Bush economy strikes California

July 1, 2008

By Ken Ward Jr.
Staff writer

West Virginia has a second wind-energy project up and running.

NedPower Mount Storm LLC's turbines are generating electricity along the Allegheny Front in Grant County.

Developers of the 264-megawatt project confirmed the project's status in response to reports from local residents that turbines appeared to be operating.

Karl R. Neddenien, a spokesman for Dominion Resources Inc., said that some of the turbines have been producing power since the first of the year.

PJM Interconnection, which manages the regional electrical grid, lists the NedPower project as "in service" as of the third quarter of 2007.

Last month, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy announced that it would oppose all large, utility-scale wind energy projects in the state unless "it is demonstrated that the power to be produced by the project would replace power which otherwise would be generated through the burning of coal."

Aaron wrote:From the article.

Last month, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy announced that it would oppose all large, utility-scale wind energy projects in the state unless "it is demonstrated that the power to be produced by the project would replace power which otherwise would be generated through the burning of coal."

Even if it doesn't offset power produced from coal, why would you oppose wind Frank?

Aaron wrote:Don't make assumptions about me and I won't make them about you, comprenda !!!

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:From the article.

Last month, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy announced that it would oppose all large, utility-scale wind energy projects in the state unless "it is demonstrated that the power to be produced by the project would replace power which otherwise would be generated through the burning of coal."

Even if it doesn't offset power produced from coal, why would you oppose wind Frank?

What ever happened to:

Aaron wrote:Don't make assumptions about me and I won't make them about you, comprenda !!!

LMPA Member News
Issue 5 Laurel Mountain Preservation Association April 2008 P.O. Box 217, Montrose, WV 26283
LaurelMountainPreservationAssociation.org
How a Coal-Fired Electric Plant Deals with Electricity from Industrial-Scale Wind Turbines

Most of us take for granted the electricity in our homes. We turn on the light switch and the light comes on. However, an electric power plant must control numerous activities in order for this to happen. First, we must remember from our basic physics class that we have alternating current (AC current) in our homes. This means that rather than the current of electrons going in just one direction, the electrons move first in one direction, then the other. So the wires supplying the current alternately change back and forth between positive and negative. In the U.S., this alternating current changes from positive to negative and back to positive 60 times each second. The frequency is therefore 60 cycles per second or 60 hertz (hertz means cycles/second). This information is available in basic high school physics textbooks (such as “Basic Physics: A Self-Teaching Guide, Second Edition, by Karl F. Kuhn, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ISBN 0-471-13447-3).

So, an electric power plant must provide electricity to our homes at 60 hertz. For example, the Mt. Storm coal-fired plant has three units, two of which have a generating capacity of 563 megawatts and one with a generating capacity of 567 megawatts (http://www.dom.com/about/stations/fossil/mtstorm_print.jsp). These units weigh approximately 160 tons each and cannot simply be turned on and off. They must operate at 3600 rpm in order to produce the 60 hertz of electricity required for use in our homes. They operate by steam which is produced by a boiler, fired by pulverized coal which is introduced by forced air into the boiler. If there is incomplete combustion of this pulverized coal, such as when the flame stability drops below 50 percent, this creates a potentially explosive, very dangerous condition. This is similar to the dust in corn silos which is extremely dangerous if it catches fire. Read a description of how these units operate and an explanation of flame stability at http://www.fwc.com/publications/tech_papers/files/AnthraciteFiring_LargestSteamGenerators.pdf.

What happens, then, if the steam is backed down in order for electricity from industrial-scale wind turbines to be integrated into the turbines at the electric plant? The steam must go somewhere other than into the turbine because the turbine must maintain 3600 rpm to produce 60 hertz. The steam can simply go into the atmosphere or be diverted to another unit, if one is available. Whenever you drive by an electric plant, you may notice there is a lot of steam being directed into the atmosphere. This is the result of coal continuously burning for the boiler. By simple logic, then, if the electricity from industrial-scale wind turbines is used, but the coal must continue to burn, there is no decrease in the use of coal and there is no decrease in carbon dioxide emissions.

If there is enough electricity from the industrial-scale wind turbines introduced for a particular period of time, the coal-fired boilers can reduce the amount of pulverized coal introduced to the boiler for a short period of time, but no less than the amount required for the 50 percent flame stability. However, when the wind-derived electricity is no longer available, because the wind is so variable, the boilers must be heated up again to the proper temperature for steam to go into the electric plant’s turbine. This requires an additional amount of pulverized coal to be used, similar to the additional amount of gasoline to be used when you accelerate your car. Bent Sørensen, in his book, “Renewable Energy: Its Physics, Engineering, Environmental impacts, Economics, and Planning” (Third Edition, 2004, Elsevier Academic Press, ISBN-13: 978-0-12-656153-1) refers to the number of “calls” or “start-ups” required for the base unit (for example, one of the 563 megawatt units at Mt. Storm). Because of this requirement to increase the boiler temperature at numerous times to accommodate the use of wind-derived electricity, there is a “break-even” situation such that there is no effective saving of fuel (coal) or, therefore, of carbon dioxide emissions.

Add to this “break-even” situation the requirement of parasitic loads for industrial-scale wind turbines to be able to operate at all and the requirement for a spinning reserve, then there is even more coal used than if there were no industrial-scale wind turbine electricity at all. Industrial-scale wind turbines require electricity from the grid in order to operate their “parasitic loads”, which includes keeping the blades turning when the wind velocity is too low, electricity for the electric pitch system, yaw motors, oil heaters, oil pumps for bearings and gearbox, cooling fan for the generator, and turbine controller (http://www.psc.utah.gov/elec/06docs/0603542/6-21-07%20petition.pdf; and “Rebuttal Testimony of David K. Friend”, p. 15, PSC Case No. 05-1740-E-CS Liberty Gap Wind Force, LLC).

Wind plants simply cannot operate without the use of coal-fired plants. All generating facilities are required to have a spinning reserve of electricity that is available at any moment if a power plant ceases operation or a transmission line goes down (http://www.pjm.com/contributions/news-releases/2006/20060501-dr-in-ancillary-services-markets.pdf). Wind plants are not capable of producing a spinning reserve and the operators of wind plants must therefore purchase the spinning reserve from a reliable source, such as a coal-fired generating plant. This extra spinning reserve required for the wind plant therefore constitutes a requirement for the use of coal as a reliable energy source in West Virginia, with the result that coal must be burned and carbon dioxide will be emitted.

Aaron wrote:OK, you've said you don't support this paper. So what do you support Frank?

And why don't you trust the source.

Aaron wrote:I know a gentlemen that worked for DEP for a bit after spending 35 years at Amos (I think-I know it was a power plant). I'm interested in what he has to say about all of this.

ziggy wrote:

How so Frank? Because that's not what I've read. I get that it is caused by the equipment installed to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions.

And the cause of nitrogen oxide emmissions is the burning of coal. It is not enough to substitute one problem with still another new problem- nor to blame the new problem on the "cure" for the old problem.

Both nitrogen oxide emmissions and blue haze are caused by the same action- the burning of coal.

Ozone

Ozone gas, or O3, is an oxygen molecule which contains three oxygen atoms instead of the usual two, making it very unstable. The molecule forms in a blue haze and has a distinctive odor which smells somewhat like hay. Because of the molecule’s unstable nature, it fortunately possesses a half-life of 6 to 8 hours, meaning its concentration halves in that period.

Common Sources

Most people recognize ozone from its presence in the ozonosphere, or ozone layer, where it functions to protect the Earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. Ozone is a naturally occurring gas, and exists only in small quantities outside of the ozonosphere. Ozone is most commonly formed during electrical storms, where an electrical spark will cause the creation of a three-atom molecule. This ozone actually poses no human threat, as the gas’s existence is only dangerous if the concentration gathers at ground level. Ozone on a ground level occurs when sunlight reacts with volatile organic compounds, which exist in sources such as hydrocarbon vehicle emissions. Electrical sparks which create ozone may occur inside the home in any equipment which uses high voltage or ultraviolet light. These items include electric motors, high power office equipment (photocopiers or laser printers), or electronic air filters which have been improperly installed.

Ozone control is complex because, though both indoor and outdoor processes can create the gas, studies have shown that the outdoor level is responsible for the inside level. A low indoor level of ozone reflects a low outdoor level, and a high indoor level reflects a high outdoor level. However, indoor concentrations should still be monitored since they can affect home occupants adversely, and the gas can have more serious effects if a buildup occurs.

Health Effects

Even at relatively low concentrations, ozone can trigger several symptom, including irritation of the eyes, respiratory tract, nose, throat, and trachea. Signs of irritation include heavy coughing and tightness in the chest area. If the gas reaches a higher concentration, it may hamper lung function seriously. If exposure is long-term, an increase in bacterial infections may occur, as well as possible thickening of lung tissue or changes in the central nervous system. Those most at-risk are persons who work or exercise outdoors where a high concentration of ozone is present, such as large cities with a high smog content.

http://www.propex.com/C_f_env_ozon.htm

ziggy wrote:

Aaron wrote:I know a gentlemen that worked for DEP for a bit after spending 35 years at Amos (I think-I know it was a power plant). I'm interested in what he has to say about all of this.

If you would, please let me know what he says about it. My suspicion, based on my limited understandings of steam generators, is that the PSC's Mr. Perdue's assessment of it is closer to reality than is LMPA's.