Sunday, June 29, 2008

There is a growing tendency in some quarters to posit renewables particularly wind power, as an alternative to Nuclear power. These suggestions, howsoever well intentioned, are utterly misplaced. Most Renewable means of generation barring a few are essentially intermittent power sources, and are thoroughly unsuitable for base load supply, as it were. Now, as we all know high capacity factors and availability is what makes nuclear power an attractive option for forming the backbone of any grid. Intermittent power sources at best can be peaking schemes and are more suited to off-grid profiles. Comparing wind power to nuclear sources of generation is akin to comparing apples to oranges.


Wind power in particular has huge grid penetration issues and is utterly unsuitable for base load supply. Various studies have shown that at the very best , wind power can be allowed a 20 per cent grid penetration ratio. Many commentators, especially in
India, consider wind power an "enemy of the grid". This is on account of the fact, that wind power generation often takes place when you don't need it. For instance wind power generation is relatively higher in the monsoon period; however that is also a time when many hydro power stations come into their own. Now these stations are generally cheaper than wind power and merit order dispatch requires that these stations contribute to the grid first. Thus a need to store the power from wind turbines arises and storage of power is neither cheap nor large scale.



Wind turbine capacity factors even with the latest turbines that generate power while revolving in either direction are no higher than 30 per cent. Hybridisation with other renewable means such as solar PV can mitigate non-availability somewhat ,but not by much. In any case there is no escaping the standard power quality issues that would arise with an intermittent source such as wind. This of course means that wind turbines have disproportionately high reactive power needs and this increases the cost of installation due to the need to have various power quality devices.

Though costs by swept rotor area, especially due to larger capture units have declined, they are still quite high. As they say, most of the low hanging fruit in terms of windy sites has been taken. In any case land is becoming increasingly scarce and large wind farms are becoming increasingly difficult to locate. This is actually one of the main drivers behind the rise of off shore wind power. However, off shore wind power is no panacea either and there are huge power evacuation issues related to the same.Indeed, in the years to come, the prime resource for generation of wind power will not be wind but windy sites.


Wind power is not the solution to our huge grid connected requirements. It is an accessory and when used in consort with other technologies may serve as an excellent standalone option. however to say that it can serve as a viable grid connected alternative to nuclear power is stretching the point a bit too much.

5 comments:

maverick said...

Hi,

I think a lot of people agitating for Wind/Solar/thermal/hydel don't get the concept of base load.

In the 2003 period, a few experimental wind farms were built in India. These added small amounts of wind based generation to the grid and a number of maintenance problems were reported after wards. However coupled with the government subsidised growth of wind energy in parts of the EU, the wind power advocates were able to project this burst of growth to make it look like growth in wind power generation was a serious challenge to nuclear generation in India.

Additionally no reliability studies are available for this particular generation mode.

ducking for cover said...

yup you are absolutely right about the reliability studies part. basically wind power growth was totally driven by the rush to get the 100 per cent accelerated depreciation benefit , and continues to be driven by the same although it has now been reduced to 80 percent.

However a new production tax credit may be on the anvil as well..

ducking for cover said...

oh , welcome to my blog...

Anonymous said...

This is a very lucid article. It clearly explains why wind power is not a panachea for all ills, in fact almost establishes it as the monster in the grid with never more than 20% allocation to be provided.

Why should we not expect a follow up article on which comparisons on cost, energy efficiency, load factors, applicability, generation intensity per sq ft of land utilized etc are provided for the different sources.

Unknown said...

hey, write some more.