The Problem with Wind Energy

"Thar she blows!"
--Captain Ahab, Moby Dick

The wind power industry is in trouble. For illustration, look no further than the UK. A few days ago, low winds brought the country’s output to less than 1% of total generation. Right now, the UK grid regulator is preparing to start throwing cash at wind turbine operators because the next named storm is coming and it will bring strong winds — likely much stronger than is healthy for grid balance.

Meanwhile, in Germany, total wind capacity additions for last year hit 14 GW or 2,400 turbines but at the same time the country is facing a future of coal for longer, to balance the grid. Reports are using the word “may” but we all know they actually mean “will” because you can’t have an unbalanced grid.

--Irina Slav, "Wind, Wind" 

* * * 

One of the many things I learned this past year while researching and writing about energy and the grid has to do with that last highlighted phrase, "because you can't have an unbalanced grid." What does this phrase mean? 

The way the energy grid works is that supply and demand must match. Most people don't understand this. And it is one of the reasons energy is becoming more expensive. When the wind fails to blow and the sun hides its face, the power providers must ramp up the backup generators, which is not free. The cost of electricity would be lower if the natural gas or coal plants were able to run as normal, but this Rube Goldberg complexity is altered by the inconsistent variances in wind and solar. 

The three cornerstones of energy policy are Affordability, Reliability and Safety. The notion that wind and sun are free is a myth. The fears regarding the safety of nuclear power have been blown out of proportion and as nearly all of us have experienced, irrational fears are a challenge to control when we lack facts or understanding. 

Here's a comment on the "Wind, Wind" piece by Irina Slav 

The issue from the very beginning of the push for large-scale wind power was whether wind would be reliable enough to provide continuous input, bearing in mind the ABC of intermittent energy.

A. Supply to the grid must continuously match demand.

B. The continuity of wind and solar input is disrupted by nights with little or no wind.

C. There is no grid-scale storage at present using pumped hydro or batteries or any other known technology.

Therefore intermittent inputs from the sun and wind have no place on the grid.

* * * 

Much more can always be said, but this (above) is the basic point for today.

Joe Miller Discusses the Power Grid: Where Are We Now and Where Are We Going?

Photo by Mohammad Mardani on Unsplash

In November I was invited to participate in a dialogue titled Shades of Purple: Nuclear Power Dialogue hosted by a group called Project Optimist. I have long believed dialogue, not dogma, is the path to understanding, whatever the issue. The organizers broke us into small groups to field questions related to energy issues in general and nuclear power in particular. 

Joe Miller was one of the people in my sub-group. Miller is director of communications with the Minnesota Rural Electric Association. He has been involved with energy and electric cooperatives for three decades. After the Project Optimist meeting I reached out to Joe that I might share some of his insights and experience with readers here.

EN: What is MREA and what is your role there?  

Joe Miller:  The Minnesota Rural Electric Association (MREA) is a nonprofit trade association serving Minnesota’s electric cooperatives. MREA provides legislative and regulatory representation, director and employee education programs, technical training for electric cooperative line workers, and serves as the focal point for cooperation among cooperatives. Minnesota’s 44 distribution cooperatives serve about 1.7 million Minnesotans in all 87 counties and operate the largest distribution network in the state with more than 135,000 miles of electric lines. 

As director of communications, I and my team help get the word out about all the great things cooperatives are doing in Minnesota.

 

EN: What is the difference between electric co-ops and the major utility companies like MN Power and Xcel Energy?

JM: Cooperatives operate as not-for-profit utilities. They are owned by those who purchase power from them. They are also governed by a board of directors made up of their consumers. All costs of operating the business are borne by those member-owners. So, cooperatives are truly concerned about the cost of operating, since those consumers end up paying all the bills. They work hard to provide the best value and service levels for their member-owners.

 

EN: When did you first take an interest in nuclear or atomic energy? How did this come about?

JM: I toured a coal plant in ND when I was about a sophomore in high school. I remember that everything about it was big. The dragline to scoop coal, the trucks to haul coal, the tires, the plant’s generator room, etc. It produced about 1,200 MW of power. Then many years later in my life the first wind turbines went up in MN, near my in-laws by Pipestone. They produced less than 1 MW each. That meant, it would take more than 1,200 of them to do what that coal plant was doing! It just showed me the enormity of the need for power and how it would take LOTS of wind and solar (and land) to meet the need with renewable energy. If we are going to truly produce power carbon-free, we will need other large sources of power. Nuclear is an option, a very valid and important option. I grew up near Monticello, so I grew up near a nuclear plant and have no fear of them, if they are operated correctly. And, today there is new technology that makes nuclear so much safer than even years ago. SMRs are an option that we should be looking at.

 

EN: Governor Walz has created a 2040 target for carbon-free energy? Realistically, can this target be achieved in MN? Why or why not?

JM: I am a very optimistic person by nature. However, meeting this bill will be a monumental task. I know rural electrics in Minnesota will be working hard to achieve the goal. However, it takes years to permit and build infrastructure in Minnesota. Sixteen years in utility time is tomorrow. What will we build to meet it? We can’t do it with all wind and solar. Batteries are still an experimental technology. Utilities are trying them, so maybe they could help in 5 to 10 years. However, batteries are NOT the same as having a natural gas or nuclear power plant. Once batteries are drained you must take power from somewhere to fill them back up. A powerplant can generate new power and be ramped up and down and turned on and off (peaking plant) as needed to meet the needs. So, I think the goal can be met, but not through only building new infrastructure because there just isn’t enough time. We will need a variety of power sources to continue providing reliable electricity to Minnesotans. One of the tools in the toolbox is the ability to use carbon credits to offset generation sources that emit carbon. These will probably play a role in meeting the goal. 

EN: Why is nuclear power so contentious?

JM: I think nuclear is contentious because of the safety aspect and the waste. We must find a way to handle the waste. If we could reuse it, we could get it down to even a smaller amount than is being produced now. But, I guess we need to change legislation in order to do that. Other countries reuse the fuel and reduce their waste even more. I think the safety record has been amazing with U.S. nuclear, and is even safer today, especially if we look to SMRs. (EdNote: Small Modular Reactors)

 

EN: Solar only works when the sun is out. How is the energy stored for night-time?

JM: See the earlier answer. With both wind and solar, there is no way around it, they are intermittent sources. AND, those sources are NOT controlled by the generation company like all our other sources. The generation company has to adapt to a continuous fluctuation in power generation. 

Look at any live output graph on co-op websites for solar output. It can dive in the middle of beautiful day, just from a few clouds passing over. (Also check out this interactive chart.)  

Intermittent sources of power are not a way to build reliability into the grid. And for every wind and solar installation, you still need to have resources to back them up as they only count for a fraction of their nameplate capacity with MISO*. For 2022-2023, the capacity factor was less than 16%, so that means a 100 MW wind farm with MISO is rated at around 16 MW.

 

EN: What is the life span of a solar panel? Do they get recycled? How are they discarded?

JM: A typical solar farm lasts 20-25 years. Then they have to be replaced. Recycling is a challenge and an issue that needs to be figured out. Also, a panels’ ability to turn sunlight into electricity degrades over time. 

EN: Thank you for your insights and for helping us better understand some of the challenges that lay ahead.

# # # #

*MISO: Midcontinent Independent System Operator. MISO spans parts of 15 states, MISO is a non-profit agency that balances the load on the large transmission lines within its region and operates the wholesale power markets.

EdNote: The ideas and thoughts expressed here are those of Joe Miller alone and should not be construed as the views of the MREA.

Putting Nuclear Power In Perspective: An Interview with David Watson

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

"Beating climate change is hard enough without taking away one of the best low-carbon tools we have. It’s time to talk about nuclear."
--David Watson

For 25 years I have been involved in the automotive aftermarket with a keen eye on the evolution of diesel engine technology and electric vehicles (EVs). Meeting ever tightening emissions standards and improving fuel economy have been the big drivers of change over the past five decades. 

As we move toward an increasingly energy dependent future and away from carbon-based energy, there seems to be no way that solar, wind and hydro-power will be sufficient to meet demands. That is why I've taken such a keen interest in what is happening with nuclear energy. 

David Watson is editor-in-chief of The Kernel, a Medium publication that self-describes as "The Generation Atomic magazine. Our latest thoughts on the role of nuclear in a clean energy future."

* * * 

EN: What is your background and how long have you been involved in the nuclear movement?

David Watson: I'm what you might call a second generation nuclear engineer in that my father also works in the industry. I don't have one of those "Road to Damascus" conversion stories so common among nuclear advocates; nuclear was always normal to me. One of my fondest childhood memories was visiting the Wylfa A nuclear plant on the isle of Anglesey in Wales. I remember being fascinated by the walk-in radiation detectors. I also remember us driving past a coal plant one day and asking why there was smoke coming out of it. I remember saying something like "if I was Prime Minister I'd replace all the fossil fuels with nuclear." After a Physics degree, I joined the industry as a safety engineer in 2011. As an advocate though, I've only really become active in the last few years. I decided to speak out more when I realized how slowly we were moving as a society on climate change.

EN: Though nuclear energy has been around for more than half a century, it seems to be experiencing a resurgence in recent years. What are some of the triggers for this new interest in nuclear?

DW: In short, because of climate change. Around the year 2000, nuclear was almost written off as a future energy source by many politicians and economists. That would have been a mistake, as even without climate change there are many benefits to using nuclear over other forms of energy. As the world realized the scale of the climate problem, nuclear has come back onto the agenda. It's gone through various phases since 2000, but I think now in 2021 there is a growing realization that we can't just rely on intermittent solar and wind, and that too much gas and imports leaves us vulnerable to price spikes and even blackouts. I know you interviewed Meredith Angwin recently, and she can talk to this topic much better than I.

EN: Three Mile Island and Chernobyl dampened a lot of enthusiasm for nuclear power. Why is it different this time?

DW: Nuclear has always been treated as "different" to other forms of energy. People remember Three Mile Island, but they don't remember that no one died or even got ill from radiation from that accident. Chernobyl was a terrible event, both the accident and the Soviet Union's behavior in the weeks that followed, but only around 50 deaths have been attributed to it. In comparison, there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of gas explosions and coal mining accidents that have killed more than 50 people. Ironically, this means that most people couldn't name a single fossil fuel accident (maybe Deepwater Horizon?). Similarly, there have been many hydro dam collapses that have killed hundreds, and some even tens of thousands (the Banqiao dam collapse in 1975 may have caused up to a quarter of a million deaths). 

Saying that, the nuclear industry does everything it can to limit the likelihood and consequences of accidents from happening. Safety is the number one priority for anyone operating in the space. A Chernobyl-like accident is physically impossible in any of the reactors proposed or under construction in the world today. Many of the "advanced" (Generation IV) reactors claim improvements in safety over today's reactors.

EN: What is The Kernel and how did you get involved?

DW: The Kernel is Generation Atomic's magazine. Generation Atomic is a global grass-roots nuclear advocacy movement. We try to grow support for nuclear, particularly among the young. I joined Gen A (as well call it) a few years ago with the express idea of relaunching their blog on Medium. We recently re-launched the magazine under the banner of "The Kernel" as we wanted to give the publication its own identity.

EN: Are there any countries that are 100% nuclear powered now? How is that working and why haven’t we heard about it? 

Where is nuclear on the adoption curve? (Click to enlarge)

DW: No country is 100% nuclear, just like no country is 100% coal or wind; there is always an energy mix. There are, however, some countries where a large proportion of electricity comes from nuclear: France at 75% is the leader. Although the US has a larger total number of reactors, the larger size of the US means this equates to 20% of US electricity. Sweden, Finland, South Korea, the UK, Belgium and Japan also have 20-50% of their electricity coming from nuclear. Although some countries in the West (Germany, Belgium) are looking to phase out nuclear, many others (e.g. UK, France, Finland, Czechia, Poland, Estonia, China, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Russia, UAE, Ghana, Nigeria) are building (or planning to build) new reactors.

EN: Thank you for taking some time to increase our understanding of nuclear power. 

Related Links

Grid Fragility and a Book by Meredith Angwin

Five Minutes with Joe Heffernan on Nuclear Energy