I basically see us twiddling along, spending lots of money, making small adjustments, and ending up exactly where we are now (more carbon emissions, radioactive wastes piling up, buying renewable energy technologies overseas from our competitors, and burning lots of oil and gas from oil sands and shale). This is not a particularly thoughtful energy policy: it's unsustainable, it doesn't lead to greater economic prosperity or growth, it pollutes our rivers and communities, and makes time and finite resources our biggest obstacle (and financial burden for the future). The status quo is the biggest impediment to real change in our energy sector, and business as usual proponents want to continue to give the same arguments about keeping energy costs low, rising demand as far as the eye can see, so called "clean" nuclear, and industrial use of non-renewable resources as the only option for utility level electricity. All I can say is that they haven't kept up with current research and trends.
Low1 wrote:
solar and wind can not compete on a utility scale ... They are just too unreliable, and unknown to most people is that fact that the vast majority of wind turbines on the system are induction machines. This means that they require reactive power from the system to produce a voltage and therefore push power ... On a utility level, for every megawatt of installed alternative energy (wind/solar) there must be a megawatt of traditional sources to back it up.
Thanks for this helpful summary and discussion of important key technical concerns. But grid managers have been dealing with variable power sources from the very inception of the grid. Nuclear, coal, hydro, and gas plants are also variable sources, and are not always running at peak efficiency (drought and low water levels can often dramatically impact the amount of electricity generated at hydro power stations). As far as I can find, the
"hot-button" issue of back-up power has largely faded out of the literature on wind-integration studies on a utility scale. Doubly-fed induction generators or full-effect converters are used to match the frequency of the current from a variable wind source to DC and back to AC (matching the line frequency and voltage). This means some energy is lost, and adds to the expense of wind farms, but it appears to me to be an effective workaround to the issues you describe.
Many large wind farms are connected to transmission lines through a dedicated substation. I don't see where there needs to be a 1:1 relationship of back-up power to generating capacity, but we do need a way to actively maintain the system, match supply to demand, forecast for supply interruptions, and get real-time numbers (which are done with a series of control signals sent out to wind farms and other sources). Advanced weather forecasting is one way to more effectively match supply and demand to variable wind sources. And there are other approaches too: co-ordinated wind farms and power system operation, reactive compensation and voltage control systems, fault ride-through systems, energy storage systems, current limitation devices, directional protections, and more. From a
2001 study, "Advances in wind-turbine technology and results of nearly two decades of research mean that the integration of wind turbines and wind farms into electricity networks generally poses few problems." Other,
more recent studies, look at operation of electricity grids with large amounts of wind power (up to 55 or 65%), and dealing with excess capacity "by transmission to neighboring areas, storage (e.g. thermal) or demand side management." Utility level solar and wind are here and are being used now … we know how to do this using current technology (even with our aging 20th century circulatory grid system, which makes best use of large centralized sources and certainly has a lot of room for improvement).
Regarding nuclear … I've been following closely the issue of mining and community opposition to uranium development in the North. There are two videos for the Iqaluit meeting on Kiggavik posted so far (
here and
here). They also intend to post video for the panel at Baker Lake, so there is more to follow. Two candidates in upcoming NTI elections are running on an anti-nuclear platform: Niko Inuarak (for President), and Marius Tungilik (for Vice President). As Tungilik writes: "I cannot support the uranium mining policy as it stands. I would like to see economic growth in Nunavut as we need a strong ecomonic base to maintain our livihood, but certainly not at the expense of our environment and our health as a people. This is our homeland. I say NO. It is not worth it!"
It's the same for the Mistissini Cree in Quebec (in a recent policy statement opposing development of Matoush uranium exploration project in their homeland). This was later backed by the
Grand Council as a whole:
Quote:
Being from Mistissini myself, I know the community's decision was not taken lightly. It took several years of fact finding and soul searching. Decisions of this nature are especially difficult for First Nations, particularly at a time when we are seeking out developmental proposals to address very real employment challenges. The Cree Nation as a whole remains open to mining development opportunities that are compatible with the Cree way of life. However, as Mistissini indicated, the community felt the potential impacts of this proposal far outweigh its benefits. With this in mind, the Grand Council of the Crees (of Eeyou Istchee) will respect and support Mistissini's decision.
Who does this leave as an advocate for uranium mining in the North … "exploration" projects are being opposed and shut down from Nova Scotia, Quebec, Labrador, NWT, and Nunavut. And unlike solar and wind, which show ongoing and continuous technological development, the process for uranium mining has largely remained the same: open pits, crushing large volumes of rock, treating materials with chemicals, deposing slurry and effluent in pits, rivers, and lakes (where they remain exposed to elements for 15-25 years, during the life of the mine), and decommissioning. It's an old approach that leaves behind a legacy of waste and emissions, and few people are willing to do it anymore. I don't blame them, the legacy of contamination isn't worth it, southerners need to take a greater responsibility for their own wasteful consumption, and there are better alternatives for local jobs. There are also better alternatives for southerns in population centers looking for cheaper (in the long run) and less environmentally destructive sources of energy (utility scale or otherwise).
Regarding IPCC statement on nuclear … interesting that they consider it a cost effective solution only with "the lifetime extension of existing plants." Because this is the reality of where we are now. Nobody wants to build new plants, we have huge challenges if we take existing plants off-line, so we simply extend their lifetime beyond their safe and recommended life cycle. This is another reason, in my mind, not to go down the nuclear road. France is faced with huge challenges with an aging fleet and little "to back it up." Seems like back up power is more a concern with nuclear than with other smaller sources that can be added rapidly to an existing system to make up for cycling of technologies and an aging infrastructure. We also need to look at world's dwindling capacity for mining high grade ore (which changes 2:1 picture of nuclear viz a viz existing fossil fuel technologies)? The IPCC is also proposing waste storage practices for nuclear that have become highly impractical, costly, and unpopular.