3 ms·

Unfortunately that does not solve anything. This is because the amount generated varies between 0 and the max. installed capacity at any time, depending on the

Unfortunately that does not solve anything. This is because the amount generated varies between 0 and the max. installed capacity at any time, depending on the weather. This means that in practice the grid must still assume 0 in order to avoid blackouts. It does not mean that other sources can be wound down because wind produces 37% of electricity needs.

cesarb 7y ago
> This means that in practice the grid must still assume 0 in order to avoid blackouts. It does not mean that other sources can be wound down because wind produces 37% of electricity needs. On any electric grid, production must always be precisely matched to consumption; producing more than is consumed results in the voltage and/or frequency becoming too high, with destructive results. Therefore, the grid cannot "assume 0"; it must reduce production until it matches the instantaneous consumption. For obvious reasons, grid operators prefer to reduce the most expensive sources first, which are usually the fossil fuel thermal plants. So in practice, for every kW of wind-generated power, one less kW of fossil fuel electricity is generated; and due to how thermal power plants work, the easiest way to reduce generation is to burn less fuel.
- NotPaidToPost 7y ago
  You misunderstood. The grid must still be dimensioned in terms of production capacity as if wind power did not exist.
_ph_ 7y ago
If the complementing fossil source is gas, the power plants can be regulated quickly enough to follow the wind production. So every percent more wind power means, that the corresponding amout of gas is not burnt. And no CO2 for it is produced.
- Proven 7y ago
  Consumers pay for extra power generating capacity that they have no use for and would prefer not to pay for (if there was any chance they would, it wouldn't be forced onto them). "No CO2 is produced" doesn't mean anything to them.

cesarb 7y ago

> This means that in practice the grid must still assume 0 in order to avoid blackouts. It does not mean that other sources can be wound down because wind produces 37% of electricity needs. On any electric grid, production must always be precisely matched to consumption; producing more than is consumed results in the voltage and/or frequency becoming too high, with destructive results. Therefore, the grid cannot "assume 0"; it must reduce production until it matches the instantaneous consumption. For obvious reasons, grid operators prefer to reduce the most expensive sources first, which are usually the fossil fuel thermal plants. So in practice, for every kW of wind-generated power, one less kW of fossil fuel electricity is generated; and due to how thermal power plants work, the easiest way to reduce generation is to burn less fuel.

NotPaidToPost 7y ago
You misunderstood. The grid must still be dimensioned in terms of production capacity as if wind power did not exist.

_ph_ 7y ago

If the complementing fossil source is gas, the power plants can be regulated quickly enough to follow the wind production. So every percent more wind power means, that the corresponding amout of gas is not burnt. And no CO2 for it is produced.

Proven 7y ago
Consumers pay for extra power generating capacity that they have no use for and would prefer not to pay for (if there was any chance they would, it wouldn't be forced onto them). "No CO2 is produced" doesn't mean anything to them.