Kansas needs to develop much more wind energy. But a temporary power shortage last week in Texas is a reminder that wind can be unpredictable. A sudden decline in wind energy production in west Texas occurred at the same time as colder temperatures moved into the state, causing both a drop in energy supply and an increase in demand, Reuters reported. As a result, some power was curtailed to some industrial customers that are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur. Their power was fully restored in about 90 minutes.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
57 Comments
From the linked story:
“ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas.”
————————————-
Appears to me to have been primarily a grid problem that was inadequately managed. If the managers of the grid cannot supply scheduled energy, then the problem is more than just being in the doldrums.
Appears to me to have been primarily a grid problem that was inadequately managed. If the managers of the grid cannot supply scheduled energy, then the problem is more than just being in the doldrums.
ERCOT said the grid’s frequency dropped suddenly when wind production fell from more than 1,700 megawatts, before the event, to 300 MW when the emergency was declared.
In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas.
ERCOT declares a stage 1 emergency when power reserves fall below 2,300 MW. A stage 2 emergency is called when reserves fall below 1,750 MW.
At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the region, according to the agency’s Web site.
THE GRID LOST MORE OF A 1,000 MW OF WIND POWER
THATS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN BASELOAD POWER AND WIND GENERATED POWER.
YOU HAVE TO KNOW HOW THE GRID IS MANAGED OR HOW IT WORKS, BECAUSE IF YOU DONT UNDERSTAND IT HOW CAN YOU JUDGE IT!!
Phillip is stating one of the more reasons to have the Sunflower Coal plants without carbon credits and or any emissions taxes that may arise in the future. Mark my words yet to come will be more electrical brownouts in some states. I hope it is not ours. The global cooling ice storm in KS was enough for me with nine days of no electricity.
Regular, Jose – absolutely correct. When Wolf Creek went down a few weeks ago the grid integrated power from elsewhere. It was windy in Oklahoma and Kansas last week – an integrated system will smooth out such power issues.
The recent blackouts in Florida, the big one in the North east a few weeks ago and the mammoth one some time ago (1965?) in the Northeast were all due to grid problems, not generation capacity. Our grids are antiquated and overloaded.
Texes has an additional problem – they are not signicantly integrated with neighboring states. So, a local problem can cause brown/blackouts when power is plentiful next door.
Dont lose sight of the fact that the more wind farms you have, the more BACKUP generation you need. All those blades need backup, no matter WHERE it comes from and HOW it is fueled. In the rush to wind, we forget it isnt the cure all we want it to be.
More locations on the grid producing wind power would obviously lessen the chances for loss of power.
Dont lose sight of the fact that the more wind farms you have, the more BACKUP generation you need. All those blades need backup, no matter WHERE it comes from and HOW it is fueled. In the rush to wind, we forget it isnt the cure all we want it to be.
Not really; the opposite is true; the more widespread the source, the less chance there is for a total drop off, though it sure could happen.
With a better grid — one that’s driven by supply and demand rather than corporate profits — Kansas could become the Saudi Arabia of wind power. Yeah, there are days when winds are calm (although my experience is that it’s considered “calm” in Kansas when wind speeds are under 10 mph). A better integrated grid could make conventional power plants a secondary back-up energy source.
It’s part of the basic governing philosophy differences between Cons and Liberals. Deregulation of energy has resulted in huge profits in the energy business… and a deterioration of the underlying infrastructure.
Jose posted March 2, 2008 at 8:32 am
“THE GRID LOST MORE OF A 1,000 MW OF WIND POWER
THATS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN BASELOAD POWER AND WIND GENERATED POWER.”
Do the math. Demand INCREASED by more than 4,000 MW…
and only about HALF of the “total generating capacity in the region” was online.
“At the time of the emergency, ERCOT demand increased from 31,200 MW to a peak of 35,612 MW, about half the total generating capacity in the region, according to the agency’s Web site.“
And neufeld, morris and the whole republican hee haw gang are holding infrastructure hostage to their pet project in Holcomb. They say without Holcomb, those transmission lines wont be built.
So.. they love windpower not so much? Because the lack of transmission lines is one of the things keeping all of western Kansas from being covered with windfarms.
…and if windfarms are so wonderful, we’ll be looking to see some built in eastern Kansas too. Like the Flint Hills, which the governor has changed her mind about. Maybe a few near Wichita.
Or do you just love wind as long as the eyesores and dangers are out in western Kansas?
“ksfarmgrrl” –
The fact is you get more wind in western Kansas. That’s the place to begin.
This wind power problem is nothing compared to the fact if Kansas has a snowstorm power can be out for weeks. 90 minutes of reduced power really isn’t much to be concerned about. The nuke plant in Kansas went out for longer than that.
Monkey, have you ever seen the “wind map” used to site wind farms?
I dont have a link now, but the BEST site in Kansas is in the Flint Hills. Really.
And many more out your way. It isnt always “quantity” of wind, it is also “quality”. Not all wind is created equal.
When you site them according to quality of wind, proximity to existing transmission lines, etc. MANY sites would be east of Hays.
But you like them less? Hehehehehehehheheh.
Cover up dude, your biases are showing.
“That’s the place to begin.”
Uh, we had the first ones in Montezuma and we have HOW MANY west of Salina now?
Check it out. I think the time to “begin” is over. If you are in love with wind, it’s time to step up to the plate in eastern Kansas too.
Same with ethanol.
Well, “ksfarmgrrl,” I’m even east of the Flint Hills so that’s “out west” to me.
There’s something starkly wonderful about pristine Flint Hills, but I really like the look of wind farms, too. No eyesore problem with me.
Yeah, and most folks in Topeka think western Kansas starts at Wanamaker Road…
Back when I was working in Topeka, we’d call Wanamker Road “Didjagetter?” road.
Nah. Highway 81, Broadway through the middle of Wichita, is the official border line of eastern and western Kansas.
Guy I worked with in Wichita said his neighbor in the Flint Hills had, I think, 80 towers on his land. Power sold to the grid by a Missouri utility, who paid the neighbor $10,000 per tower per year, on a 30yr contract.
According to my friend, there were at least 80 towers in the Flint Hills more than a year ago.
“Politics and science are two roads that should not intersect. Politics is based on convincing the population that a particular policy or candidate is best suited to meet their needs. Science is based on empirical evidence. Somehow the science has been hijacked by politics. The public would be best served if scientists were allowed to present their findings without politicians using them to grab a headline and include their position in their next stump speech.” William Duncan
“Nah. Highway 81, Broadway through the middle of Wichita, is the official border line of eastern and western Kansas.”
It depends on your point of view MonkeyHawk.
If you are looking at who is paying most of the bills in Kansas, those in Eastern Kansas split the state along Hwy 75 which runs north-south dividing the state between the taxpayers, and the tax consumers.
Wind is fine as long as it’s blowing but it doesn’t blow all the time. They only things that blows all the time are the Global Warming Hysterics and those against building the plants before regulation is even legislatively enacted to limit or design them.
So FAR totally ignored here:
“As a result, some power was curtailed to some industrial customers that are paid to reduce power use when emergencies occur.”
Huh. If I’m a stockholder in one of those companies, I’m asking myself why they are wasting power in the first place.
“Wind is fine as long as it’s blowing but it doesn’t blow all the time. They only things that blows all the time are the Global Warming Hysterics”
Not true Boxlock. While the wind does not always blow at one aprticular location it IS always blowing somewhere. If you knew any meterology you would know that. As for man-made climate change that has been well demonstrated; we scintists understand that quite well now. Unfortunately, as ‘hijacked’ so well noted; our science has been hijacked. not only by politicians like Neufeld and Morris but also by fiction writers like Crighton and bloviators like Limbaugh.
J R – not really. What they do is delay production of certain items during the shutdown. It is actually a very good move on the part of the companies. By agreeing to be ‘interuptable’ they get reduced rates. It is a good and smart deal for both the consumer industry and the utility.
Many manufacturing companies use massive amounts of electricity resulting in HUGE monthly bills – shutting down a large piece of equipment for 90 minutes could/would be worth the inconvenience if it resulted in lower monthly utility bills.
WSC – that is exactly what they do. I have worked with such companies. They do need notice so they can shut down smoothly and work things out. They are in turn rewarded with a rate reduction. A comment here by the way – when we do hear about a company paying less per KW than we do keep in mind that the company may be ‘paying’ for that in this manner.
Another observation about this particular incident. Why should demand be peaking when it was cold and in the evening? Are they using electricity for heat? Why not gas which is much more efficient. This is one of the reasons I do not favor a lot of gas powered generation – we should use gas directly for heating purposes.
Generally speaking, in this part of the country our peak electricity use is daytime and summer. And, when it is hot it is generally windy and sunny. A perfect match for wind and solar.
Ben
Posted March 2, 2008 at 2:57 pm | Permalink
“Not true Boxlock. While the wind does not always blow at one aprticular location it IS always blowing somewhere.”
Sure…it’s blowing somewhere in the world, but NOT within the grid. Plus efficiency drops dramatically when you try and transport electricity long distances.
No Ben, wind will always need backup generation and the coal plants make since now.
Ben,
The cold front caused more of a small rise in demand, not a “peak”. Demand was still only about 1/2 total generation capacity.
A lot of blowers for gas-fired central heat could cause that rise. Plus maybe some heat-pumps and/or resistance heat, in areas that don’t have nat gas service?
And nat gas generation is efficent in co-gen plants, which use waste heat. Even better is tri-gen, which also provides cooling.
Boxlock posted March 2, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“… and the coal plants make since now.”
Only if you ignore facts, and reality.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007
Carbon Risk, Coal, and Higher Electricity Prices
Why coal-generated electricity will cost more than utilities claim
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/carbon_risk.html
And maybe we shouldn’t build any more coal and nuclear plants, because they also don’t generate all the time.
They go off-line for months at a time, for maintenance and refueling.
Not just somewhere in the world boxlock; somewhere in the grid area. We know this. So, the back-up for wind can still be wind. Just like the back-up for Wolf Creek could be wind or another nuclear plant.
The failure in Texas was the grid, not capacity. Just like in south Florida this week; in the Great Lakes area a couple years back; and the mother of all blackouts in New England.
“Plus efficiency drops dramatically when you try and transport electricity long distances.”
All the more reason NOT to build the Holcomb expansion. As you know boxlock, their plan is to transport that electricity long distances to their out-of-state markets.
A good explanation of why decentralized generation will restructure our (mostly) centralized system.
Start with the Executive Summary,
http://www.smallisprofitable.org/ReadTheBook.html
Ben, wake up! Go to the US National Weather Service site and look at the pressure fronts across the nation. All of central and west Texas are experiencing the same pressures and winds. And on the back side the same for large areas of Colorado, western KS, northern AZ and NM. The wind doesn’t blow county to county, it blows, or NOT, over large areas of the US with gradual change. When the wind isn’t blowing in west Texas or western KS it’s not blowing for hundreds of miles and when it isn’t the turbines are spinning, only global warming fanatics are.
“When the wind isn’t blowing in west Texas or western KS it’s not blowing for hundreds of miles and when it isn’t the turbines are spinning, only global warming fanatics are.”
Meant to say ‘and when it isn’t the turbines AREN’T spinning, only the global warming fanatics are.’
Ben,
I think the problem was also due to other (non-wind) suppliers, and maybe not the grid.
“In addition, ERCOT said multiple power suppliers fell below the amount of power they were scheduled to produce on Tuesday. That, coupled with the loss of wind generated in West Texas, created problems moving power to the west from North Texas.”
If the other suppliers had produced their scheduled amounts, it seems that the grid would’ve supplied it okay.
Another possible factor is which plants are off-line in TX, and where. The STNP in south TX may still be offline for refueling, and some coal-unit(s) in south-central for maintenance.
Ummm guys… I heard on TX Radio station this morning, that the electric problem last week wasnt a shortage of production, but rather, a human error, in somebody not throwing a proper kind of switch, and thus creating an artificial shutdown… That was just on this morning, on HPPR.org news…
boxlock – I AM awake – WIDE awake. Having taken both climatology and meterology as part of my geology and environmental science sudies I am very familiar with the weather patterns and how they change over time. And I am also very familiar with the interplay of air masses and fronts.
As for the other ’spinning’ – THAT comes from the false denial movement, not from us scientists.
Well Ben, I think they are going to build the plants in Holcomb and it isn’t going to make a bit of difference in the weather or climate or whatever. What it will make a difference in is putting people to work building and running them and providing power to make peoples lives better….even when the wind doesn’t blow.
“I think they are going to build the plants in Holcomb”
Only on pain of ending Kathy Sebelius career in Kansas politics. She gets the call on this one. I’m thinking she’d like to keep her job AND her political future.
If she oks the plant, she better hope Sunflower has a job for her.
Boxlock – you are probably correct that the plant will be built – as noted above the science will be hijacked by politics. As for your claims on science – well, I will go with the judgement of my fellow scientists before yours. On that part you are absolutely wrong.
They offer some pretty good courses in meteorology and occessionally climatology at Wichita State. Maybe you should check them out – you might even learn something.
Boxlock posted March 2, 2008 at 6:45 pm
“What it will make a difference in is putting people to work building and running them and providing power to make peoples lives better….even when the wind doesn’t blow.”
Investing in higher end-use energy efficiency and renewables would produce more, and longer lasting jobs. It would also help lower utility bills.
This is not the 1950’s. Big, centralized, coal-fired plants are no longer the best solution.
With AGW, cheaper efficiency and renewables, and distributed generation, it’s possible that coal-fired plants will be shut-down in the near future.
Ben Posted March 2, 2008 at 7:03 pm
“They offer some pretty good courses in meteorology and occessionally climatology at Wichita State. Maybe you should check them out – you might even learn something.”
Thanks for the tip, I’d enjoy those classes too.
Ben, I’m not at all against wind or any alternative energy production as I’ve said. I think this decision, which is outside existing Kansas law and guidelines is premature. Just because someone believes something, even with reasonable justification, to deny the permits prior to legislative action to change the requirements is bad government. Those plants meet existing requirements. No matter how much wind generation occurs backup generating capability will will be needed. Coal is cheap, reliable and plentiful.
cosmos, existing coal fired plants are not going to be shut down until they naturally obsolesce and go off line, which may (probably) not even be in your lifetime so don’t hold your breath.
Actually Boxlock, it is the norm for an administrative agency to enforce limits that are not specificall in the statutes. The statutes are to provide the general framework; the technicians then set up the specifics. For example, the legislature does not set speed limits on our highways; they provide parameters and the agencies then do the traffic studies and set the specifics. The recent lowering on Kellogg between 119th and Goddard from 65 to 60 was an agency decision; not a legislative one. Similarly the KDHE is charged with protecting Kansans’ health and environment; they are then charged with determining the details.
I agree that it is unlikely that existing coal plants will be decomissioned any time soon – however that does not mean that we need to add new ones.
I find it interesting that Sunflower made such a big deal about their ‘magic algae’ and that Morris and Neufeld knowing LIED about it – claiming the expansion would be nearly carbon-neutral. However they seem to have dropped those bogus claims as the lies were exposed. If they have this great technology then let us see it in action. They are free to install it on one of their existing plants.
Problem is – THEY KNOW IT IS A LIE!
Boxlock posted March 2, 2008 at 7:45 pm
“Coal is cheap, reliable and plentiful.”
Uh-huh…. that’s why so many utilities are cancelling coal plants. /sarcasm off.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coal_plants_cancelled_in_2007
‘Carbon Risk, Coal, and Higher Electricity Prices
Why coal-generated electricity will cost more than utilities claim’
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/fossil_fuels/carbon_risk.html
“Coal is cheap”?
‘It’s the economics, stupid
How to make the case against coal’
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/21/105218/304
“4. Finally, they show how that region of the country has lots of existing gas-fired generation, which isn’t running much because of high gas costs. But on the margin, it is cheaper to run the gas plants harder than to build new coal plants. Ergo, an investor who doesn’t factor the risk that cheap gas will drive down their equity returns into their calculus is being irresponsible.”
ruh roh, this will make the anti-coalies nervous. :)
“McCain had a good closed-door dinner meeting Saturday night with Republican governors during the annual National Governors Association (NGA) meeting in Washington. Governors from coal- and oil-producing states spelled out their problems with McCain’s energy policies, and he was responsive.”
Novak-Evans Report
Like I say, it’s all on Kathy now.
The mood in Kansas AND in the country at large is against coal.
If she oks this thing? She’s done in politics.
J R – I think Sebelius will veto it. The question then becomes can the deniers override the veto.
Regular – it should surprise no one that the Republican candidate is getting cozy with coal. Remember that Bush claimed in his campaign that he would act on climate change. He flipp-flopped. Why should anyone be surprised that Bushie McCain does the same?
John W McBush will just bring the country four more years of failed Bush policies.
If you are among the 20% of the population that is happy with the direction of the country, vote for McBush.
If you are not, vote Democratic – regardless of which candidate secures the nomination.
The most reliable, most responsive and least expensive electricity is and always has been hydroelectric. It’s so economical and flexible, in fact, that pumped-storage hydroelectric is a top technology for peak power generation.
Consider a system in which wind energy is used to charge a pumped-storage system with, say, a week’s worth of storage. This would provide reliable, responsive power with no fuel use at all.
Now, how can a coal plant — or _any_ fuel consuming system, for that matter — compete with a system that uses NO fuel?
Hydro has its place; however in flat Kansas I don’t see much potential. Also there are issues such as siltation, habitat destruction, increased erosion downstream, etc to be considered.
‘Efficiency, anyone?
Power plants’ costs doubled since 2000′
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/29/1648/20431/
Not every day is windy?
That’s news.
A comment about today’s turbines. They are now designed that not only to they rotate to face the wind but the pitch on the blades constantly changes to optimize power harvesting. In fact, at any given moment the three blades can each have a different pitch as they will be facing slightly different wind speeds.
cosmos, existing coal fired plants are not going to be shut down until they naturally obsolesce and go off line, which may (probably) not even be in your lifetime so don’t hold your breath.
On second thought cosmos, go ahead and hold your breath, I’m sick of listening to it’s nonsense.
I think if you hold it until those coal plants you so ‘love’ go off-line that ought to just about do fine.