A recent study proposes a solution for one of the biggest problems facing large scale wind power generation, the intermittence of wind leading to a generation profile that’s difficult for utilities to manage. The authors propose wind turbines all along the Atlantic coast of the US connected via transmission to mitigate this problem.

From the abstract:

World wind power resources are abundant, but their utilization could be limited because wind fluctuates rather than providing steady power. We hypothesize that wind power output could be stabilized if wind generators were located in a meteorologically designed configuration and electrically connected. Based on 5 yr of wind data from 11 meteorological stations, distributed over a 2,500 km extent along the U.S. East Coast, power output for each hour at each site is calculated. Each individual wind power generation site exhibits the expected power ups and downs. But when we simulate a power line connecting them, called here the Atlantic Transmission Grid, the output from the entire set of generators rarely reaches either low or full power, and power changes slowly. Notably, during the 5-yr study period, the amount of power shifted up and down but never stopped. This finding is explained by examining in detail the high and low output periods, using reanalysis data to show the weather phenomena responsible for steady production and for the occasional periods of low power. We conclude with suggested institutions appropriate to create and manage the power system analyzed here.

After reading through the study, I’m convinced that it is a novel approach to variability of generation I think it could be cost effective if we could ever get the political will to execute it.

This is a better solution than the natural gas burned at some wind farms to regulate the frequency for use in grid transmission/distribution (which essentially makes wind power a greater generator of CO2 than coal/MW generated).

However, this solution is still very far from making wind a replacement to fossil/nuclear power. Primarily because of the issue of capacity factor. Capacity factor is a ratio of the number of hours in a given year that a generation station operates. Coal plants have a capacity factor of .85 – .95 and nuclear fission plants have a capacity factor of .90-.98. Graphs in the study indicate that the capacity factor varied greatly between the sites, judging from the charts in the article my rough estimate puts a transmission line running up the atlantic coast with multiple wind sites at a capacity factor of .55-.65 at absolute best. In summary, this wind transmission scheme isn’t good enough for baseload power, i.e. a plant that runs to keep the society’s lights and manufacturing on 24/7.

Also, I’m thinking that maintenance on this system would be brutal. Hurricanes would frequently bring parts of the system down and repeated exposure to salt-water would quickly wear-out the blades and moving parts. Nanocomposite materials, like the ones we develop in my lab at UBC could help with this but are nowhere near this scale. My guess is that a system like this would be no more “sustainable” than fossil fuel is sustainable (as in not at all) because of the tremendous amount of raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in maintenance, production and transport of new parts.

Yes, this research solves the problem of idled transmission systems and load balancing that cause utilities to scoff at wind energy.

No, its not a replacement for baseload power produced from fossil fuels in centralized electricity generation.

All the more reason to go decentralized.

Thanks to @jruckman for pointing this one out to me under the headline “Wind Can Replace Fossil Fuel Power Plants“.

If you ever come across an energy claim in a news article and want me to evaluate it, send it my way and you’ll get something like the above back from me… as Mr. Ruckman has now learned.