CHINESE WIND: New research indicates China could someday get all of its power from the wind, but Chinese wind farms, like Huitengxile pictured here in Inner Mongolia, have experienced a host of challenges.
Image: COURTESY OF THE CHINESE WIND ENERGY ASSOCIATION
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
After just four years of rapid development, China has the world's fourth largest wind power capacity: more than 12 gigawatts. However, the power of the breeze has become available so fast that the nation is struggling to make use of it.
For instance, the Jiuquan wind power base in Gansu Province—better known as "Three Gorges on Land"—is expected to supply 10 gigawatts of electricity when it reaches peak capacity in 2020. The wind farm, under construction in the Gansu Corridor—a narrow natural passage cutting through the Gobi Desert, Qilian Mountains and the Alashan Plateau—is just one of seven such giant complexes approved by the Chinese government.
In conjunction with other wind farms in China, Jiuquan might be able to meet the country's entire electricity demand by 2030, according to a September 11 study in Science. In fact, a $900-billion network of wind power plants built over the next 20 years and covering 500,000 square kilometers could provide nearly 25 petawatt-hours of electricity, seven times greater than the nation's current consumption, the researchers estimate.
China seems determined to arrive at that future, installing 6.25 gigawatts of turbines in 2008 alone and aiming for 100 gigawatts by 2020. "The wind has just taken off here," says Li Junfeng, deputy director of the Energy Research Institute under the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), the government ministry charged with economic development. But "new wind projects only accounted for 7 percent of the entire new power-producing capacity added in China last year, compared to 42 percent in the U.S. and 43 percent in Europe." And wind power currently accounts for just 0.4 percent of China's generating capacity as a whole.
The larger, looming challenges currently facing China's wind farms include serious problems in connecting grids with larger networks, low-quality turbines, and wind farms that have been poorly sited. And another consequence of all these factors is that the current boom has yet to bring a profit to many wind farms.
Profit problems
Chinese wind power generation capacity, it is estimated, could reach 20 gigawatts by the end of 2009, according to the Chinese Wind Energy Association (CWEA), up from 12.15 gigawatts at the end of 2008. By comparison, globally, there were 120.6 gigawatts of operating wind power capacity at the end of 2008; Europe accounted for 66 gigawatts and the U.S. accounted for 25 gigawatts of the total, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC) in Brussels.
Chinese wind farms, however, "in general have difficulties in operation or even lose money," according to a government State Electricity Regulatory Commission report, which came out in July. For starters, so far, there is less wind power actually being generated than previously estimated by CWEA. The report notes that China's wind power generation capacity in 2008 should actually have been calculated as 8.94 instead of 12.15 gigawatts because some turbines were installed but not used, thanks to government mandates that set as a target the quantity of turbines rather than the amount of electricity they can generate.
In any case, China's wind farms currently struggle to connect with grids, creating power delivery problems. For instance, many of the farms are located in less developed northern and western provinces, such as Gansu, where patchy grids cannot manage the fluctuations in electricity production inherent in wind power.
See what we're tweeting about
14 Comments
Add CommentAlthough there are many problems in China, such as the low quality of turbines, it is still a great process that China realizes the importance of wind energy and support its development.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoreover, from the political and national security perspective, it is not a good idea for China to cooperate with US, since generally US is just willing to provide equipments, not technology. Consider wind energy becomes a very large portion of the whole energy in China and China does not have the core technology, it would be very dangerous.
I'm not surprised the Chinese have load balancing problems. It is insolvable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis author like most wind advocates quotes peak giga or mega watts of wind power forgetting that winds load factor is 20 to 30%. Engineers hate adding them to the grid because of the need to accommodate maximum power surges for 20% usable power.
The rapid ups and downs of wind power need balancing by old generation fast spooling low efficiency gas plant. Replacing the older type gas plants with modern high efficiency slow spooling versions, actually produces less green house gases at a lower cost for the same amount of power than if the wind mill was never built.
www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=f7ef4e6d-29f0-4a5e-95c3-084ff5eac8c0&k=3367
www.wind-watch.org/documents/wp-content/uploads/lang-wind-power-co2-emissions.pdf
Wind Power is only suitable for pump air and hydro storage or fuel production, but that is so much more expensive than 24/7 always on nuclear. Wind is a dead end technology.
Westinghouse is building 4 nukes for the Chinese at $1200 a kilowatt for 24/7 always on power. Wind can't touch that cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina is going to have a lot more problems if it doesn't start buying US equipment as the value of their US currency reserves and access to US markets for their good could be slowed as it should. Their artificially low currency peg to the $ is another problem neither the US or other countries can no longer afford.
The real question for them is whether they can build RE fast enough before their whole country is poisoned from coal, industrial, other wastes beyond repair.
Facts are most Chinese stuff is junk unless some buyer stands over them forcing them to do it correctly.
I disagree with your nuclear power idea.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, you're right in theoretically that nuclear power is indeed better than wind power.But as far as I am concerned,
wind power is suitable for such a developing country,not nuclear power only mass-used.
Nuclear power industry is huge that needs not only the rector but also the equipment to solve the nuclear waste problem which needs billions of dollars,if want to eliminate its hazard thoroughly.Do you know what is the most popular way to do that?Just to bury the waste parceling in the lead box.So be careful next time when you want to build a house(just a joke:).Besides this,nuclear power has more difficulties to solve.From this perspective,using nuclear power can't be popular in China.
For wind power, obviously it doesn't need much technology while needs less money in total and it doesn't have waste at all.
Anyway,wind power's efficiency is low as you just said but in China it can be accepted.
So if you were the president of China,how could you choice?
"thanks in part to central and local government mandates that require an ever-growing percentage of equipment at a wind farm in China be made domestically. For example, the NDRC stipulates in a 2005 regulation that wind farms cannot be built when the percentage is lower than 70."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, it is acceptable for China to MANDATE the percentage of domestic content in their wind farms? I don't think so ! This is outright protectionism and is not good for China, Europe or the U.S..
For more information see:
http://ictsd.net/i/news/biores/48714/
in my opinion ,chinese government must have caught this potential resources.But while putting it into practice ,the government will found many problems as in this aticle.Anyway the use of wind energy will be have bright future!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswhy can't wind power surges be shuttled to water pumps? reservoir storage with water turbines to produce power when the wind isn't blowing or blows too hard for too long. i don't know expensive reservoirs are to build, but that is another energy storage device and the water could also serve aqueducts if plentiful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPump storage is more expensive than just hydro really expensive. BCHydro's Site C dam proposal gives 900 mw for a $ 6.5 billion dam . Mass produced nukes are one sixth the cost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe nuclear waste problem is solved with the consignment of waste to fuel for liquid metal fast reactors, like the one Sandia Labs has just designed and just needs political support to launch. To put the waste problem in perspective, we could just take all of it to the nearest coal plant and meter it slowly into the smoke stack. The nuclear waste would increase the coal plants already radioactive emissions by only a tiny percentage and wouldn't add any more lead, arsenic or mercury to the air. Or we could store the nuke waste under a half acre or so of the thousands of square miles of desert ,solar types were planning destroying forever by covering them with toxic solar cells.
I doubt the Chiness give a rats ass about nuclear waste. They can mix it with dish sets and sell it to Walmart.
Sethdayal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would be cautious in generalizing the cost of pumped storage because it can vary significantly dependent upon the terrain. My old firm (I'm retired)completed an 850 MW pumped storage in Georgia in 1995 for a cost of $1.1 billion. This translates to $1294/kw, which is a pretty good price for a renewable, zero emission energy storage facility in the U.S.
I don't have other U.S. prices at my fingertips, but I do have an issue of HRW magazine, Dec 2008 which shows a range of prices in Asia, Africa, and Europe. Just to summarize a few:
Japan - Kannagawa Project by Tokyo Electric - $1737/KW for a 2,820 MW pumped storage project
Portugal - Alqueva 2 Project - $879/KW for a 240 MW pumped storage project
South Africa - Lima Project - $693/KW for a 1470 MW pumped storage project
These are projects presently under construction, so the prices should be relevant; and I think these are excellent rates for a renewable, zero emission energy storage facility.
Excellent info on short term (less than a day) pumped storage. $1500 a kw seems to be the consensus on current costs. Now we just need to add another $1300 a kw for the wind units and the 20% capacity factor for a total cost of $14000 a kw. This is a fair bit more than the $1200 for the always on Westinghouse nuclear plants sold to the Chinese.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong term seasonal storage costs would be more like those I mentioned for BCHydro's Site C.
Other pumped hydro problems include the 25% round trip energy loss and the incredible difficulty in getting approval for flooding areas of land in western countries.
Sethdayal
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI forgot to mention in the first post that I agree with your analysis of the costs. Solar and wind renewable energy costs will always be higher than conventional (fossil fueled or nuclear) energy sources because of their low capacity factors, and therefore their requirement for energy storage facilities or long transmission lines.
The most effective "renewable" energy source is straight hydro. It has an efficiency of 85 to 90% (potential energy of the stored water to electricity), a capacity factor above 85%, and currently furnishes 6% (98,000 MW) of the U.S. grid (Reference IEEE Power & Energy magazine, Nov/Dec 2008). Latest estimates are that there is over 50,000 MW of straight hydro that can be developed in the U.S.. This consists of 30,000 MW from existing dams used for irrigation, municipal water supplies, flood control, etc.; which do not require new dams to be built, and are therefore relatively inexpensive to install; and 20 to 30,000 MW from new hydro sites. I am in favor of developing all these sites before we add massive amounts of wind and solar sites.
However, my main reason for responding, now that I have someone familiar with nuclear, is to ask you the following:
1. What is the average capacity factor of the 104 nuclear plants in the U.S.; and will this capacity factor improve with the new generation of nuclear plants?
2. What is the efficiency of the existing nuclear plants (steam boiler to electricity); and will that increase with the new generation of plants?
I find this information hard to come by. Thank you very much, in advance, for whatever info you can give me.
Hydro builds are extremely expensive these days far higher than mass produced nuclear. Google BCHydro Site C to get an idea. It doesn't get any better than Site C. $7000 a kw with a capacity factor of 60%.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRun of the river projects are around the same price but a much lower capacity factor. 60% of water flow is spring time.
If you Google nuclear capacity factor you will find last years at around 92%. The predicted capacity factor for the AP1000 is 93%. Generation 3.5 nuclear thermal to electric efficiency is in the mid 30% because the steam is a fairly low temperature.
Generation 4 Fast metal reactors like the liquid flouride thorium reactor will approach 100% because they almost never have to be refueled. Their efficiencies can approach the 50% of gas gen plant because they can use high temperature helium gas into gas turbines.
I recently watched a video on how the US government is shipping, illegally, old computer monitors, cell phones and whatever else us over-consumers depose of overseas. Most of which is ending up in Hong Kong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey are breaking them down for the valuable microchips and whatever else they can get but without the proper tools or protection. Monitors especially are filled with dangerous properties such as mercury and causing an alarming rate of pollution as they burn these materials, putting themselves in serious health risks and damaging our environment. Recycle properly!
Some years ago I read an article comparing the amount of energy produced in its lifetime by a fossil fuel plant - or nuclear - compared with the amount of energy required to start them up. In the case of fossils, it really amounted to concrete, steels, fabrication and mining/drilling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the case of nuclear we have all of the above ( with more exotic metals) plus the enormous energy input for isotope separation. I am not sure if disposal of products was included, but nuclear won. Still, over the lifetime of the plant, the returns in either case were distressingly small - between factors of 5 and 20 as I remember.
The refining of silicon must be pricey. Wind technology investment seems to be small.
How does this sort of energy investment/return enter into the overall equation?