Daily Kos

Kicking the CO2 habit:Wedding Great Lakes Wind to Water

Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 02:07:34 PM PDT

A 1991 report by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) estimated potential US windpower generation at 10,777 million mWh, at that time nearly three times the electricity generated in the United States. A great deal has changed since that time, with improved technology lowering the kWh cost of electrcity generated from windpower, while the introduction of high resolution wind power density maps and growing cognizance of the need to exclude certain land types (urban areas, forested areas, environmentally sensitive lands) has limited the area available for development. Overall, the trend is towards lower costs (both economically and environmentally) and greatly expanded capacity.

I ran into windpower density maps for the first when doing research for an earlier diary in this series, about the potential for microwindpower generation in urban areas. Generally speaking, wind power densities rated Class 4 on the NREL wind power density scale or above are suitable for utility scale development, however adva   This 1987 map Wind Energy Resource Atlas shows that significant areas of Class 4 and Class 5 winds exist in the Great Lakes region.

Windpower Potential in the Great Lakes Region

High resolution wind power density maps of Michigan released in 2004 show that while inland areas of the state are not well suited for windpower development, coastal regions in western Michigan and Bay City are  well suited for utility scale windpower development. A 2004 NREL assessment that exluded offshore potential and included Class 3 areas sutiable for development with modern turbines estimated that Michigan has the potential for 17,513 MW of installed capacity from wind. To put this into perspective the average American household uses 10,656 kWh annually.  Meaning that the Michigan could potentially supply between a quarter and and half of its household energy needs from onshore wind power alone. Including offshore capacity, that percentage could grow significantly, and Lake Michigan isn't the only one of the Great Lakes with significant windpower power potential.

Michigan Wind Power Density at 50 Meters

Ohio Wind Power Density at 50 Meters

New York Wind Power Density at 50 Meters

Limitations

The principal limitation facing large scale windpower development in the best regions of the west coast of Michigan is that much of the lake is far deeper than the 20 meters needed for current offshore technology. As these graphics from the  2004 NREL assessment mentioned above show, there is a relatively limited area where the lake floor is less than 20 meters deep that is suitable for development.

 

Although Lake Michigan has the best wind power resources in the region, Lake Erie with an average depth of only 19 meters might be more suitable for development due to a wider distribution of sites exploitable with current technology.  Cities like Detroit, Toledo, and Cleveland could have offshore turbines producing a significant portions of their electric power supply, and that very potential leads to another problem, offshore winds in the region tends to be seasonal.

As graphic above shows, wind speeds in the region drop in the region during the summer, precisely the time when peaking power is most needed.

Using the performace of GE Wind System's 3.6MW turbine as an example, we can see that while Big Sable Point can be expected to generate around 2 MW during the winter months, during the heavy load months in summer that capacity drops to only around 0.8 MW, meaning that at precisely the time that everyone goes to the lake shore and cranks up the AC, output from offshore turbines plummets.  

Without a reliable way to store excess electricty produced during the winter months, the profitablity and reliability of offshore turbines is undermined.  And the fabled hydrogen economy is a beautiful vision, but is just a vision at this point.  There is however a tried and true techonology technology for storing excess electicity during off peak hours.

Wedding water and wind

Pumped-storage hydroelectric utlilizes power during off peak hours to pump water from low lying areas to higher elevation reservoirs, and then releases that water during peak periods to generate elecricity.

This concept has been proven in Western Michigan at the Ludington Pumped Storage Plant.

One of the world's biggest electric "batteries", Ludington can provide energy at a moment's notice. Its ability lies in its 27-billion gallon reservoir and a set of six turbines that drive electric generators.  Those same turbines double as giant water pumps to fill the reservoir with water from Lake Michigan.

At night, when electric demand is low, Ludington's reversible turbines pump water 363 feet uphill from Lake Michigan. The water is pumped through six large pipes, or "penstocks", to the 842-acre reservoir. During the day, when electric demand is high, the reservoir releases water to flow downhill through the penstocks. The flowing water turns turbines and generators in the powerhouse to make electricity.  

The plant can generate up to 1,872 megawatts -- enough electricity to serve a community of 1.4 million residential customers. The output is more than double the capacity of any single unit on Consumers Energy's system.

Ludington's relatively simple technology enables the plant to respond quickly to the daily, weekly and seasonal highs and lows of Michigan's energy demand. The plant also saves customers money by enabling Consumers Energy to avoid the expensive spot market when customer demand exceeds the capacity of the company's baseload plants.  The immense size of Ludington and its six-unit design offers flexibility in balancing customer demand with electric output on a moment's notice.

Much of the craziness surrounding Enron resulted from the boom in peaking power plants in the 1990's that were designed to operate only during periods in which base load plants were unable to satisfy demand.  The prices charged  on this spot market were obscene, and only possible because Enron et al used laws passed in the 1970s to promote clean energy to build natural gas fired peaking plants that were not regulated as heavily as base load plants and could charge prices much higher than allowed in the retainil market.

The power of Great Lakes wind isn't that it's going to replace all the coal fired plants in the region, it's that it can end all the talking about the need to repeal the Clean Air Act, and build new coal fired base load plants. By wedding the windpower potential of the Great Lakes region to existing and potential hydropower facitities in the region, we can create a peaking power reserve that doesn't exacerbate our growing dependence on imported natural gas, or resort to dirty fuel sources like coal.  In order to make this happen, there has to be coordinated action on the part of state and federal authorities and ideally Canadian authorities as well to develop the resources in the region.  In most cases, the lake floor where these wind turbines would be located is owned by state governments, and their agreement is needed to move ahead with any project in the region.

To this end, I believe that a corporation in which state and provincial goverments have a controlling share, should develop the region's wind power potential.  I suspect that Canada has far more pumped storage potential than can be found in the US since 70% of Canada's electricity comes from Hydro power, and as well in Canada, these hydro facilities are goverment owned, meaning that by including Canadian provinces there's no need to involve private utlities that focus on short term profit opportunities in the equation. Not only could governments in the region promote green power, they could also reinvest profits into education and infrastructure investments to jumpstart the region's economy.

Poll

Should the Great Lakes states/province form a wind/hydro corporation?

95%39 votes
4%2 votes

| 41 votes | Vote | Results

Tags: Wind power, Michigan, Great Lakes, Canada, Pumped storage hydro (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 19 comments

  •  For the dial up crowd (none / 0)

    Sorry about the large graphics, they weren't readable when scaled down.
    •  The more I think about this (none / 1)

      the more I realize how much this would piss off the Bush Administration.

      Wind power, Canadians, government run corporation !#$%?

      I'd like to see the look on Dick Cheney's face if this became an issue.  And it's tailor made for Ohio, where the Republicans are choking, and this would be but one more way to counter them when they say Democrats don't have ideas.

      •  Government run in Canada (none / 0)

        at least for the moment. Note that Alberta has gone the private route already (see ATCO), and Ontario attempted to privatize its energy utility in 2001. the Supreme Court of Ontario ruled that the provincial government lacked the authority to proceed with this offering in 2002.

        But Alberta is already partially privatized.

        Fortunately, in terms of the Great Lakes, Ontario is the only Canadian jurisdiction.

        The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

        by FrankFrink on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 02:47:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Canada is key (none / 0)

          I think that Canadian participation is key to making this work, and I think it has tremendous symbolic value.  Perry's Victory and International Peace Memroial in Put in Bay, Ohio commerates the enduring peace between Canada and the US since the war of 1812, the battle of Put in Bay was a major naval battle of Lake Erie.  The area is prime real estate for development, and again has tremendous sympbolic value.
          •  Although, sigh, (none / 0)

            I worry about the future 'undefendedness' of our historic world's longest undefended border.

            And I mean very near-near-future.

            a) Impending US passport requirements at border crossings
            b) calls to erect fencing along large areas of the border
            c) US challenges to Canada's sovereignty over it's Arctic waters - which the US doesn't recognize in the first place. And just wait until oil reserves are found throughout the soon-to-be navigable NW Passage. When, not if.

            The Grasshopper Lies Heavy

            by FrankFrink on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 03:48:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  You've got a typo (none / 0)

    You wrote:

    "...the average American household uses 10.66 Kwh annually."

    Should be 10,656 kWh.  The W is always capitalized, I am assuming to honor James Watt.

    Thanks for the post!

    •  ... and Wikipedia provides some more detail (none / 0)

      Watt:

      > This SI unit is named after James Watt. As for all SI units whose name is derived from the proper name of a person its symbol is uppercase in the first letter (W). When a SI unit name is spelled out, instead, it shall always be written in lowercase (watt), unless it begins a sentence or is the name "degree Celsius".
      -- Reference: The International System of Units brochure, section 5.

      Found here

    •  Thanks (none / 0)

      I was trying to reduce it to a simpler number for calculations.  Math......
  •  Excellent post! (none / 0)

    Purdy maps and graphs, too.

    This citizen of Ontario is right behind cooperative thinking like this. Many are looking seriously at the north shore of Superior for wind-water initiatives these days.

    the blue sea seethes with reason

    by howth of murph on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 02:35:24 PM PDT

  •  Has this been brought up to Jerome a Paris? (4.00 / 2)

    He was looking to put together some funding for for-profit renewable energy ventures, a few months ago.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 02:39:06 PM PDT

  •  Great Diary (none / 1)

    I've bookmarked it for further study. I hope that the problem of fickle winds in the summer can be addressed sometime in the future as it seems to be a real problem (as any Great Lakes sailor can tell you). The possibility of better winds on Lake Superior and Lake Huron is also of great potential. Lake Superior in particular has much more constant winds in the summer. Water depth might be a problem there, though.

    Another thing about the pumped storage facility is that it chews up fish stocks like you wouldn't believe.  Before 9-11 blocked off a lot of access, it was one of the hottest salmon fishing areas around because of the abundant chum.  Some of that has been addressed by screens and such, but that also blocks off good water circulation and inhibits the power production of the plant.  Great diary though. I learned a lot!

    A learning experience is one of those things that says, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' Douglas Adams

    by dougymi on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 02:45:22 PM PDT

  •  Expansion of pumped hydro? (none / 0)

    I would assume trying to identify future sites for pumped hydro would also be important.  From what I understand (and I've only been in Luddington area twice, and not in 15+ years), that project was facilitated by the existing large dunes that line the coast.  That meant there was an existing bowl from within to construct the project.  I'm not sure where else projects like this are feasible.

    The other question I have is how long that basin can run at the full 1800 mW potential?  From my back of the envelope calculations (110.6 m drop, 27 billion gallon reservoir), they can empty it in 17 hours.  If someone would check my math, I'd appreciate it though.  That would mean that there isn't enough storage for winter/summer energy transfer, if you want to run the plant to replace coal baseline power during the summer peak.

    However, if the pumped storage facility is run at 180 mW (the size of the 3 gas turbines at the nearest peaking plant), there is enough storage potential for 170 hours. If this was used only during the 6 peak hours a day, it would get you almost a month of peak power.  That could get you through the worst of the wind minimum during the summer.  Then the increasing winds would kick back in and be more efficient at restocking the reservoir at night.

    Thanks for writing this diary.  I had been noodling about writing one on this topic since I read the NREL pdf on Michigan, but I never got around to it.  I hope it gets more people thinking about this topic.  The need to cross water and wind resources is critical for future load balancing.  Without this balancing it will be harder to push wind past a niche form of electricity production.

  •  Crossposted comment from ET (none / 0)

    Thanks for the information-rich post. A couple of additional points:

    • yes, hydro-pumps are the ideal companion to wind power. You just need the right location which can provide for both. If you do have it, like in your case, it should be a no-brainer

    • just so you know, GE has basically given up on the 3.6 MW model. They've had too many problems with it and have stopped promoting it to clients, and are starting from scratch on a new (larger) model

    • the reason peak prices are so "obscenely high" is that the power plant needs to make its revenue over a short period of time. Absolute amounts paid are not that big, because volumes are pretty small. Of course, 3000 $/MWh prices instead of the usual 30-50$/MWh may sound insane, but that's what it takes to clear the market, and it works. No, the real money is made when the marginal baseload plant is an expensive one and everybody starts making out like thieves for normal, regular production over long periods - and that's what's happening when all margina lproducers are gas-fired and gas gets scarce...
    •  GE (none / 0)

      yes, hydro-pumps are the ideal companion to wind power. You just need the right location which can provide for both. If you do have it, like in your case, it should be a no-brainer

      I think that this is only workable if Ontario and Quebec are on board.  Since the North American grid is unified, it can happen.

      just so you know, GE has basically given up on the 3.6 MW model. They've had too many problems with it and have stopped promoting it to clients, and are starting from scratch on a new (larger) model

      I choose the GE model because I thought it was off the shelf.  The Vestas 4.5 MW model they say will be out in 2009, might be even better.  The winds at 100 meters are even better than the winds at 50 Meters. The wind density maps on Astruewind are fantastic.

  •  Some more Info (none / 0)

    Here is a study I did on the wind potential of the Great Lakes. For the 0 to 20 meter depths using 2004 technology, the average capacity of the Great lakes from wind power is 150 GW ( = 1,314,900 GW-hr/yr = 1,314,900,000 MW-hr/yr). It is about enough electricity to supply 27% of all the electricity currently used in the US and Canada.

    If you go to a dpeth limit of 40 meters, the wind power capacity goes to ~250 GW, which is 45 % of the amount of electricity used in both the US and Canada (averages about 550 GW).

    The link can be found at http://www.greengold.org/... --> "A Great Potential"

    Dave Bradley
    ta73@bluemoon.net

Permalink | 19 comments