s energy emissions, and it doesn’t need anywhere near as much back-up generation as some like to claim.

The International Energy Agency wrote on the price impact earlier this year – and we reported on it – when it cited the case of Ireland, where wind energy is causing wholesale prices to fall by around €74 million; the same as the cost of feed-in tariffs to support the financing of wind power and the associated balancing costs.

Now Windlab Systems, the CSIRO spin-off that has developed the world’s leading wind mapping technology and is now in the business of developing wind farms – including some in places in inland Australia where you wouldn’t expect them – has produced a similar assessment of how its proposed 700MW Kennedy wind farm in north Queensland would impact pool prices in the state. But it says the cost benefits could be even greater.

According to modeling presented at a seminar in Sydney last week, a 700MW wind farm – which would be the largest in the country – would cost consumers $120 million a year from 2013/14 from the amount of renewable energy certificates that are used to subsidise green energy under the renewable energy target. (That figure is based on a REC price of $55/MWh, compared to around $40 now).

But the modeling also suggests that the amount of electricity generated by the wind farm would cause pool prices to fall by up to 9 per cent, reducing the average price in 2013/14 from around $67/MWh (a carbon price would be included by then) to around $61/MWh. The savings in costs to consumers would be $330 million, nearly three times the cost of the subsidy. There is a further cost benefit from a reduction in transmission losses, because the wind farm would be situated far closer to customers than current generators. Windlab estimates these savings to be around 5 per cent from the cost of energy.

So how does “expensive” wind deliver cheaper energy prices? By a mechanism known as the merit order effect, which has successfully delivered cheap electricity prices to Australia (and other countries) by allowing those generators with the lowest variable marginal cost (mostly, the cost of fuel) to get priority. The final price is set by the last generator needed to meet demand – the higher the demand, the higher the price paid by all.

What the MRET and other subsidies do is allow the wind farms to jump to the top of the queue, meaning less of the expensive generators are needed, and so the marginal cost that sets the pool price is cheaper. “It is actually a very efficient mechanism to capture those benefits,” says Richard Mackie, Windlab’s general manager in Australia.

(It should be noted that some funny things do happen at night, when demand is low and coal generators, which don’t like to be switched off, bid negative prices. The introduction of large amount of wind in SA has made this a more regular event, and this has added to the lower pool prices. Some wind farms have chosen instead to switch off capacity).

Unsurprisingly, the fossil fuel industry hates this. For decades, they have enjoyed a system where rising demand pushed prices up until a strong enough signal was given for more capacity to be built. Once it was, prices eased back again and so the process renewed itself.

The arrival of wind in the last decade, and the MRET, threw a spanner in these works. Apart from cutting their margins, it also means that significant baseload gas generation is less likely to occur unless coal capacity is removed, which is why some call for the MRET to be scrapped or reduced.

But doesn’t this mean that wind is simply displacing gas, rather than coal, and not achieving so much in the reduction of emissions – two other accusations (other than price) that are often thrown at the wind industry?

Not according to another analysis conduct by Windlab, using data from the Australian Energy Market Operator of the South Australian market, which has the biggest penetration of wind anywhere in the world apart from Denmark.

There are more than 1150MW of wind turbines in SA, accounting for 21 per cent of nameplate capacity. Normally, that might be translated into around 5-10 per cent of overall electricity produced, depending on the wind conditions, because wind doesn’t blow all the time.

But in SA, wind also accounts for 21 per cent of energy production – mostly because it has been displacing brown coal energy that is imported from Victoria. The brown coal generators know this, which is why they fought so hard to water down Victoria’s renewable energy target and to argue against an upgrade for the interconnector linking the two markets – too much wind power is bad for fossil fuel profits.

The increased penetration of wind also helped the state record a dramatic reduction in carbon emissions. In 2005/06, when wind contributed just 5 per cent of the electricity produced, SA’s emissions from electricity were 9.8 million tonnes of co2e. In 2010/11, when wind contributed 21 per cent, the emissions had dropped to 8mt/C02e, even though overall electricity production had increased around 6 per cent over the period. Windlab says most of this reduction, which translates into a  23 per cent cut in emissions intensity from from 0.72 to 0.55 tonnes of CO2e, can be attributed to wind.

But don’t wind farms need massive amounts of back-up power from expensive and comparatively heavy-emitting open cycle gas turbine (OCGT) plants, also known as peakers?

Not in the case of SA. Windlab says 200MW of OCGT has been added to the state’s grid over the last five years, compared to 763MW of wind, but much of that new peaking capacity is designed to cope with rising peak demand – driven by the increased use of air conditioners – which has risen by 370MW, or 23 per cent, over that period.

And here’s another surprising statistic: the amount of electricity produced from peaking plants has actually fallen in the past five years, from 501GWh to 325GWh, despite the increased capacity and the rising peak demand. Not only has wind reduced imports of brown-coal generation from Victoria, it has also, counter-intuitively, reduced the need for peaking plants for much of the year – although not, it should be noted, at times of the highest peaks caused by extreme heat waves, when wind has mostly absented itself.

Wind has not needed anything near like-for-like backup, as some of the more absurd analyses from the anti-wind brigade pretend. Indeed, some of the peaking plants last year were used less than 1 per cent of the time – little changed from before wind’s arrival.

There is no doubt, that a high penetration of wind energy like that which has occurred in SA is challenging to manage. But it can be done. In SA this is helped because there is a large amount of gas, baseload and otherwise, which offers more flexibility; and because there has been accurate wind forecasting (thanks to Windlab), which helps manage wind’s variability. And the wind industry says there are demonstrable benefits: wind energy does reduce emissions, it cuts the pool price (sometimes by more than the cost of the original subsidy), it reduces transmission loss factors, and, of course, it brings in investment and jobs.

With the roll-out of wind poised to intensify, state governments are facing interesting choices. SA, with a vibrant wind energy sector, has proved to be a leader, but there is a question about how much it can grow, particularly without an upgraded interconnector. Queensland appears disposed to the creation of transmission links like the CopperString, from Townsville to Mount Isa, although the final decision will rest with the mining community. Victoria – which under the Labor government was credited with keeping the wind industry alive in Australia when it introduced a state-based renewable energy target after the Howard government refused to extend the national scheme – has now changed tack completely.

NSW is currently weighing its options – pulled in one direction by the prospect of $10 billion in new development, and heavily influenced in another by anti-wind groups such as the Landscape Guardians, who are apparently gaining extraordinary access to state ministers and are emboldened by their success in Victoria. Judging by the recent remarks of the state’s premier and the energy minister, the latter group may be winning the debate. But the experience of SA should be instructive. Wind is not impossible to manage, and there are easier solutions to dealing with summer peaks than building new coal-fired power stations.

Australia wind turbine stamp via shutterstock

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as the director/chief editor. Otherwise, he's probably enthusiastically fulfilling his duties as the director/editor of Solar Love, EV Obsession, Planetsave, or Bikocity. Zach is recognized globally as a solar energy, electric car, and wind energy expert. If you would like him to speak at a related conference or event, connect with him via social media. You can connect with Zach on any popular social networking site you like. Links to all of his main social media profiles are on ZacharyShahan.com.



  • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Sorry, this was caught in the spam filter. Just approved.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6NIXVPTV7EN5RVGURTKNLW2W4M jackass

    Commercial wind turbines don’t make electrical utility rates lower. That’s silly. The current subsidies for wind must eventually be paid for by someone.

    Sure, it would be wonderful if current utility wind LCOE was truly market competitive with gas or coal. While someday it will likely be so, presently it is not. Competitive power rates are an important factor in keeping any country’s economy healthy. Creating artificially high power rates thru regulation and subsidies is counterproductive in the end. It’s just a cold, hard fact of economics that countries benefit from low cost power, whatever the source.

    Getting wind energy LCOE competitive with coal or gas can be done, but it won’t happen overnight. It will take lots of hard work, and continuous, small, incremental improvements to existing technology over many years. It won’t be the result of some whiz-bang, futuristic development like superconducting generators or carbon fiber kites flying in the stratosphere. Instead, the wind turbines of tomorrow will be larger, more reliable, more cost effective versions of current on-shore designs. The future of wind energy won’t be sexy, but that’s the way things work in the real world. Evolution rather than revolution.

    The good news is that while coal and gas prices are increasing at a very slow rate, wind power costs are decreasing at a very fast rate. So the long term future for wind is bright.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      jackass,

      wind has hit grid parity and is the cheapest new electricity supply option in many places.

      sorry to burst your bubble, but we’re already there.

      • Anonymous

        A variety of criteria can be used to define “grid parity”.

        Have all the costs been taken into account?

        “As wind development has surged faster than expected in the Northwest over the last five years, the BPA has struggled to integrate the variable resource. They faced mandatory curtailment last spring when high winds coincided with high springtime river flows.”

        Please tell me why my first comment on this thread has not been posted – by email if you wish.

        • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

          Sorry, caught in the spam filter. Just approved.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Lorraine-Davis/1477277604 Lorraine Davis

    This could augment the systems that we have.

  • Anonymous

    Zachary,your contributions to demystify wind technology and to expelled the lies and propaganda as it is spewed from the voices of fossil fuel loyalist is most revered and your content truly reflects that you are an intellectual asset to the global community.

    • http://cleantechnica.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Thanks. This is mostly just a repost, but have tried to express the same things elsewhere. And certainly try to repost the best such pieces on this topic when I run across them.

      • http://www.greencagesecurity.com/ James Robinson Jr

        Cool, Your Intellectual strategy is certainly the most intellectual approach to attack the mis-information that the fossil fuel special interest spews.. The counter to the “tell a lie long enough syndrome” is certainly staying relentless with putting out quality content such as what your doing. Great Work!!

Back to Top ↑