DIYbanter - View Single Post

dpb

wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:50:44 -0500, dpb wrote:

The problem w/ the cost isn't the cost of the wind generation itself
some much , it's (as previously noted) the need to have the reserve for
when the wind isn't that is a sunk cost that much of the wind can't
overcome. If it's that secondary cost you're complaining of, then I'm
in full agreement.

I have made a point of going to see wind plants whenever I was near
one.
From watching them I am guessing they use the wind plant as a load
leveling source. When you witch them for a while you will see them get
feathered and speeded back up when there was no apparent change in the
wind. Usually it is only a few that get feathered.
I bet they do it because it is easier to adjust the output of these
wind generators than the bigger plants. They can keep the fossil
plants tuned for maximum efficiency (not a bad idea) and "waste" the
free wind.
These new ones are centrally controlled from miles away. The ones I
saw in Ontario were scattered all over, a couple here, couple there
with no apparent local supervision.

It's possible but afaik not a normal operation in most of the larger
wind farms. There's enough variability in the wind to effect their
output w/o it being apparent on the ground w/o actual instrumentation
(and, of course, the business end is 200-ft in the air, not at ground
level). There's more difficulty here when the full complement is
generating that the output variability causes voltage fluctuations on
the grid.

In the TX panhandle last summer they nearly had a grid loss incident
when generating at full capacity on a 100+F day and an unforecasted wind
shift line passed across one of the wind farms and caused it to go to
near zero output almost instantly. W/O it being planned they nearly
lost the whole system before reserve could catch up.

--