I was in a conversation today at lunch with a fellow who told me that “wind power is better than anything we’ve ever done for generating electricity”. That made me wonder, how reliable (beyond the constancy of wind issues) is it?
Whenever I drive through Techachapi or Altamont passes here in California I note that there always seems to be a fair number of these three blade windmills that are out of commission. Perhaps failure is more common than one would expect. I found a couple of examples:
And this one also, though I don’t know what the ending for it was like the one above…
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Karl Heuer:
That makes zero sense. As the Forbes chart and paminator both show, the resulting cost of nuclear produced electricity would be very low. What does the opportunity cost matter, as long as there is a reasonable profit, and the electricity is produced at a relatively low price?
That was already refuted upthread. Why do you keep digging that hole deeper? And so what if it takes time for a thorium reactor to come on line? So what? Are you making that argument because a thorium-based power plant would negate your preposterous claim that the world is running out of uranium?
As if the U.S. isn’t already dependent on foreign oil. Had Congress [a wholly-owned subsidiary of the enviro lobby] not stopped nuclear power, we would be much less dependent on foreign oil. And don’t worry, the uranium is there. It’s even in our Southwest [remember Geiger counters?] The market will produce it when it’s needed.
That’s just silly Marxist claptrap. The same thing could be said about many large projects, like the Hoover dam. And please, get your definitions right. It’s not an “oligarch.” What you’re referring to is an oligopoly, which in economic terms defines the most competitive kind of business there is, bar none. And competition benefits the consumer. Think about Ford competing with Honda, or BMW with Daimler. They’re part of an oligopoly, and they compete intensely.
I don’t think you’re really a Malthusian Luddite, Karl, even though those are the kinds of arguments you’re making. You’re smarter than that.
Windmills in sweden only produce 30% of there capacity.
link: http://www.vindstat.nu
Test the left links and you get some data.
40-45 % energy is by nueclur and 45 % by water power and the rest by different powerplants and denmark is one of the different and that means coalplants and skyrockets swedish energyprices .
We once closed down a nuclear power plant near by denmark and now we are importing power from denmark and that makes our energypriceses higher than before.
I hope the windmills vill work when we have -20c wintertime, winter 84/85 i did my second military duty and the temps was between -15c and -40c in south scandinavia .
My hair was stuck to the tent wall that winter !
Karl- “That is an actual production rate of 26.2% of rated capacity”
If you read my post from 9:03 this morning you could have saved yourself some time.
Save yourself some more time by reading some of the other excellent posts here.
The progress energy costs are $17B for the 2 reactors, the transmission line and substations. This is common knowledge if you read any authoritative articles describing the project.
As for relying on Uranium from foreign governments, how do you feel about Canada? They have huge Uranium reserves and exploration continues. As a Canadian, I am eager to have my country sell as much Uranium to the US as it needs.
Bulaman (12:24:24) :
Might work for me. If my computer lost power four times a day I’d spend less time reading WUWT and my productivity might improve.
Good thing the nearest tide is only 60 miles from here.
paminator-
It is at least 17 Billion for the project. Lets not obfuscate.
The transmission facilities total $3 Billion, that still leaves
$7 Billion a reactor or approximately $7K/kw
more than 5 times the cost to install wind — as I posted.
Texas wind is at an average of 39% production capacity for newly installed turbines (2004-2005) as I posted above.
Bottom Line:
Wind can supply more energy, faster, cheaper(total-lifecycle including waste storage/loss of land use, and decommissioning costs), and with less risk both financially and technically.
Thats why there is 9000MW of Wind capacity under construction in the US as of 6/30/2008.
There was 5244 Installed in 2007 — 100% increase
World Nuclear Generating Capacity Jan 2007 — 368,860MWe
World Nuclear Generating Capacity Jan 2007 — 372,059MWe
A 3100MW increase in capacity world-wide.
2006 Installed Wind Capacity – 74,152MW
2007 Installed Wind Capacity – 93,849MW
Increased Capacity 19,700MW @ur momisugly average production capacity ratings of new farms (35%) an installed effective capacity of 6895MW
Gee, I wonder who will win this race, I’m betting on wind.
Thats why there is 9000MW of new Wind capacity under construction or completed in the US as of 6/30/2008.
There was 5244 Installed in 2007 — 100% increase
The economics make sense — thats why people are investing in and building wind instead of nuclear around the world.
JAN 2008 – 372,059 sorry for typo
Karl Heuer
“The economics make sense — thats why people are investing in and building wind instead of nuclear around the world.”
They are building it because of production tax credits to subsidize the development, if there was no subsidy nobody would be doing it.
I say no subsidy and fix the product so it is more efficent. Installed Capacity is not a measure of performance wind generates 18% of installed capacity of average.
It takes 5 years just for the amazingly stupid environmental assessments for Nuclear, while the EPA rubber stamps wind.
Who do you work for, Karl?
Karl Heuer
“The economics make sense — thats why people are investing in and building wind…”
If I remember correctly, many states have enacted laws requiring a set percentage of electricity to come from renewable sources (non carbon sources). The economics are controlled to some degree by state mandates. The mandates are the the result of politicians reacting to CO2 caused global warming, and reacting in a manner that does not cost the politicians any money. The cost is transferred to consumers via higher prices and the politicians are blame free. Blame the evil electric company.
The lunatics are running the asylum.
In reply to Karl Heuer (12:59:13)
Karl,
Thanks for your post in response to mine, and all your posts that have made this a lively thread.
You’re absolutely right that I was thinking of peak demand rather than the time-averaged capacity factor. My point (which I see now I entirely omitted from my post) was that during peak summer demand there is still a need for reserve generating capacity from non-wind sources, so peak demand places limits on wind’s role in the grid. I do not question that wind power is a welcome addition to electrical generation capacity, and the 3% it supplies to Texas is not to be ignored. It’s just that there are some hard upper bounds on what wind can do. My wisecrack about the 8.7% figure, by the way, was inspired by a heated argument I recently had with someone who asserted 100% was a realistic target—I hope my poor attempt at humor did not give offense.
Thanks for the link to the Texas Comptroller’s report—it gives an excellent overview of wind power in Texas, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in recent experience with wind power in the USA. For those interested, here is the link again:
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/pdf/11-WindEnergy.pdf
rml
Karl-
“Lets not obfuscate.”
*Indeed*. You quote nameplate wind installation (installed?- not sure) costs from 2006 without accounting for availability, and without including transmission line costs to connect those wind resources to load centers.
Then you compare that with nuclear power costs from 2008 and include the cost of transmission lines and substations to connect that nuclear plant to load centers.
Talk about obfuscation.
By the way, the cost of that same progress energy project in 2006 was estimated at $3500/kW. Shall we use that number now?
There are always locations where wind generation will be excellent, good, fair and poor. An availability of 39% is spectacularly high. If you read the report you linked, the highest availability is in regions with the highest wind class rating. Those regions represent a miniscule portion of Texas.
Here is the Texas wind power potential capacity by wind class-
class 3- 21.1% of land, 396 GW, 20% availability
class 4- 4.4% of land, 102 GW, 26% availability
class 5- 0.75% of land, 21.6 GW, 32% availability
class 6- 0.04% of land, 1.6 GW, 40% availability
class 7- 0%
The class 6 sites are gone or inaccessible. The class 5 sites will be gone soon. The availability factor at a class 3 or class 4 site is 20% – 26%.
I still have not heard any reason why wind towers should receive any subsidies if they are so economical compared with conventional generation. It makes no sense that the presence or absence of a 1.9 cent/kWhr PTC would have such a dramatic impact on investing in such an economical source of electricity.
Oh, here’s a reason. In 2006, wind power prices ranged from 5 to 8.5 cents/kWhr without the PTC, and 3 – 6 cents/kWhr with the PTC. Sounds expensive for wholesale electricity, even with the PTC. And that’s using the highest wind class locations in Texas with 39% availability.
People are building nuclear plants all over the world. Right now.
Its become clear you have some unwarranted fear of nuclear power, and an uncritical love of wind power.
Wind is now going onto the best sites. Sites near consumers, yet with open land, and with good wind energy.
Gradually those prime sites will be used. Construction and maintenance – especially offshore – will be more expensive, wind energy captured per dollar will fall, and transmission distances will grow.
All that is analogous to power from dams; great and wonderful stuff, all we need is another two dozen Columbia Rivers.
Long distance DC transmission can help move power from distant sites to cities. We should be subsidizing that heavily. Just rebuilding grid could provide more power without any new technology or new land acquistion.
Wind advocates are willing to put the towers everywhere. That will require quite a change in public opinion.
Nuclear can be where you want it. The biggest need is abundant water for cooling. Shorter transmission distance means less loss. And fewer miles of lines to construct. That saves money two ways.
Smokey often has sensible remarks. And he has again. There is no shortage of uranium. Period. But the nuclear opponents will just keep saying we won’t have enough uranium.
And other elements such as thorium are even more abundant. There is fuel enough even without breeder reactors.
About five hundred power reactors are running now. About 100 in the US. China, Russia, and India are building them rapidly. The UK has just given the French state-owned utility permission to build nukes in the UK. They need them and their politicians finally faced that fact despite the lunacy of activists.
With all that going on, exactly how is the US better off by having not built a single nuclear power plant since 1983? That was the Palo Verde plant in Arizona. We would be a lot better off if we had 200 now instead of 100.
We have participated in numerous Public Service Board hearings for several different wind company projects in Vermont.
The wind company owner/representatives claimed no more than 28% capacity power output for their projects based on wind measurements above 2000 feet here.
Our only operational wind farm at Searsberg has shown a decline of production over the last decade. Some of that decline is associated with declining reliability.
Another dilemma in New England is that the same ridgelines that are proposed for wind projects are also critical habitat for wildlife as well as primary flyways for birds, particularly raptors.
A second consideration is that 400 foot high wind turbines in West Texas are absorbed by the open landscape. When placed on top of New England’s small ridgelines they dwarf everything.
When the ridges are integral to our $2 billion dollar tourist industry the economic tradeoffs are thornier. A local wind project was set aside by our Public Service Board because the larger public good could not be demonstrated compared to other economic considerations.
A recent New York Times article discussed the windfarm development off the mid-Atlantic bight. This large-scale development solves the sustained wind problem and sidesteps some of the location controversies. However, installation and maintenance costs are much higher than land installations.
See the Danish windpower organization site for power production calculations
http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wres/cp.htm
I don’t think that using windmills to create electricity is the highest and best use for windmills. Windmills make excellent pumps and pumping heated or chilled water from one place to another is very efficient. We use something like 60% of our energy just to heat and cool our homes and buildings. Pumping hot water to a cool place or cold water to a hot place would drastically reduce the amount of energy needed to heat and cool our buildings and homes.
Sorry Karl, your figures for most of your posts are not quite accurate.
As has already been mentioned. Solar power. Approx 1 Kw is the maximum available energy from 1 square metre of sunlight . Home based solar cells are only 10 -15% efficient (and even then when they are clean and new).
I don’t know how you came up with your figures for your home use.
Remember the first law. Energy cannot be created. Existing energy storage’s or movable energy can be only be converted from one form to another – At great loss.
The trick is to get maximum conversion for what little natural stored energy (as in fossil fuels) and moving energy (wind, tidal). Unfortunately the available energy from moving energy is too low and too erratic for modern requirements.
The energy storage mechanisms such as hydro (pumping water to a great height) and batteries require more energy to create them than is delivered.
Robert-
Thanks,
I agree 100% is ridiculous.
I really don’t know what the upper bound for production capacity will be
Offshore Facilities optimally sited based on detalied surveys of windspeed at 130m above sea level may provide capacity values of 60% or more, seeing as west Texas gets 35%-40% on land.
Karl Heuer (10:45:54) :
Did you read the article?
3 G$ for transmission lines and substations. This suggest that the 17 G$ figure includes everything, not just reactors. It probably has bond financing and interest expense, permitting costs and manpower, turbines, generators, step-up transformers, etc.
You say “required 3100 Acres.” The article doesn’t say that. I’ve visited a minehead coal-fired power plant outside of Pittsburgh PA and three nuclear reactors in New England. The scale of the minehead plant was astounding, but it needed coal storage, fly ash storage, and a cooling tower. Very much a rough industrial site.
Maine Yankee, on the other hand, was a green campus. Grass, trees, no trucks. It used the ocean for cooling, so no cooling tower. Google says 800 acres, 900 MW capacity. I suspect the NRC requires a large buffer zone, but for the most part it’s just a nature preserve.
The others were Yankee Rowe, the first in New England (167 MW, construction cost only 39 M$ in 1960), and the MIT reactor in Cambridge, used for making neutrons and interesting isotopes.
Personally I’d rather live next to a nuclear power plant than almost any other kind. For example, I definitely don’t want to live downstream of a hydro plant, at least not one with a large retention reservoir.
Les-
My figures are dead on for solar panel watts/ft^2
Evergreen solar 195W panel is 37.5″ by 61.4″ that = 16 square feet ( 1.49 meters^2) at 1000w/m^2 irradiance that is a 13% conversion efficiency
http://www.evergreensolar.com/upload/195W_Product_Datasheets/S195_US_010707.pdf
195/16 = 12.2 watts/square foot
half of that is 6 watts/square foot
which is about right for polymer PV (greater than 6% conversion efficiency)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/222
6 watts * 2500 square feet incident surface = 15KW power
@ur momisugly 6 hours effective sun = 90 KWh
@ur momisugly 30 days/yr = 2700 KWh
average US KWh usage is 920/month
I don’t suppose it ever occurs to the anti-nukes that lots of United states Navy ships and submarines have used nuclear power plants every day for fifty years.
My boy served for six years on the USS Helena, a nuclear attack sub. He was a nuclear maintenance officer.
Nuclear technology is decades old. No unusual problems are encountered with the Helena’s power plant, or with the other Navy submarines or aircraft carriers to my knowledge. Why should nuclear power for consumers be any different?
Needless worrying about a 3-Mile Island-type accident [which was relatively minor, and which happened almost thirty years ago, and which killed not one person] should be compared with oil tanker accidents.
We don’t stop oil tankers from bringing us energy to give us light and heat when we flip the switch, do we? So why the irrational fear of clean, green, safe nuclear power?
Reply by John Goetz: OK, so we give up on wind?
That would be best, yes. If it were that great of a source, we wouldn’t have quit using it 75 years ago.
There’s a breathtakingly simple solution to all this, Karl, as Smokey (et al) intimates: laissez faire. Get the government out and let the market decide. Consumers will naturally adopt the most efficient option, because it’s in their best interest to do so.
Ask yourself this: if wind is so efficient, why does it need to be so heavily subsidized?
From an article we recently published:
“At our current state of technology, no conceivable mix of solar or wind power can meet even half the demand for energy…. Despite years of government subsidies (regulators, for instance, have forced utility companies to buy “renewables”), these same renewables generate only about 0.8 percent of our total electricity….
“The most efficient solar panels currently in use are costly, and their conversion efficiency is about 17 percent, which is not very much. But if wind and solar energy are to become more efficient, it is only science and technology—i.e. the free market—which will get them there.”
And from The Intellectual Activist:
“California has not built a major power plant in 15 years. The reason is that any attempt must endure years of costly lawsuits from environmentalist groups. The Diablo Canyon nuclear station, finally completed in 1985, had its building costs increased twelve-fold, from $500 million to $6 billion. Nuclear plants, despite their unparalleled safety record in the United States, are a favorite target …”
That is why nuclear is more expensive, friend: environmental legislation.
Consider this: your plan would require approximately 1,200 square miles for a single wind power plant.
Compare that to nuclear, which would require only one square mile. The reason: “In terms of wind and solar energy, the flow is exceptionally diluted: solar is 10 to 50 times less concentrated than fossil fuel. When you can’t concentrate it, then, the only way to harvest it is to use more and more land. That’s the limiting factor for both sun and wind energy” (http://blog.the-thinking-man.com/wind-and-solar-energy-versus-nuclear).
Well seems they are running a little better in Sweden today:
actual sweden
The numbers are as follows:
Number of turbines: 787
Not reported: 70
Out of service: 21
Installed effect: 682 MW
Actual effect: 80 MW
The graph should be read like this:
Blue line daily production.
Red line running average for the last 30 days.
Theoretical daily production: 24*682 = 16368 MWh.
Really not something I would trust for heating during the winter!
The photos of broken machinery are not a legitimate argument for or against anything.
They represent only broken machinery.
@batguano:
Are you asserting that the MTBF for industrial wind turbines is not a problem?