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...
Errr, ummm, isn’t that energy actually sold to … Scandinavia (AND they have a generating infrastructure composed of many more hydro-driven gens which are much easier to throttle for controlling the voltage and phase stability of the much-vaunted and so little understood ‘grid’ with a highly changeable supply like that obtained from wind-driven Windelecs)??
Ref. Dr Hugh Sharman (from an erailier post): http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/DocumentLibrary/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf
Eh Troll -er- Troels? (Do you guys post elementary contradictory stuff just to see if we are collectively awake?)
.
.
Long term use of wind power could be entirely academic due to a shortage of rare earth elements, dysprosium and neodymium.
There is a massive and increasing world-wide demand for high efficiency magnets all of which use rare earth elements. These magnets are key components of wind power generators, and incidentally all high efficiency motors such as those planned for electric vehicles.
Currently 97% of rare earth elements are produced in China. The production of the refined products is incredibly polluting, but that never seems to worry the Chinese, especially when they are in a position to control the flow of these essentials to the rest of the world. And indeed there are signs that it is starting to strangle the supply to external buyers, and producing sufficient only for their indigenous industries such as wind turbine production.
It would seem pretty risky to base future energy strategy on products that use raw materials for which there is no alternative source and pretty illogical (if not hypocritical) to use raw materials whose manufacture is so environmentally unfriendly.
It is also going to look pretty daft promoting green projects as generating lots of new jobs for local economies if China monopolises the manufacture of wind turbines.
Sources:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/leading-articles/leading-article-an-elemental-challenge–for-china-and-the-world-1855408.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/concern-as-china-clamps-down-on-rare-earth-exports-1855387.html
Really!!??
One finds ‘MTBF’ and ‘wind’ power associated in a multitude of Google hits; a quick survey shows them to be substantive as well.
On the subject of ‘service once a year’, ahem, a different story is portrayed in this report titled: Establishing an In-House Wind Maintenance Program depending on the service item there are 3, 6, 12 and 24 month service periods.
.
.
Interesting tidbit from that report I linked to earlier:
– – – – – – – – – – – – –
Staff Requirements
The facility must consider adequate staffing when establishing its maintenance program …
NPPD, although it has no union affiliation, recommends a staffing ratio of one technician for every six turbines, suggesting that LADWP should hire approximately 13 full-time technicians at the Pine Tree Wind Project for its 80 turbines.
However, the Spearville, Kansas, Wind Farm employs eight technicians for operating its 67 turbines. This technician/turbine ratio of 1:8 is lower than NPPD’s 1:6 ratio. EnXco’s practice of staffing its projects with 8 to 12 technicians is based on the overall size of the project, turbine type(s), turbine size, availability goals set by the owner, and home office consolidation of support functions. Further, since the Spearville Wind Farm has GE turbines, it is subject to GE’s requirement that all employees be trained in the maintenance of 1.5-MW turbines.
Similar to the practice of EnXco and NPPD, employing one technician for every six to eight turbines would be suitable for a utility’s in-house maintenance program.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
THAT ain’t going to be cheap …
Re: kadaka (08:09:34)
Next to last sentence should have ended with “…around only five years”, add the “years” on the end.
Although apparently the fine readers here are familiar enough with car batteries they knew better, as it’s gone unmentioned.
One of society’s new skills for the internet age, automatic fill-in-the-blank reading. Works well in conjunction with the automatic spelling-correction and substitute-the-correct-sound-alike-word reading skills.
LarryD-
I’m glad you highlighted the DOE study of 2016 costs. I use it myself as a starting point. Key point is that wind and solar are intermittent so making a cost comparison with 24/7 reliable nuclear is like comparing apples and oranges.
Also the DOE numbers for renewables seem to pick the best sites in the country. The ISO-NE study referenced in my comment above shows that in New England in order to integrate wind into the system, it is necessary to add another $100/MWH for transmission and another $70/MWH for storage making the costs:
Wind (on shore) $320/MWhr
WInd (off shore) $360/MWhr
Advanced Nuclear $119.0/MWhr
Hydro $119.9/MWhr
Oh–and don’t forget that you lose 25% when you do storage.
I also find that the capacity factors are too high for the renewables in most part of the country. Solar PV in New England has about 12% Capacity Factor not 21.7% which almost doubles the cost per kWh.
Solar PV at 12% CF- 692$/MWH ( I took out the 13$ for transmission)
Note– divide $/MWH by 10 to get cents per kWH. So solar costs 69 cents per kWh compared to your present generation costs of 10 cents/kWh in New England and about 5-6 cents/kWh in the coal states.
DirkH (06:49:47) :
You ask me:
“end up with a very different estimate from yours… where is the mistake?”
I answer that you did not make any mistake. We used different assumptions.
That part of my lecture was -as it said – providing providing a brief overview of analyses of all existing and potential renewables. And you are querying the calculations on potential for solar power in the UK. As the lecture says, removing solar power from one area to use it in another cools the collection area. Since the purpose of the introduction of renewables in the UK is to avoid climate change, my calculation assumed that the induced cooling should not be detectable and, therefore, should not lower temperature by more than 0.1 K.
My assumption induces my result. Your result is also true, but ignores the need to avoid climate change.
Richard
Troels,
Thanks for your posts which appear to be very informative. However, you describe yourself as a wind energy ‘professional’ so how am I to assess how unbiased you are in what you say?
Would you state categorically that you have given a ‘realistic’ appraisal in your posts rather than an ‘optimistic’ one?
Several commentators here have discussed if a wind turbine can recover its ‘carbon footprint’.
No wind turbine can ever recover its ‘carbon footprint’ if used as a supply of electricity to a grid system because emissions from a power station providing ‘back up’ are properly attributed as emissions from the wind turbine.
An operating wind turbine supplying to a grid system displaces electricity from a thermal power station. Either that thermal power station
(1) reduces its output so it operates at reduced efficiency
or
(2) it operates spinning standby while waiting for the wind to change.
Operating at reduced efficiency reduces its electricity output and makes little if any reduction to its emissions. Indeed, such part loading may increase (yes, increase) its fuel consumption and, therefore, its emissions.
Spinning standby consumes fuel and produces emissions but provides no electricity.
So, WINDFARMS PRODUCE NO USEFUL ELECTRICITY because they merely displace thermal power stations that continue to burn their fuel while waiting for the wind to change.
And WINDFARMS DO NOT REDUCE EMISSIONS UNLESS NUCLEAR IS USED FOR NORMAL LOAD because the emissions from the displaced thermal power stations are properly attributed to the windfarms while the windfarms are displacing them.
Richard
John Galt (11:23:32) :
“GE has lobbied heavily and continues to lobby heavily for subsidies, tax breaks, mandates, etc. Without government interference, their business plan falls apart.”
As you can see from LarryD (10:40:31)’s EIA numbers, energy produced from wind is more expensive than coal, oil and gas.
Rhoda R (12:54:44) :
“How well would an off shore windfarm survive a hurricane or a nor’easter?”
Most storms would not be an issue.
_Jim (13:18:53) :
“Errr, ummm, isn’t that energy actually sold to … Scandinavia”
It does happens that there is too much wind. When the wind blows in Denmark it is usually also the case for Germany, southern part of Norway and Sweden. Germany also has a hih penetration of wind in their grid so they are not that keen on buying. Transmission capacity to Norway and Sweden is somewhat limited (I think two 600MW cables or something like that). These days the grid operator turns off some of the turbines, and at the same time the price of electricity goes down, why other producers might stop production (free market and all). This happens maybe three days a year, so it is not a situation encountered often.
“which are much easier to throttle for controlling the voltage and phase stability”
Most modern turbines have full scale converters. This means that the AC generated by the turbine is converted to DC and then back to AC by power electronics and controlled by a computer. The power electronic can vary the phase angle of the power produced and voltage, hence it works to stabilize the grid. The turbine can be throttled as the operator wants, and at the same time provide fault ride through capability. Even at standstill the converter can still provide a little under half of it’s nominal capacity as reactive power. So turbines act as stabilizers of the grid. Oh, and one turbine might vary a little in production, but 100 very little and 1000 not really significant.
“(Do you guys post elementary contradictory stuff just to see if we are collectively awake?)”
I’m sorry. My last comment that you quote was ironic.
_Jim (13:39:53) :
“One finds ‘MTBF’ and ‘wind’ power associated in a multitude of Google hits; a quick survey shows them to be substantive as well.”
What terminology others use, is up to them. The manufacturers I know of does not use MTBF. MTBF tells less than availability, as it does not tell how long the turbine won’t produce energy, and hence it is pretty useless.
“On the subject of ’service once a year’, ahem, a different story is portrayed in this report titled”
Go to the manufacturer’s websites and check for your self: GE, Siemens, Suzlon, Vestas, Enercon. Check their product specs. Older turbines may have shorter intervals and I don’t know what turbines the LADWP department owns. They can be thirty years old for what I know. From GEs 2,5MW brochure: “Automatic lubrication systems for the grease-lubricated bearings
are used to accommodate for a 12-monthmaintenance interval
under normal operating conditions.”
Troels
So besides not being reliable enough, a major problem with wind power generation is it is most productive at night, when demand is low.
Therefore balance it out with solar, which generates during the day. Problem solved.
As can be clearly seen, in the Green Logic World this makes perfect sense.
“Richard S Courtney (14:21:27) :
[…]
Since the purpose of the introduction of renewables in the UK is to avoid climate change, my calculation assumed that the induced cooling should not be detectable and, therefore, should not lower temperature by more than 0.1 K.
My assumption induces my result. Your result is also true, but ignores the need to avoid climate change.”
Thanks for the clarification, Richard. The coffer dam concept sounds interesting, i didn’t know that one by now!
Troll -er- Troels please save the lecture on elementary items for the likes of sites like Deltoid and/or RC.
I think we have all seen enough of your ‘writing’ countered; it is a waste of time for both of us, for nearly every ‘point’ I can see a counterpoint (for, you see, WUWT is a collection of working professionals from a wide range of fields, and usually firmly grounded in the hard sciences).
You may be acquainted with these (power – wind) issues on the surface, on a PR level, but I don’t think you have one actual hour of ‘O & M” experience let alone planning or engineering.
.
.
_Jim (15:36:12) :
Cool down a little. Troels made his points politely; treat him likewise.
mmmmmmm…..
Seemed to have woken a few people up. Perhaps I should just make sarcastic comments and leave it at that next time.
@DirkH I had no idea pumping water was up to 70% effective. I certainly did not mean it was the least effective, just that it was not very effective. As I understand it, there are just not may effective ways to store energy, pumping water up hills seems to be pretty good. As pointed out by another, unless you happen to have your wind farm on the fens, where there is a lot more wind, but then the National Grid should mitigate that issue (although at a loss of energy again).
Others have asked why we will have to face this issue? Well, until we get solar in space, and solve the transmission problems (yet another challenge), get cheaper nuclear or tap those ‘millions of degrees’ of heat Al Baby tells us is there, we will always face the end of fossil fuels. The supply is limited, by its nature. Sure we don’t fully know how limited yet.
So we will face some kind of challenge. We have to, that seems to me to be obvious. As I have been informed on another thread, the market will probably solve the issue as soon as fossil fuels become more expensive, be that through misguided taxation or rarity. But challenges we will have to face, whatever happens.
Oh, and I certainly didn’t say that wind was the only answer. Frankly I am amazed that so many statements I did not make have been attributed to me over this one small and minor comment. I seriously pity those who have message of import and substance, as I can see how easily whatever they say can be misrepresented. Add that to minor mistakes in writing being completely misinterpreted, and Chinese whispers are the only possible result.
Ralph (08:42:33) :
Funny that, as he was to be the head of the former Central Electricity Research Laboratories (CERL) in the UK for many years. I assume however that you know more than him, so I shall bow to your better judgement…..
sorry, re last post, head of the research department at CERL (the main department).
and scratch that “to be” in there.
I’d love to have an edit facility after posting….
Trolls. You are either not doing you homework or are not educated.
You are yammering about the energy used for smelting. People that are clueless on energy shine when they don’t know what they are talking about.
Recipe for steel.
Coal or Pet coke plus iron ore PLUS heat equals high carbon steel, slag and ash.
Ore, coke and limestone are fed into the top of the furnace. The hot air blast and, if PCI is installed, the pulverised coal, are injected through nozzles into the base of the furnace. The pulverised coal injected in this way is used as a less expensive source of carbon and fuel. The molten iron or hot metal are periodically tapped from the bottom of the furnace and taken directly to the Basic Oxygen Furnace. Steel scrap and more limestone are added, and oxygen is blown onto the liquid metal, which is 93-95% pure iron at this stage. The reaction with the oxygen raises the temperature to 1600-1650°C and oxidises the impurities to leave almost pure liquid steel.
Blast furnaces with PCI require 350-400 kg of coke, made from 525-600 kg of coking coal, plus 100-200 kg of cheaper PCI coal – around 700 kg of coal for each tonne of hot metal produced. Furnaces without PCI use more coke, also equivalent to some 700 kg of coal, but all of it the more expensive coking coal. As each tonne of steel uses approximately 90% hot metal and 10% scrap, about 630 kg of coal is used to produce 1,000 kg of steel.
Here is where an electric arc furnace can provide the heat source. It can also be high grade coal.
Limestone is
CaCO3
calcium carbonate.
These wind folks don’t follow chemistry or electrical engineering.
You do not need to be very strong in education to sell wind turbine energy sources to city commisioners, farmers and politicians. Taking ore thru the Bessimer and LD process to make lower carbon steel uses a lot of coal or pet coke coal substitute. The heat source is where non chemistry people get confused. I know the greenie weenies think wind turbine power is low carbon but they are blind to the steel making process.
Obviously shooting O2 into the molten product to ignite the molten carbon mixed with the 1,700 degree iron ore gives off mind boggling amounts of CO2. When Joe Romm talks about dirty coal and clean wind energy, he is ignorant about how poluting and dirty the process is to make steel for the towers.
I will do another post on the economics of down time and maintenance factors and the hidden costs of keeping wind turbines running.
An Emergy Analysis for modern wind turbines reveals their EROEI is about 0.4 maximum, with the probability that it is much less, depending on how much power is required for auxilary systems, and how much power is sucked off
the grid for free. A farm windmill is 0.03. Modern wind turbines, no matter
how efficienct they are, cannot be much greater.
This makes wind power much worse than solar which has an EROEI of 0.48 according to dieoff.org/pv.
And why not! Any alternative energy scheme that has to be deeply
subsidized – by definition – has an EROEI of much less than unity.
Small Advanced Nukes, reprocess the fuel.
Henry chance (16:18:09) :
My field of expertise is not making steel and I never claimed it to be so. I found what i regarded as a reliable source of information (a report from Tokyo Steel) of the co2 produced by making steel, as it was easier that to find how much energy goes into making one ton of steel and made a calculation everyone could follow (and criticize), to see if it was credible that the turbine would make enough energy to be energy neutral within the first 8 months. As I would have liked to avoid all the co2 mumbojumbo. If you have data of how much energy is used, why don’t you provide the number and I’ll redo my calculation without the co2 crap.
_Jim (15:36:12) :
“for nearly every ‘point’ I can see a counterpoint ”
Why haven’t you made them then?
—
For both of you guys.
You resort to ad hominem attacks. If that is the rule for participating in the discussion and trying to bring some knowledge into the wind energy discussion, I see no reason to participate. WUWT prides itself with being after the truth, with open discussion, that you go for the argument and not the man, but I fail to see it in this discussion.
When people have a predetermined mind and refuse to listen to reason and facts, then there is no point in continuing this.
Troels
Troels Halken (04:34:34) :
Probably less stupid than you for your previous statement that STEEL is a material resource with ‘no carbon foot print’. (Not that that actually means anything)
Steel is produced from iron ore, requiring 1st a coking plant where coal is converted to coke, then a blast furnace where the iron ore is converted to steel, the grade of which is determined by the amount of coke used in the process.
I worked in a steel works BTW.
DaveE.
You do seem to have a predetermined mind. Can you explain if a person with a capacity to “reason” would fly an airplane that had a reliability factor of 20%?
Would you give real money for a new car that was rated to do 100 miles per hour and sometimes wouldn’t run at all and other times topped at 20 miles per hour? Would you pay 4 million dollars for the biggest highest performing wind turbine and settle for it topping out at 24% performance under ideal conditions?
I spoke with a friend reliability engineer in electrical at a refinery and they often run near optimal capacity. His electrical equipment runs 24/7 with great intervals between breakdowns.
Do you know why the wind turbine industry is so reluctant to speak facts regarding actual performance, costs and maintenance?
I can give you some numbers from Enron wind that was purchased by GE and became GE wind.
Enron was famous for fudging facts and reports.
That’s odd. This was announced four days ago. The only news coverage appeared 4 hours ago in the small Worthington Daily Globe. No other newspapers in the midwest noticed a power plant project being shutdown/put on hold.