In a statement made last Friday by EDF Energies Nouvelles (French Green Power Company), a power purchase agreement was terminated without explanation by Indianapolis Power and Light Company regarding the supply of wind energy by enXco, a local EDF company. The contract was unilaterally terminated by IPL, and more than 10 days later, EDF has acknowledged it to the market.
The IPL wind power project web page is here
From the press release see here
======================
PRESS RELEASE
March 12th, 2010
Termination of the Lakefield PPA by IPL
On March 1, enXco, the US subsidiary of EDF Energies Nouvelles, received notification that the US utility Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPL) would terminate the power purchase agreement related to the 201 MW Lakefield wind project currently under development (southwestern Minnesota).
The project received the approval of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (IURC) on January 27, 2010. The IURC’s order was consistent with similar past orders. IPL has purported to unilaterally terminate the power purchase agreement on the basis of this order without providing further specific reasons.
enXco is considering its rights and remedies within the framework of the PPA. In addition, the Company is currently analyzing several options, including re-marketing the project to one or several other utilities.
Consistent with EDF Energies Nouvelles policy, construction has not yet started.
The 2012 operational objective of 4,200 MW net and 2010 objective of EBITDA will not be impacted by the Lakefield project evolution.
================
big h/t to Ecotretas
Page 1
PRESS RELEASE PRESS RELEASE
Paris, March 12, 2010 Paris, March 12, 2010
Termination of the PPA by Lakefield IPL Termination of the Lakefield PPA by IPL
On March 1, enXco, the U.S. subsidiary of EDF Energies Nouvelles, received On March 1, enXco, the US subsidiary of EDF Energies Nouvelles, received
notification that the U.S. utility Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPL) notification that the US utility Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPL)
would terminate the power purchase agreement related to the 201 MW would terminate the power purchase agreement related to the 201 MW
Lakefield wind project currently under development (southwestern Lakefield wind project currently under development (southwestern
Minnesota). Minnesota).
The project received the approval of the Indiana Utility Regulatory The project received the approval of the Indiana Utility Regulatory
Commission (iurc) on January 27, 2010. Commission (IURC) on January 27, 2010. The iurc’s order was consistent The IURC’s order was consistent
with similar past orders. with similar past orders. IPL has purported to unilaterally terminate the IPL has purported to unilaterally terminate the
power purchase agreement on the basis of this order without providing power purchase agreement on the basis of this order without providing
further specific reasons. further specific reasons.
enXco is considering its rights and remedies within the framework of the enXco is considering its rights and remedies within the framework of the
PPA. PPA. In addition, the Company is currently analyzing several options, In addition, the Company is currently analyzing several options,
including re-marketing the project to one or several other utilities. including re-marketing the project to one or several other utilities.
Consistent with EDF Energies Nouvelles policy, construction has not yet Consistent with EDF Energies Nouvelles policy, construction has not yet
started. started.
The 2012 operational objective of 4.200 MW and 2010 net objective of The 2012 operational objective of 4,200 MW net and 2010 objective of
EBITDA will not be impacted by the project Lakefield evolution. EBITDA will not be impacted by the Lakefield project evolution.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Larry (09:06:17) :
You haven’t factored in the cost Building & running the Backup that is needed for every Windfarm.
Ralph (08:42:33) :
That WILL be the scenario in the not too distant future if our useless politicians have there way.
Mods, post this version pls.
o Substation to Neighborhood level = “Distribution System”
Wooded poles, 7 to 14 KV Nominally
o Power Station to Substation = “Transmission system”
Those large gangly steel structures with overhead ‘static’ wires, 69 to 765 KV nominally
.
.
Martin Brumby (08:37:45) : Super analysis, an Article By Rowena Mason in the January Telegraph said basically the same thing.
There was also this article about the massive cost of subsidising them
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7061552/Wind-farm-subsidies-top-1-billion-a-year.html
In a sense, we’re exporting American CO2 to China to be released. I wonder who the UN would propose to penalize for the end CO2 emission – us or China?
@ur momisugly Ralph (08:42:33) :
Ah heck, I used to watch Good Neighbors on PBS (that’s the US title, The Good Life back in the UK). Mid to late 1970’s, and they were talking about apparently random power cuts back then. Will the UK be backsliding on the power supply improvements since then? There were improvements, right?
“One post above mentioned the voltage coming out of the turbine was too low to go into the grid. That means even more energy wasted in transforming the power to higher voltage.”
Most turbines are rated at 690V. The power from all the turbines in the park is then transformed into 32kV or whatever the grid needs. This does mean a loss from the transformer, but I fail to see the issue with this has to do with anything.
“Moving electric on long distance lines loses 15% of the power every 50-60 miles.”
If that is the case, we would not have electricity. The overall loss in the grid in Denmark amount to 5-10%. Closer to 5%.
“A train load of coal is the same weight at delivery if it travelled 200 miles from Wyoming or 2,000 miles.”
Yes, apart from the energy used to move in onto the train, moving the train and unloading the train. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
“They create tremendous pollution in the course of molding the blades.”
Not really. It is epoxy that is used together with fiberglass.
—
Joe (07:15:46) :
I am not sure what you’re getting at.
—
Steve Keohane (07:35:56) :
“What do you see as a MTBF in the field for these systems? What is the operating vs. downtime over the life of of a windmill, not lack of operation due to lack of wind? TIA”
MTBF is not used in the wind industry. The manufacturers warrant a 95% availability (at least. Availability means that is will produce electricity if there is wind) and service is once a year and take less than a day. Turbines has a 20 year design life.
—
Ralph (07:50:42) :
“Try running a 24/7 society with that kind of power system.”
Well, with 20% it runs fine here. And a lot of people know a lot about the Danish energy system it seems.
—
Justa Joe (07:55:55) :
“I have an extremely hard time believing that a single wind turbine can deliver enough energy to process and fabricate all of the steel, copper, concrete, etc in a 250 Ton (not metric tonne) wind mill in 3 to 4 months.”
I think I wrote 8 months for a modern turbine.
“I’m not aware of any wind powered steel mills steel production being as energy intensive as it is.”
No cause today we have a grid that transfer and distribute electricity from producers to consumers, why the electricity a steel plant or you use can come from a variety of sources.
“Also windmills don’t appear to be as low maintenance as you suggest. They’re mechanical just like any other rotating assembly.”
Yes, and any mechanical assembly can be made such a way as desired.
Then go to Vestas, GE and Siemens webpages and look at their product specification.
—
Troels
That´s really good news. That´s a signal reason and common sense is returning to the US, thanks to the big influence of Anthony´s WUWT (40 millions hits in any minute from now-that´s a lot, just compare it with msm-).
Jerome (06 10 56)
I’m not out for an argument either….But by all means come and show us, how we can pump water up the hills we don’t have, here on the Fens. To save the power that the wind farms (sited far too close to peoples houses) are not making much of. You seem to think it will work very well? Or at any rate, be just a technical challenge?
Kadaka 10 10 23
…..No
“…It is marginally cheaper than nuclear I understand, and there are ways to handle the load balancing.”
Not according to the EIA’s 2016 Levelized Cost:
Wind (on shore) $149.3/MWhr
WInd (off shore) $191.1/MWhr
Advanced Nuclear $119.0/MWhr
Hydro $119.9/MWhr
Again, Denmark;
http://www.cepos.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/Arkiv/PDF/Wind_energy_-_the_case_of_Denmark.pdf
I think this is one of the best threads I have seen in a while – interesting.
It sounds like wind turbines can in theory produce useful amounts of energy BUT at the wrong time. While short term storage of less than a day is possible [though reducing overall efficiency] the main problem seems to seasonal – producing least energy in times of maximum demand, which no practical storage solution can solve. This requires close to 100% backup generating plant to cover shortfalls, with associated costs. Overall, wind turbines seem to be impractical.
I would have greater confidence in wind turbines if generating companies chose to use them without political pressure, and without the need for subsidies.
The [somewhat literal] impact on bird life needs to be addressed. Smaller birds could be warned off by silhouettes of birds of prey on the blades, but I am not sure what would deter birds of prey themselves – possibly plastic streamers on the trailing edges of the blades. I am sure it could be solved.
The effect on humans needs to be verified. Many complaints about health effects from new technologies prove to be psychological. It would be interesting to take blind-folded sufferers round in a helicopter to test whether their perceptions are real or imaginary. If real then positioning these turbines will need careful planning.
If they do end up as white elephants what do we do with them? If hydrogen fuelled cars take off then these turbines could be used to produce hydrogen at local plants – kind of nodding donkeys of the hydrogen world, where the random nature of power production is less relevant. Alternatively they could make good nesting sites for birds of prey!
Bingo! These utilities are regulated. All they need to do is get approval from the regulators for a project and approval to pass the cost on to consumers. The utility doesn’t care power costs because consumers don’t usually have a choice.
You can be sure every time some regulatory or legislative entity mandates green or renewable power, the utility will also get approval for a rate increase.
This is all old news. Look up windmills in books during the 19th century at books.google.com You’ll find lots of economic and scientific discussions of the time why wind power will never satisfy demand and the new steam engines (running on gas, coal, wood, etc.) are far superior and the reasons why.
GE isn’t doing this for nothing. GE has lobbied heavily and continues to lobby heavily for subsidies, tax breaks, mandates, etc. Without government interference, their business plan falls apart.
Anticlimatic 10 46 42
The Davis family, whose house near here is 930 meters from the nearest wind Turbine, are no longer able to sleep in their house, and have to rent a property else were. Are you going to suggest to them, (to add to their troubles), they should be blindfolded and flown around in a helicopter to see if they are imagining it? I have an idea about the careful planning bit….How about, don’t put them too close to peoples houses? Or is it back to the helicopter and blindfolds
Here’s a link to answer the question of installation and operating energy versus production payback for various energy sources. Wind turbines range from about 2% to 16% of their total energy produced needed to create the installation.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf11.html
I live a few miles from one of the major US wind farms, Tehachapi Pass. It’s still growing, and there’s now a transmission line being run to the Castaic pumped storage lake near Los Angeles. In the summer, the difference between daily maximum and minimum grid demand (all of California) is almost a factor of two, at about 48,000 MW peak in the afternoon and 26,000 MW at night.
“Wind farms supply energy, not power”
Troels Halken (04:34:34) :
“this simply means the maintenance costs and manpower required are greater per megawatt than any other energy production source: saying it creates jobs is actually a bad thing in this case because these jobs don’t create revenue (contrast with, say, a retail store or factory).”
I think you should tell Siemens, GE and all the other companies that provide O&M servies for the wind turbines, that O&M of wind turbines does not generate revenue, cause that will be new to them.
Do you really think that companies does something for nothing and then you expect other people will believe that? Just how stupid do you think people are?
Um, I think you need to re-read for context: who said that manufacturers aren’t making money? The only way to make money is to *make* windmills, because people are buying them (or not, as the case may be). The tailor who made the emperors new clothes certainly made out quite well.
In other words: SC buys a bucket load of windmills creating jobs. No wealth has been created, no economy has been bolstered. You have simply increased the cost of electricity to pay for those jobs: a net loss.
A C Osborn
I was doing an order of magnitude. I didn’t factor in a lot of things, material transport, power distribution etc etc – or volume of energy that could not be used because it had to be bought elsewhere because of false wind predictions. I just don’t believe you would ever be able to demonstrate that it would use more c02 than it produced. Frankly the c02 would be based on the type of fuel in the country of origin and a lot of other things, an order of magnitude is all you are going to get. The order of magnitude makes it hard to argue that extra c02 would be produced by installing windfarms, so I would stick to the economic argument. There are cheaper ways of reducing c02.
Hi all,
In reply to Veronica –
I drive past Didcot power station on my way home, its not the prettiest sight, and it dominates the landscape because its rather flat apart from the ridgeway bump. Bt that subjective…all you see is the cooling towers…am sure some designers could make ’em look pretty.
But lets, for aguements sake, knock it down and replace it with a windfarm.
Now when I drive along and get my first sight of the windfarm that replaced Didcot, I know I’m prob still going to be driving past it 10min later…prob have to knock down Abingdon to makes space (so maybe there is an upside).
the point you are missing Veronica is the vast space you need to produce comparable power…you may think a windfarm is pretty when its half a dozen on a hillside in Wales…….but just imagine gazing out over 1000’s of the things in one place. It would look like the most ghastly ecotravesty you could imagine.
Oh….and I’d have to rebuild the ugly Didcot anyway to use when the wind does not blow…
On another point, the Danes get away with thier variable load because they can bleed out into the euro net……….if every country increased the amount of wind power, the amount of ‘slack’ in the euro system gets harder to manage.
It has its place I think, good windy sites in localised areas…large scale…I think not.
Veronica (07:23:21) :
We all know that many of the sources of renewable enegy are sporadic, and nobody has ever said they are the answer to an ecologist’s prayer. Even here in the UK, sometimes it just isn’t windy and often it isn’t sunny, but I don’t see why that means we should rubbish these energy sources.
While what you say is true, it isn’t that, so much that most people are railing against. It is that those who want to supply and implement wind machines (sic) are simply lying to us. We (the people) are inferring a reduced cost, elimination of dirty coal, oil and nuclear, plus being completely renewable.
You cannot displace the large quantities of energy required today with wind. We could displace perhaps 5-15% of our consumption, even though we may necessarily need backup sources. It will also consistently cost more (maintenance, personnel, etc.)
The Denmark study is pretty much a best case scenario, since the Scandinavian hydro plants can mate with wind power as an energy storage device. Many places around the world do not have such luxury.
I do think the manufacturing impact is an (almost) moot point, since everything we do has a negative environmental impact, and dismissing wind power because the manufacture and placement of wind turbines is environmentally unfriendly is a bit facetious. The costs, however are a factor.
Most significantly, though, is the true running impact: it isn’t all tea and crumpets.
How well would an off shore windfarm survive a hurricane or a nor’easter?
Personally, I don’t have a big problem with wind contraptions, but then I’ve never had to live by them.
Although I’m all for a flat rate pay for what you use, how about electric companies offer a tiered fee structure? They buy and install these turbines, then people have the option to sign up for ‘renewable’ energy produced by these turbines – since every one wants to be green, there will be lots of customers willing to do this (right?).
When the wind blows, their cost is low, when it doesn’t the cost is high.
Re: Wind power heats up the surrounding countryside.
If you consider that a wind turbine is extracting the turbulent kinetic energy from the boundary layer wind flow across a given area of surface, then you are extracting whatever is delivered down the transmission lines minus whatever is eaten up with the efficiency of conversion of kinetic energy to electricity.
The air flow past the surface tends to heat up or cool down the surface (think in terms of the wind chill chart we see during wintertime) based on the wind speed. If the wind is warmer than the surface temperature (think Chinook winds down-slope mountains), the active wind turbine will tend to keep things a bit cooler for a while. If the wind is cooler than the surface (usual circumstance) or simply less humid, the surface will remain warmer, longer.
I don’t know of anyone who has actually measured this as yet. Given the politically correct status of wind worldwide, I doubt that any good data has been collected or disseminated. My guess is that whatever effect exists is very, very small and difficult to measure. Still, it does make a nice vehicle for chain yanking with our friends the greens.
The last thing would be the size of wind farms vs other energy producers. For equivalent generation, the footprint of a wind farm including all transmission hooking them together is about 100X that of an equivalent coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc. fired plan. If lawnmowing the forests is a “bad” thing for loggers, why pray tell is it a Good Thing for the wind farmers? Inquiring minds want to know. Cheers –