Ironically, in light of the State Department’s seal of approval for tar sands oil:
A pair of utilities, Minnesota Power and Manitoba Hydro, have inked a Renewable Optimisation Agreement (ROA) under which electricity from excess wind produced in North Dakota can be stored in Manitoba’s hydro reservoir when loads and prices are low, with the potential for selling that power back onto the huge United States Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO) market at times when needs are high.
The deal involves the pair building a new 400 mile 500 kV transmission line, with a capacity of 750 megawatts, connecting northeastern Minnesota with Winnipeg, at a cost of $1bn split between the two utilities.
Manitoba Hydro is already an external participant with MISO, as a large hydroelectric system with some of the lowest electricity prices in North America.
“We can act as a rechargeable battery for the MISO market,” says Manitoba Hydro Division Manager of Power Sales and Operations David Cormie. “The arrangement we have with Minnesota Power is that they are going to invest in new transmission in the US, and Manitoba Hydro will invest in the transmission in Canada, and at the same time Manitoba Hydro is going to build new power dams that create more storage capability.”
Manitoba’s 1,000 feet of hydro-electric potential remains only half developed and two new hydro projects with associated storage planned for the Nelson River has created the opportunity for further interconnecting the Manitoba battery to MISO.
“We are able to able to operate our hydro system in a manner that takes energy out of the market when the prices are low, and returns the energy to the market in periods when the prices are high,” Cormie explains.“But the new storage capability of our hydro system can only be useful if the transmission line capacity to the market gets bigger. So between the storage that Manitoba Hydro is developing and Minnesota Power’s willingness to build new transmission, we in effect are making the battery bigger, enabling more two-way trade in electricity.”
The ROA will allow for the storage of a million megawatt-hours of wind power annually and address another 133 MW of excess energy. But building additional big transmission is the key.
“We need some more north – south transmission,” says Executive VP of Minnesota Power Dave McMillan. “And it needs to be built with the bigger-in-diameter wire, bigger conductors that can convey more power. The 500 kV line will be able to transfer 750 megawatts.”
The figure touted for wind these days is $1000/kW, but here we have a storage project which costs over $1300/kW just for the transmission lines. I’m also surprised that this is going with AC transmission instead of HVDC, which should be much less visually obtrusive and require less material overall. And what’s 750 MW compared to Minnesota’s average load? (answering my own question: MN generated 4.34 TWh in November 2013, or about 6 GW average. The capacity of the line amounts to about 1/8 of that. Feeding 1/8 of average demand northward to storage perhaps 20% of the time isn’t going to make a huge dent in the total energy budget.)
At least the storage systems are not dependent on any single source of generation.
Wow! My province of Saskatchewan could have done this with Manitoba. Instead we have a fossil premier who is pouring public money into a CCS project costing $1.2 Billion and will generate a whole 110 MW using 30% more coal. His other dreamy project is research into small nuclear reactors. But we are going to double our wind power to a whole 400MW. And the people think he is great….
The cross border tie is for peak demand, not base load, thus is a fraction of total demand. Manitoba Hydro wants to sell electricity into peak demand, not base load. This is not the only cross border tie, it is an increase in border transmission. Manitoba is now part of MISO, so this strengthens MISO. Perhaps a better perspective on the present Manitoba hydro might be revealed in the rest of the article, which goes on to say, ” It has long supplied its own citizens with nearly 100% of their electricity from hydropower, and annually exports up to 40 percent of the 32 billion kilowatt-hours the hydro system already generates. Those exports have only been possible through the cooperative development of past international transmission lines, a model the two utilities intend to continue through the ROA.” That is 12.8 TWh. This energy is used to shave peak demand and reduce fuel costs in the US. Further,
“McMillan is confident that Minnesota regulators will also appreciate that the new 500 kV line will potentially enable the development of more wind regionally and points to a recent MISO study confirming the huge benefits to wind from Manitoba hydro storage.
Minnesota Power was 95 percent coal powered until 2005, and has come from just 5 per cent renewable power seven years ago, to a planned 25 per cent renewable power by 2015, ten years ahead of the Minnesota mandate, mostly from wind investment. And that is before this new transmission opens up the additional hydro storage potential.”
Large thermal and nuclear PP are vulnerable to outages during high peak demand, just when needed the most. Peter has documented some of those cases. The early Jan 2014 freeze is one. In Texas and MISO. It has happened before in Texas and Germany where wind played a critical role in preventing blackouts due to large PP outages. It does not matter if large thermal PP have high capacity factor if they fail intermittently and unexpectedly. For that contingency, reserves must be high. And as we just witnessed, extreme events often precipitate outages across large regions and multiple large thermal PP. Wind farms are dispersed. No single turbine or even multiple turbines are likely to cause an entire farm to go offline.
http://energytransition.de/2014/01/intermittent-or-variable/
Both lack of wind and excessive wind can cause entire regions of wind generation to go off-line.
YFOS – typical bs from a nuke troll. Evidence 0, opinion infinite.
Look at GE’s own data sheet. Below about 5 m/sec, nothing; above 25 m/sec, shutdown.
As the self-appointed RE expert, you should know this stuff backwards and forwards. Disputing undeniable facts just because they’re brought up against your position is the behavior of the ideologue and the propagandist, not the truth-seeker.
The cut in wind speed of these wind turbines is 3.5m/s not 5m/s. You did not bother to read carefully, a habit of sloppiness which you persist in. Not very impressive for a truth seeker. Wind output is proportional to velocity cubed. This is no surprise to any student of wind energy, so nobody else is surprised if output is low at that speed. However, that is only a correction of your mistake. Your sidestepped response is a refusal to admit that your statement,
“Both lack of wind and excessive wind can cause entire regions of wind generation to go off-line”, is an exaggeration, because it is unqualified and made without comparison. As usual, there is no citation, no reference, just your exalted self opinion as one of the greatest truth seekers of all time. A non answer from a biased nuke troll.
As if a few kilowatts would mean squat when heating demand is sky-high. Even at 5 m/s, the GE 1.6 MW unit is producing well under 10% of capacity. Lets see YOU survive on < 10% of your furnace’s rated heat output when it’s 5°F outside.
You make mountains out of molehills, a habit of yours I’ve noted repeatedly.
It’s self-evidently true from the machine specifications and also from accounts of wind farms dropping from 100% of rated output to zero as wind speeds exceeded their limits. Despite this, you dispute it and heap vitriol upon anyone who brings it up, because you cannot stand cognitive dissonance. Your problem lies in your ideology and its inability to encompass the facts.
I just did a search for anything related to powerplants damaged by the 2012 and 2013 derechos. I’m not finding anything. I doubt very much that any wind farm in its path could have said the same. Any wind farm it it would have not only shut down, it would have suffered long-term loss of output. As extreme weather events become more frequent, it’s somewhere between foolhardy and suicidal to allow essential energy supplies to depend on the weather.
Naturally, you didn’t find anything when you searched for evidence of nuclear outages. You are a nuclear troll!
I searched for powerplant outages, nothing specific to nuclear. You attempted to put words in my mouth. But that’s what I’d expect of lying scum.
“Lastly, you are confused about facts vs. propaganda. Facts are the links that I used to show that you were wrong. Propaganda was your post without facts to back up your fairy tale.” -anthropogenic climate change passenger
I couldn’t have said it better.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/28/intermittent-power-from-baseload-nuclear-plant-raises-prices-for-consumers/comment-page-1/
You –
“Disputing undeniable facts”
“Below about 5 m/sec, nothing”
“Both lack of wind and excessive wind can cause entire regions of wind generation to go off-line.”
No reference or citation to back up that last statement. Go ahead. Show the citation proving your statement, and showing how often, how long, and what level entire regions of wind generation go off-line. Compare power sources. The reason you cannot is because you have never really studied it scientifically. You just have an opinion and spew it without citation. Because it fits your “confirmation bias”. If the facts had real references and were quoted correctly, then at least the correct transmission of the facts would be indisputable. But incorrect and inaccurate quotation and outright exaggeration without citation are not going to make your statements indisputable. Without research and reference, you just make one mistake after another. This has been going on for some time. You don’t seem to learn. Its not hard to research and reference claims. If you don’t, then you make a mistake because you make claims and don’t bother to check. If that embarrasses you, so be it. I insist on accuracy. I could care less if that bothers you. Your dismissal of your errors shows just how interested you are in accuracy. You dont read the statements of other bloggers and comment and reply about comments that were never made. First you claim renewables create grid instability. Wrong. Caught you. Then you claim the BN-600 is lead cooled. Its sodium. Wrong again. You claimed two weeks of backup were necessary for wind. Does not look like it for January MISO. Now you make todays mistakes and exaggerations. The errors are mounting. Bit by bit, your exaggerations are caught. Its not that I am an expert. I simply bother to check and cite references. Go ahead. Keep making statements without checking. I will check for you. Although by now, after checking yours and other deniers mistakes, I have learned a few things. I know better than to accept your word without checking. Its not reliable.
Stay on E-Pot’s case, Christopher! You’re way ahead (although he will likely never notice because he is too busy admiring himself in the mirror).
You’re either lying, or you can’t read a graph. The power curve of the GE 1.6 ends at 25 m/s because that is its cut-out speed. I linked that PDF several exchanges ago. You refused to acknowledge that your citation was provided before you asked for it.
Goal-post moving; there wouldn’t be cut-outs any place there aren’t wind farms YET (but your vision would require that there be). There are plenty of weather events, such as derechos and hurricanes, which cause high winds over broad swaths of territory. High-pressure areas cause low winds over even broader stretches. Here is a wind map over most of the lower 48, with almost the entire Midwest without useful winds for generation. And another:
lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pPa41e41HVM/TXV88GEt64I/AAAAAAAAADc/HHsLN2uOoYA/s1600/sfc_mw.gif
And another: http://www.crh.noaa.gov/images/lot/2011Blizzard/ussatloopb06.gif
It doesn’t even take that much to seriously de-stabilize grids. The 2/26/2008 ERCOT event was greatly exacerbated by wind ebbing. That day, wind peaked at only about 2000 MW out of some 35,500 MW evening peak. Suppose wind had been 10,000 MW? There would have been blackouts that day, and on many other days with far less severe conditions.
The graph on page 8 of the slideshow shows just how hard it is to power a grid with RE. At 6 PM in Texas in February, it’s dark. Wind was down more than half at 5:30, and fell more than 90% in 6 hours.
These events are not uncommon. There was a high wind event across Minnesota and neighboring states on October 25-27, 2010 (I’m out of links for this comment). The 60-MPH gusts reported are above the GE 1.6’s cutout speed.
Show me a weather event which shuts down thermal generation over a wide area while leaving the T&D system intact.
Irony.
Hypocrisy.
You’re either lying, or you can’t read a graph. The power curve of the GE 1.6 ends at 25 m/s because that is its cut-out speed. I linked that PDF several exchanges ago. You refused to acknowledge that your citation was provided before you asked for it.
Goal-post moving; there wouldn’t be cut-outs any place there aren’t wind farms YET (but your vision would require that there be). There are plenty of weather events, such as derechos and hurricanes, which cause high winds over broad swaths of territory. High-pressure areas cause low winds over even broader stretches. Here is a wind map over most of the lower 48, with almost the entire Midwest without useful winds for generation. And another:
lh3.googleusercontent.com/-pPa41e41HVM/TXV88GEt64I/AAAAAAAAADc/HHsLN2uOoYA/s1600/sfc_mw.gif
And another: www. crh. noaa. gov/images/lot/2011Blizzard/ussatloopb06.gif
It doesn’t even take that much to seriously de-stabilize grids. The 2/26/2008 ERCOT event was greatly exacerbated by wind ebbing. That day, wind peaked at only about 2000 MW out of some 35,500 MW evening peak. Suppose wind had been 10,000 MW? There would have been blackouts that day, and on many other days with far less severe conditions.
The graph on page 8 of the slideshow shows just how hard it is to power a grid with RE. At 6 PM in Texas in February, it’s dark. Wind was down more than half at 5:30, and fell more than 90% in 6 hours.
These events are not uncommon. There was a high wind event across Minnesota and neighboring states on October 25-27, 2010 (I’m out of links for this comment). The 60-MPH gusts reported are above the GE 1.6’s cutout speed.
Show me a weather event which shuts down thermal generation over a wide area while leaving the T&D system intact.
Irony.
Hypocrisy.
Still nothing on entire regions. We all know all power plants go down under extreme conditions. How extreme? How often? Compared to what? Nuclear goes down due to extremes, too. This entire regions stuff is a stretch. What entire region has sustained winds exceeding 56 mph? And how does that do compared to nuclear? As I referenced with Hurricane Irene, nuclear did not fare perfectly. See the references. I will paraphrase potholer54 remarks. I actually bothered to read the references. I actually bothered to source the references and read them, and yes, even quote them word for word.
You claim wind, water and solar can replace all fossil-fired and nuclear generation. Since you’re all so scientific and stuff, explain how. Pay particular attention to the (a) quantity, and (b) efficiency of the required storage, because that is of particular interest in light of this:
An EROI of 2 means that half of all generated energy has to be plowed back into building and maintaining the systems which generate energy.
Um, no actually, find the quote that shows
“You claim wind, water and solar can replace all fossil-fired and nuclear generation. ”
Not on this post. But I know in other posts I referenced studies that showed levels of wind and other RE penetration, both from existing records like Denmark, for example, and in studies. All referenced, cited. I may have made some remarks without citation, but rarely. For the most part, it’s what the references said. Speak to the references. Your attempt to paint this as my opinion is just another example of your blatant obfuscation and sloppiness.
You keep making the same mistake. Find a real quote, copy it exactly, and use citations. Just like a real researcher or even a good journalist. I need not point out that none of the other generation sources power the grid 100 %, in particular nuclear, because it needs help following demand from other sources. I keep saying repeatedly that no single type of source powers the Grid now or likely ever will. But you are not listening. You are too busy making up what you think I said instead of making a direct, complete, accurate, quote with reference. A few small countries get nearly all of their electrical energy from hydro. None power all their energy from electricity. I don’t reference these remarks because you can find it all in previous discussions on CC. By now we are repeating and you are going back to regurgitating canards that have already been refuted in the past, like RE destabilizes grid.
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/21/solar-and-wind-energy-stabilize-the-power-grid/
You failed to do the most mundane google search and reference it to avoid embarrassment. And you made hasty, over generalized exaggerated statements. Most people that happens occasionally. When it happens all the time.. Weelllll. After many mistakes over a period of time, one would think you would be more careful. You consistently fail to learn from mistakes. A hallmark of deniers that listen to what they want to believe in their internal and external echo chambers.
Wow. You are such a bountiful supply of cherry picked half truths, falsehoods, canards and misinformation, it takes a full time editor just to catch all of them. I wonder if some adult would have said, stop making stuff up. I don’t need to show every individual event to show a trend in your behavior. By now, oh say, at least a few others have noticed here and elsewhere. EROI of solar. Could you cherry pick a lower number?
http://www.clca.columbia.edu/241_Raugei_EROI_EP_revised_II_2012-03_VMF.pdf
But you see this is a post about wind and storage. Need I point out that a classic denier behavior is off topic posts?
Wind and solar are growing. Storage is helping. It’s getting to be an everyday thing.
Re-parented reply to (F)Arcus is at http://climatecrocks.com/2014/02/04/transmission-allows-wind-storage-in-canada/comment-page-2/#comment-49315
On Friday the 26th, EnergyOnline reported, “more than 20 Midwestern and Canadian nuclear power units are unavailable..
http://americanhistory.si.edu/powering/dereg/current2.htm#rhe1
Davis-Besse was hit by a tornado then, knocked off line for a long time. Unlike NPP, which must endure a lengthy procedure to restart after a power failure disconnect from the grid, wind farms are up and running quickly.
A wind farm in Japan survived the tsunami and continued supplying power. A hurricane will force wind farms off line, but so will NPP operated along littoral waterways if the surge impacts cooling or power link to the station drops. Recent cold in Texas took PP off line, but not wind. Wind turbines are extremely robust, not just a mechanical design, but owing to their dispersed nature. It’s hard to knock out every unit in multiple wind farms across a broad area. Nothing like the 20 units that went off line during the quoted peak demand. Same is true right now for the peak winer demand. MISO wind has put out lots of power in January. Cold did not stop the wind farms. Not so for thermal PP in lots of places in Midwest and Texas. Some just encountered fuel shortage. Face it. Nuclear’s Achilles heel is that it must have grid tie. If the connection fails, it’s a big deal. Not only is nuclear useless for a sudden spike in demand, it tends to fail most during these extreme events. Nuclear needs backup and lots of it. Why does a thread about wind or renewables always get hijacked by an anti wind, anti renewables troll? Save your comments for a thread about nuclear and display some manners.
The “must” is an NRC requirement, not a factor of the technology. Over at Atomic Insights there’s a commenter who complains that plants he’s worked at were designed to “island” themselves in case of loss of grid and feed their own loads from an autotransformer, but NRC required the control systems trip the reactor in case of a grid trip or turbine trip. In the case of loss of grid, this made cooling rely on the diesel generators… which REMOVES a level of safety from the system.
This is proof positive that the NRC’s primary focus is not safety. It’s political hobbling of one set of competitors by another.
Stop lying and I’ll stop taking time to rebut you.
When grid connection is lost, the reactor must shut down, because there the load is removed. The power generation must be reduced. Unfortunately, the reactor does not stop producing heat immediately. It must be cooled. If the grid connection is lost unexpectedly, it may require Emergency Core Cooling System, or ECCS. If it is not cooled quickly enough, this can lead to core melt down. Likewise, the stored waste in pools must be cooled, or the water boils off, or may cause hydrogen generation, risking explosion, but this risk is not as great, because there is more time. The restart time is no lust limited by NRC, this is a thermal PP and it is slow to heat or cool because it is a thermal PP heating water. Heating water takes time. Getting steam pressure takes time. Restarting generators takes time. Even under ideal circumstances regardless of NRC procedures, all large centralized thermal PP are relatively slow to ramp up. None of which refutes,
“Large thermal and nuclear PP are vulnerable to outages during high peak demand, just when needed the most.”
Found the comment regarding the NRC-mandated (but unnecessary) trips:
http://atomicinsights.com/alvin-weinbergs-liquid-fuel-reactors-part-1/#comment-74026
You are creating a straw man. There is no comment regarding “unnecessary trips”. The comment is,
“Large thermal and nuclear PP are vulnerable to outages during high peak demand, just when needed the most.”
or
“On Friday the 26th, EnergyOnline reported, “more than 20 Midwestern and Canadian nuclear power units are unavailable..”
Why don’t you try commenting on what is there instead of what isn’t.
As long as you are off topic and trashing wind and renewables, I might as well add this news to puncture your nuclear love fantasy.
“Chicago-based Exelon Corp. said Thursday on a conference call following its quarterly earnings results that it will shut down nuclear plants to save money if it doesn’t see a path to steady profits this year.
The company’s large fleet of nuclear plants have struggled to remain profitable …”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-exelon-earnings-20140206,0,4428970.story
Here is the real story. Right now California is having energy alerts to reduce electrical demand. Why? Natural gas. The demand in East Coast states is so high, its curtailing West Coast natural gas use. So much for Natural Gas. So much for nuclear. Meanwhile, MISO and ERCOT wind are pumping out power. Better get used to it. Renewables are the way forward. FF and nuclear are looking a little ragged now. Wind is reducing coal use in the Midwest and CO2. Its a proven technological solution. Solar is about to add to that significantly. Its time to stop the foot dragging. These solutions work. Its time to implement them.
California’s gas pipeline network is not built to serve such high demand peaks. The shortage, and the 35% increase in carbon emissions from California’s electric sector, are due in no small part to the NRC’s refusal to allow San Onofre to operate at reduced capacity. As a consequence, San Onofre was lost to the grid.
In related news, NG prices at the Henry Hub have topped $7/mmBTU.
February 7: Exelon Generation’s nuclear fleet continued to produce electricity around the clock and was unaffected by ice, snow storms and frigid temperatures that dominated the first month of 2014.
January 8: Strong Production From Bruce Power During Ontario Cold Snap
At this moment on this bitterly cold morning, the MISO site is reporting about 1.2 GW from wind (less than 15% of capacity; it hasn’t exceeded 70% in the last day). If you call that “pumping”, I’d love to see you eke out your existence on a “dribble”.
So “the way forward” in Arcus-speak means “death from hypothermia”. I need to start an English-Arcus dictionary.
The variability of wind results in rapidly diminishing returns (down more than half by 40% penetration). Nowhere in the world has it cut emissions on a fossil-dominated grid by even the minimum-required 80%; it has never even gotten close. Nuclear is reducing it far more, where it exists.
When you harp on climate and CO2 emissions but turn and attack nuclear energy for “doing it wrong” while ignoring the difficulties and outright failures of renewables, you give support to the people claiming that climate change is just an excuse for a massive power grab.
If only you really took that seriously. Nuclear works. It has slashed carbon emissions wherever it has gone, with France and Ontario being standout success stories. Yet you hate it. That says everything about you that needs to be said.
California is not experiencing high demand. East Coast is experiencing high demand. They asked California to curtail use to conserve natural gas, not because California has a pipeline or flow rate problem. I won’t even go into you wanting San Onofre to go ahead operating with leaking pipes. You keep advocating less safety at nuclear power plants and painting nuclear power advocates in a bad light.
(PJM) Complicating the picture was the outage of two reactors at the Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant near Lusby, Md., due to malfunctioning electrical equipment.
Luminant said it had reduced power to unit 1 at its Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas on Monday after a heater drain pump tripped offline.
Nuclear works? Looks like it is in decline. Someone has rosy glasses on…
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130924/first-us-nuclear-power-closures-15-years-signal-wider-problems-industry
What? No comment on Exelon’s NPP struggling to stay profitable? Already nuclear is doing less and less to lower CO2. The future looks even worse. Meanwhile wind is lowering coal use in the Midwest.
Nuclear in France? They are switching away from nuclear and going to renewables.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-21/france-to-tax-edf-nuclear-output-for-energy-shift-to-renewables.html
You have a curious habit of misquoting and putting words in peoples mouths.
“When you harp on climate and CO2 emissions but turn and attack nuclear energy for “doing it wrong”
When you do so, you are having a soliloquy, not a conversation. You probably never noticed what my preference was, because you are not listening. By the way, the shut down Kewaunee nuclear plant is near to the Point Beach nuclear plant. Wisconsin has a power glut. I have never said wind is the only source of power. You have advocated nothing but nuclear and at every turn ridiculed all renewables. But nuclear is not lowering CO2 now because it is in decline. But wind power is lowering CO2 and increasing, and you hate that. Even France is increasing wind. You just can’t face it. Thats why you comment on a post about wind energy and storage. You are not committed to reducing CO2 by all reasonable, functioning means. You are committed solely to nuclear power and bashing renewables in your lovers jealous rage. In your frenzied, unbalanced, love affair with with nuclear, you repel a lot of people, even people relatively open to nuclear power.
http://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/27/clean-energy-splits-conservatives/#comments
Here is an actual LOOP, loss of outside power event that happened at Davis Besse, near Toledo, Ohio, not the only one. June 9, 1985.
“plant personnel had to sprint through darkened corridors with bolt cutters, not knowing if they had the proper keys or access cards to open locked security doors, in order to cut through chains securing valves, so they could manually open them to restore water flow to steam generators in order to cool the reactor core, with each passing minute increasing the risk of a loss-of-coolant-accident, nuclear fuel damage, and even a meltdown.”
“”Now that the main feedwater pumps and the backup auxiliary feedwater pumps had all crapped out, workers turned to [a dangerously substandard, previously] intentionally disabled motor-driven startup feedwater pump. An operator raced through the plant taking five manual actions in four different locations (including re-installing the fuses).”
Doesn’t sound like a Saturday afternoon nap. Sounds like a dangerous, heart pounding Indiana Jones escape from death.
The same NPP experienced another LOOP and a SBO, (station blackout) the controls went blank, when a tornado hit.
We have all been here before.
http://climatecrocks.com/2013/03/28/intermittent-power-from-baseload-nuclear-plant-raises-prices-for-consumers/comment-page-1/
http://www.events.chattanooganow.com/news/2011/jun/13/tornados-blow-rates-tva-users-45-percent/