• Wind farms in Pacific Northwest paid to not produce
    31 replies, posted
Wind farms in Pacific Northwest paid to not produce March 07, 2012 FOX [release]Wind farms in the Pacific Northwest -- built with government subsidies and maintained with tax credits for every megawatt produced -- are now getting paid to shut down as the federal agency charged with managing the region's electricity grid says there's an oversupply of renewable power at certain times of the year. The problem arose during the late spring and early summer last year. Rapid snow melt filled the Columbia River Basin. The water rushed through the 31 dams run by the Bonneville Power Administration, a federal agency based in Portland, Ore., allowing for peak hydropower generation. At the very same time, the wind howled, leading to maximum wind power production. Demand could not keep up with supply, so BPA shut down the wind farms for nearly 200 hours over 38 days. "It's the one system in the world where in real time, moment to moment, you have to produce as much energy as is being consumed," BPA spokesman Doug Johnson said of the renewable energy. Now, Bonneville is offering to compensate wind companies for half their lost revenue. The bill could reach up to $50 million a year. The extra payout means energy users will eventually have to pay more. "We require taxpayers to subsidize the production of renewable energy, and now we want ratepayers to pay renewable energy companies when they lose money?" asked Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment of the Washington Policy Center and author of "Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism is Harming the Environment." "That's a ridiculous system that keeps piling more and more money into a system that's unsustainable," Myers said. Green energy advocates also oppose BPA's oversupply solution. "It sends a very poor signal to the market about doing business in the Northwest," said Rachel Shimshak, executive director of the Renewable Northwest Project. "We want the Northwest to be a good place to do business." BPA says its hands are tied by environmental regulations. Officials contend if they shut down hydropower generation instead of the wind farms, endangered salmon would be harmed. It's counter-intuitive because for decades environmental advocates have complained about dams killing fish by sending them through the turbines on their way to the ocean. But spilling too much water over the dam can apparently also be harmful. It can create too much oxygen in the water at the base of the dam, which has also killed salmon. Interestingly, fish advocates are unconvinced. Save Our Wild Salmon is encouraging BPA to test salmon downstream of the dams to determine if their being impacted by high oxygen levels, and only stop the overflows when they have proof fish are being harmed. Pat Ford, the group's executive director, said Bonneville is using the salmon as an excuse to keep hydropower dominant over wind power. "I think it's driven by Bonneville's customers who are worried about the increases in wind generation in the Northwest and what it means to them," Ford said. BPA submitted its plan Tuesday to the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission for approval. FERC has to decide if the oversupply compensation plan is fair to wind producers, utilities and ratepayers.[/release] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/07/wind-power-companies-paid-to-not-produce/?test=latestnews#ixzz1oUIQnbIK[/url]
could start by shutting down the dams and shit they're like the least green of the renewable energy systems out there anyway
why not let them compete with not renewable sources [quote]could start by shutting down the dams and shit[/quote] article says that could be bad for fish
What, so... [b]too much[/b] power? Can't they just feed it into the grid?
Could they not have just shut down the "traditional" power plants? Or were there none of those?
"Over supply of Renewable power" But there's never an undersupply of fossil fuels right? Also the Glaber-Pony Reign Ends
Diealready, you could explain it instead of rating me dumb v:v:v
Couldn't they just reroute the power or something to areas that need it?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35044597]What, so... [b]too much[/b] power? Can't they just feed it into the grid?[/QUOTE] only if they want to blow every fuse in the northwest :v:
Lol, so for once those wind farms actually made any meaningful power? Wow. Color me surprised, usually those things sit there and look stupid without turning an inch. [QUOTE=thrawn2787;35044575]why not let them compete with not renewable sources article says that could be bad for fish[/QUOTE] You can shut the turbines down without closing the dam to water flow.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35044597]What, so... [b]too much[/b] power? Can't they just feed it into the grid?[/QUOTE] Ok, then where does it go?
Misleading title, for sure. I was [i]certain[/i] this was another GOP/Santorum plot.
It's kind of ridiculous that their is an "over abudence" of wind power, when we're always hearing about how this alternative energy is so inefficient.
We obviously need... FLYWHEEL POWER STORAGE SYSTEMS!! They are putting one in New York for this exact reason.
[QUOTE=Naaz;35044963]Misleading title, for sure. I was [i]certain[/i] this was another GOP/Santorum plot.[/QUOTE] why is everyone so delusional over the gop like this
I seriously have to wonder why Glaber would [I]actively choose[/I] Fox as the primary source. If no other sources reported it, I'm skeptical of how true it is, and if there was some other one that reported it like NPR or CNN, why did he pick Fox specifically? It's nonsense.
Nobody really cares much for wind power anyways, even if this IS a glaber thread. Too unstable.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to turn off the coal or natural gas plants? Nuclear plants, you don't shut off. Just... don't. It's not a coincidence that both major nuclear accidents happened when they tried to shut off a reactor. You don't even want to ease off the throttle - I know the nearest nuke plant runs continuously at max power. At night, when the draw is less, the excess power is used to pump water upstream to refill the nearby reservoir, so the water can be used in the morning to run the hydro plant. Essentially using a lake as a "battery". Hydro, you pretty much have to at least let the water through. Reservoirs overflowing, especially over top of the dam, is possibly worse, in the short term, than a nuclear plant going. And if you're letting water through, might as well have the turbines running. Wind, likewise. They're going to spin, producing wear on the system. Might as well have an even wear and keep them running. Same for tidal. Even solar, although those don't have moving parts to wear out. Point is, renewable plants run as fast as the resource comes in. Coal and natural gas plants, though, are essentially engines. They can, and do, adjust output. Not to mention that there's far more of them to shut down. Typical government.
[QUOTE=Megafan;35045221]I seriously have to wonder why Glaber would [I]actively choose[/I] Fox as the primary source. If no other sources reported it, I'm skeptical of how true it is, and if there was some other one that reported it like NPR or CNN, why did he pick Fox specifically? It's nonsense.[/QUOTE] This is actually a legit story, but it contains one itsy bitsy little lie. The claim that "wind farms in the Pacific Northwest" are "[URL="http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/rss/1115472/Iberdrola-gets-115-million-subsidy-stay-Portland/"]built with government subsidies[/URL] and [URL="http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F"]maintained with tax credits for every megawatt produced[/URL]" is correct. [URL="http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/BPANews/ArticleTemplate.cfm?ArticleId=article-20120307-01"]There is indeed a plan by a federal agency to shut down these wind plants and compensate them for the lost revenue.[/URL] The claim "the extra payout means energy users will eventually have to pay more" is bullshit. I'll explain in a second. [URL="http://www.rnp.org/index.php?q=node/1404"]Green groups[/URL] and [URL="http://www.wildsalmon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=453:bpa-policy-fails-clean-energy-and-salmon-ignores-practical-solutions-&catid=37:press-releases&Itemid=90"]fish fans[/URL] are indeed complaining. [URL="http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/12/feds-tell-bpa-it-cant-cut-off-wind-power/"]And this is a long-running issue.[/URL] [URL="http://energy.aol.com/2012/02/16/hydro-wind-power-seek-peace-in-northwest/"]The BPA has been legitimately fucking things up for a while[/URL]. Now, that middle chunk that's garbage: [QUOTE]The extra payout means energy users will eventually have to pay more.[/QUOTE] The BPA would have to, regardless of who being shut down, pay compensation to that entity. The question is over what is cheapest. [QUOTE]"We require taxpayers to subsidize the production of renewable energy, and now we want ratepayers to pay renewable energy companies when they lose money?" asked Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment of the Washington Policy Center and author of "Eco-Fads: How the Rise of Trendy Environmentalism is Harming the Environment." "That's a ridiculous system that keeps piling more and more money into a system that's unsustainable," Myers said.[/QUOTE] This is the flaw. It is an opinion piece from [URL="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Todd_Myers"]a zero-experience corporate whore.[/URL] The actual story is valid, it's just being used to drop an opinion which isn't.
This is strange. If putting the surplus into the grid would cause an overload, can't we just store the surplus for later use. We have the tech for rechargeable batteries and capacitors, so why not make large capacitors to act as "reserviors" of energy to be shipped elsewhere? Or do capacitors not work like that/they already have their batteries at full capacity?
[QUOTE=ironman17;35050069]This is strange. If putting the surplus into the grid would cause an overload, can't we just store the surplus for later use. We have the tech for rechargeable batteries and capacitors, so why not make large capacitors to act as "reserviors" of energy to be shipped elsewhere? Or do capacitors not work like that/they already have their batteries at full capacity?[/QUOTE] I'm assuming it's when those fill up.
[QUOTE=ironman17;35050069]This is strange. If putting the surplus into the grid would cause an overload, can't we just store the surplus for later use. We have the tech for rechargeable batteries and capacitors, so why not make large capacitors to act as "reserviors" of energy to be shipped elsewhere? Or do capacitors not work like that/they already have their batteries at full capacity?[/QUOTE] Large and tall water reservoirs are cheaper and also more environmentally friendly. That or flywheel energy banks. Batteries and capacitors involve large amount of toxic metals and chemicals, and you'd need [B]MASSIVE [/B]one's for storing energy made by a windmill farm.
Good to see that this issue isn't unique to the UK, I thought the government here had gone crazy. It seems to be the done thing, they are better than people expected I guess.
this just goes to show how bad our electricity grid is. Come on obama, that would be a great public works project!
[QUOTE=ironman17;35050069]This is strange. If putting the surplus into the grid would cause an overload, can't we just store the surplus for later use. We have the tech for rechargeable batteries and capacitors, so why not make large capacitors to act as "reserviors" of energy to be shipped elsewhere? Or do capacitors not work like that/they already have their batteries at full capacity?[/QUOTE] I think it's more we don't have the technology to build capacitors that can store the amount of energy being produced. That's why they do things like pumping water upstream to a reservoir for later use, as Gman said before.
I can't wait until fusion is achieved and oil is replaced, and we have a cheap, unlimited supply of one of the most powerful fuel sources that we know of.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35044597]What, so... [b]too much[/b] power? Can't they just feed it into the grid?[/QUOTE] But then they would have to lower the price of electricity.
[QUOTE=Ridge;35051896]But then they would have to lower the price of electricity.[/QUOTE] Or upgrade the grid so that they can regulate all fossil fuel power plants to operate at a lower rate when the wind is a-blowin'. Instead of just those close to the windmill farms.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35047143]This is actually a legit story, but it contains one itsy bitsy little lie. The claim that "wind farms in the Pacific Northwest" are "[URL="http://www.windpowermonthly.com/news/rss/1115472/Iberdrola-gets-115-million-subsidy-stay-Portland/"]built with government subsidies[/URL] and [URL="http://dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=US13F"]maintained with tax credits for every megawatt produced[/URL]" is correct. [URL="http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/BPANews/ArticleTemplate.cfm?ArticleId=article-20120307-01"]There is indeed a plan by a federal agency to shut down these wind plants and compensate them for the lost revenue.[/URL] The claim "the extra payout means energy users will eventually have to pay more" is bullshit. I'll explain in a second. [URL="http://www.rnp.org/index.php?q=node/1404"]Green groups[/URL] and [URL="http://www.wildsalmon.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=453:bpa-policy-fails-clean-energy-and-salmon-ignores-practical-solutions-&catid=37:press-releases&Itemid=90"]fish fans[/URL] are indeed complaining. [URL="http://www.earthtechling.com/2011/12/feds-tell-bpa-it-cant-cut-off-wind-power/"]And this is a long-running issue.[/URL] [URL="http://energy.aol.com/2012/02/16/hydro-wind-power-seek-peace-in-northwest/"]The BPA has been legitimately fucking things up for a while[/URL]. Now, that middle chunk that's garbage: The BPA would have to, regardless of who being shut down, pay compensation to that entity. The question is over what is cheapest. This is the flaw. It is an opinion piece from [URL="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Todd_Myers"]a zero-experience corporate whore.[/URL] The actual story is valid, it's just being used to drop an opinion which isn't.[/QUOTE] Somehow I'm not surprised. Informative as usual, Xenocidebot.
[QUOTE=ironman17;35050069]This is strange. If putting the surplus into the grid would cause an overload, can't we just store the surplus for later use. We have the tech for rechargeable batteries and capacitors, so why not make large capacitors to act as "reserviors" of energy to be shipped elsewhere? Or do capacitors not work like that/they already have their batteries at full capacity?[/QUOTE] Capacity. A single turbine can produce over 5 megawatt-hours, and a single wind farm can produce hundreds of megawatts (there's several in construction that would reach gigawatt range). The largest battery ever made can store 40MW. That's not even a full day's output of a single turbine. Other forms of energy storage wouldn't really help in this case. Flywheels, compressed air, etc., wouldn't cut it. They're good for handling short-term variations, the minute-by-minute variations. The largest battery, previously mentioned, was designed to provide power to an entire city for a few minutes while the diesel backup generators came online (this was in Alaska, where losing heat for even fifteen minutes would cause massive problems).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.