Guest post by Tom Fuller
Something went terribly wrong with wind power. Preached to us all as a solution to climate change, it fell apart in one year. Some have blamed it all on the recession, ignoring the fact that other renewable energy sources and energy efficiency strategies have continued to grow.
I say it’s the business model. Wind power companies sell either to utilities or governments. There is insufficient pressure on them to lower costs–and indeed, during wind power’s moment of glory last year, prices went up 9%. Wind power companies are almost all divisions of large conglomerates, such as GE, or energy distributors such as utilties themselves. Wind power for some providers seems like a vanity entry into a PR sweepstakes–but there is no scope for reducing margins or searching frantically for innovative cost reductions.
And so their moment has passed, maybe permanently. While wind power tried to dictate terms to their captive clients (too often successfully), the cost of solar power and natural gas continued to fall, to the point where nobody could make a straight-faced case for wind as a competitive technology, and certainly not the offshore wind farms that are the new rage. Rage as in what customers will feel when they see their bills…
It hasn’t helped that the inefficiency of wind’s performance has been gleefully highlighted by those opposed to its expansion. If a turbine says it will give you 1 MW of electricity, you can only count on about a quarter of that being delivered. Maintenance issues are real, as are complaints about noise and bird kills. And they do take up a lot of space.
Contrast that with solar power companies. There are a lot more manufacturers, and they are increasing capacity continuously. Each new generation of fab provides 20% performance gains, and the next generation of wafers is longer, wider, thinner and less likely to break. Innovations for their balance of system peripherals come from a variety of outside companies in their supply chain, and the inexorable march to grid parity is nearing its goal.
They both get the same level of subsidies, which amount to a pittance overall. So what’s the difference?
Solar sells to consumers, too. Residential, small business, offices and plants. Solar scales down as well as up. And their customers are you and me–cranky and demanding if things don’t work, unwilling to sign long term contracts, wanting to see bottom line improvements rather than brochures showing acres of installations.
So solar will win. Not because they’re nicer guys, but because their industry is more fragmented and they have more demanding customers.
Which, I believe, is the way the system is supposed to work.
So, although government is not good at picking winners, it can identify losers, and should do so forthwith. Wind power sales have fallen through the floor this year, but the DOE should be making pretty stern announcements about price performance failures in the wind industry, and pointing out the advantages of alternatives to alternative power–not just solar.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here’s a view from Europe:
25-minute video
The industry isn’t powered by wind. It’s driven by subsidies of one form or another.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/01/22/terence-corcoran-ontario-puts-10b-in-the-wind.aspx
For people who say that the subsidies to green power (solar, wind) are a “Pittance”. I recommend reading the article at the URL above. Ontario consumers will be paying billions in subsidies to Samsung. That is only part of the story. There are other more generous subsidies for solar ( over 80c/kWh feed in tariffs). The cost of electricity to Ontario consumers is experted to double over teh next year. Already food banks are predicting that many more people will be forced to turn to them because of the induced energy poverty. Long term contracts with these subsidies are being signed at a rate of one billion dollars a week.
RE: Poptech, solar subsidies are dependent on the country and scale of the system.
Insolation in California is such that some locations can generate 150% more power than a similar system in the UK. That’s a potential 60% cut in cost.
The highest subsidies offered in the UK (41.3p) are for small home systems. Larger systems get a smaller subsidy since their mean costs are lower.
In the UK it costs about $7-9 per Wp for a small system on a house. Lieberose, using CdTe and economies of scale cost about $4.50/Wp, or 35% less. Combined with increased capacity factor in California, a PV park there could expect savings of over 70% per unit of electricity compared with a domestic system in the UK.
Wholesale electricity prices in the UK have been ~5 p /kWh for about a year, and the obscene subsidy guarantees 41.3 p for a total cost of 46.3 p to guarantee profitability.
In California, your 75% cut means you’re probably looking more at around 12 p. Still very expensive, but actually an 85%+ cut in required subsidy and solar is looking like it should only be a decade away from cost competitiveness in sunny places.
Look at this collections of statistics about wind energy in Germany from the German wind power association:
http://www.wind-energie.de/de/statistiken/
Especially interresting is the third graph down titled “Die Einspeisung von Windstrom” meaning total produced wind power. The black curve is the actual produced power, orange is the “potential”, or predicted output power. Not once in the time from 1993 to 2009 has the actual output approached or surpassed the predicted output.
The accompanying text says that this is to blame on sub-average wind for those years. How can the wind be sub-average over the entire time?
Somebody must have a different idea of what “average” means.
@sordnay
In the Palm Springs area of California, some rather large wind turbine farms in a windy area appear to have over 50% downtime. It is fairly often that I’ll only see a few turbines turning when I drive past, whether we’re talking about lower than usual winds or higher than usual winds. The same is true for the wind turbines South of Bakersfield.
Tom says:
October 13, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
When nanocarbon gets cheap enough, it should be possible to build a lot bigger/lighter more efficient sailboats and wind turbines. If you think windmills are gross monstrosities now… I have no problem with the government funding solar and wind power research but I don’t want commercial deployment subsidized.
The USA should pair with India to do the R&D to make Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) commercially viable. The USA has enough thorium to meet our power needs for 1000 years. IIRC, India has more. India is committed to LFTRs and is making it happen. Besides having gobs of cheap fuel available, the LFTR approach is safer to operate and is much less attractive to terrorists than uranium (IIRC, that is because thorium has to first be irradiated with neutrons to become fissile). LFTRs also generate orders of magnitude less atomic waste than uranium based reactors. LFTRs are even able to use current nuclear waste as fuel.
Richard S Courtney says:
October 14, 2010 at 6:01 am
………………………
You got that right! Nothing is stopping anyone from putting sails on cargo ships. Why don’t we do it? Cheaper than oil right? Maybe because we got tired of sailing for 6 months just to get across the Atlantic. And tired of getting stuck in the doldrums for weeks at a time. And not being able to get out of the path of storms. The energy density of fossil fuels, the convenience, the ability to turn it on and off at will, the widespread availability, etc. make it impossible to compete with. When the day comes and the fossil fuel reserves start to dwindle and they become more expensive than wind, you’ll begin to see widespread use of alternative energy sources. Not because they are better but because that’s all we’ll have. Life won’t be better by depedence on those sources of energy no more than life was better prior to the industrial revolution.
LarryD, I clicked on your link. I want to bring something to your attention:
As mentioned, the costs shown in the table are national averages. However, there is significant local variation in costs based on local labor markets and the cost and availability of fuel or energy resources such as windy sites. For example, regional wind costs range from 91 $/MWh in the region with the best available resources in 2016 to 271 $/MWh in regions where the best sites have been claimed by 2016. Costs for wind may include additional costs associated with transmission upgrades needed to access remote resources, as well as other factors that markets may or may not internalize into the market price for wind power.
I would stipulate that Windmills should probably be located in areas with “Good” Wind Resources.
As for Solar: At present they are getting up to $1,000.00 per panel for installation (a panel typically produces about 230 watts. There is no way in the world that I couldn’t make money installing solar panels for $100.00 apiece (less for a larger job.)
In short, these are new industries, and you have to take “current” costs with a grain of salt.
As for why I used the geographical metrics that I did: I read the numbers somewhere, and I internalized them as distances I was familiar with. Hence, the EC to OK City, and Memphis to Chicago. Not trying to be “cute,” just using a construct.
LarryD says:
October 14, 2010 at 7:36 am
Total System Levelized cost per megawatthour:
Advanced Nuclear: 119.0
Wind: 149.3
Offshore Wind: 191.1
Solar Thermal: 256.6
Solar PV: 396.1
The costs of some green energy is actually much higher than these numbers suggest.
They compare apples and oranges.
Solar PV and on shore wind are depeneding on weather and cannot produce reliably 24 hours a day. Thus they cannot replace a single conventional power plant. Nor do they make any other infrastructure redundant (actually they cause additional cost in the power grid not even accounted for). The only cost they may reduce are the fuel costs of conventional power plants which contribute only around 1 cent/kWH.
That mean for costs of around 30 cents/kWh for PV solar you get a return of around 1 cent.
Ok guys I work in the actual Electric Power Business. Wind and solar have huge subsidies both direct and indirect. Most final transmission and distribution companies (your local electric company) have state mandates to buy “renewable power” up to a target (which increases continually). So wind and solar do not have to cut deals to buy so long as the overall quota is not exceeded. They also generate huge federal tax credits for the developers. Last summer the federal tax credit was delayed in renewal, so all wind development stopped until it was renewed. For solar the state mandates in places like California are a huge subsidy (i.e the customer has to buy).
By comparison in States with power markets, most nuclear and thermal power plants have to bid to get power contracts based on price. Think of it as affirmative action for Wind and Solar.
Stories about wind & solar always transport my aging brain back to the ’73 Arab oil embargo/”energy crisis,” when I was in engineering school. It spawned a plethora (well, half a plethora at least) of classes and research projects about alternative energy sources, conversion technologies, and storage methods.
We heard about solar thermal, solar electric, flat plate collectors & concentrators, rooftop solar water heaters (apparently popular in Florida in the ’40s), orbiting solar plants that would send energy to earth in a high-intensity bird-fricasseeing beam, photovoltaics, thermionics & thermoelectrics, homes with Trombe walls, heat storage in molten salts, magnetohydrodynamics (supersonic plasma! talk about high-tech), geothermal, hydrogen fuel cells, pumped storage hydro, gas turbine topping cycles, coal gasification & liquefaction, shale oil, tar sands, wave power, tidal power, ocean thermal difference power, Magnus effect wind generators, high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, liquid metal fast-breeder reactors (I had a summer job related to them; there were going to be two or three thousand of them soon!), toroidal & Tokomak fusion (maybe they were the same thing; no Cold Fusion or Mr. Fusion yet!). I even worked on a small solar project sponsored by John Z. DeLorean before he started his car company.
It seemed certain to a naive kid like me that within a couple decades we’d have cheap alternative energy choices running out of our ears. The motivation then was clear and universally supported–get out from under the thumb of that vexatious OPEC.
So 37 years later, most of our energy still comes from good old coal, oil and natural gas, and commercialization of solar and wind power is still having “teething problems.” Today’s publicized motivation for alternatives–CO2 reduction–doesn’t seem to resonate with the public like cartel-phobia did back then. So I’m not too optimistic about predictions (or are they projections?) that a significant fraction of the world’s energy will come from non-fossil sources before senility renders me even less comprehensible than I am today!
Captive Clients Determine the Success of Energy Initiatives
Search Dictionary:
NOUN:
1. One, such as a prisoner of war, who is forcibly confined, subjugated, or enslaved.
2. One held in the grip of a strong emotion or passion.
ADJECTIVE:
1. Taken and held prisoner, as in war.
2. Held in bondage; enslaved.
3. Kept under restraint or control; confined: captive birds.
4. Restrained by circumstances that prevent free choice: a captive audience; a captive market.
5. Enraptured, as by beauty; captivated.
No more words!
This is far from the most enlightened post on this page, but who else is reminded of this comic by the picture?
http://www.xkcd.com/556/
Anyone know where I can get an 8×10 glossy of that one?
David L says:
October 14, 2010 at 4:11 am
“You are right about this. At current solar panel efficiencies if you covered all of New York City in solar panels, you wouldn’t have nearly enough power to cover current usage. Solar at this point cannot replace current energy sources. But like all new technology, you have to “get into the game” at some point and the improvements will follow. People had major criticisms of the automobile. They had little power, were noisy, broke down a lot, and really weren’t better than horse and buggy at the time. No infrastructure existed for the auto but plenty was in place for horses. Over time we know how that turned out!”
The automobile analogy is awfully weak. The first working autos emerged at the end of the 19th century. By the time of WWI, barely two decades later, motorized transport was already seriously displacing horse drawn transport and autos were routinely achieving a “mile a minute”. By the 30s the transformation was nearly complete and production autos were topping 100 mph. All without a single politician or bureaucrat demanding that people adopt the technology or offering subsidies to auto makers.
Wind and solar have been around for much longer than that time frame and despite massive hectoring, promotion and subsidy the industries have had only incremental progress and the fundamental flaws in each are barely nearer resolution now than they were 40 years ago.
Olaf Koenders says:
October 14, 2010 at 4:40 am
Vive la France! Just crank out the nuclear power stations like there’s no tomorrow…
They have some impressive hydro stations too:
http://tourisme.lebeaufortain.com/UserFiles/File/fichethemabarragesGB.pdf
Four small lakes (largest 320 ha) in the Beaufortain produce 4.5TWh per year from a generating capacity of 660MW.
As the brochure referenced above says:
…the water stocked represents an electricity “reserve” ready to be used. It is therefore an exceptionally supple tool…
“”” Mike says:
October 14, 2010 at 11:43 am
The point is we do not have control over the amount of H2O in the atmosphere. We do have some control over to amount of CO2.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/330/6002/356
It is good that you are willing to post science research that shows you are wrong. It is too bad you can’t understand it. “””
So are you saying that a solar thermal system such as you have installed can take in 1000 Watt hrs of solar photons, and deliver 550 Watt hours of electricity; or is that 550 Whrs of heat ?
So if it is a heat system; then it must be governemd by the Carnot efficiency limit. So what are the source and sink Temperatures of the systems you have installed that are 55% efficient ?
Good riddance to this rubbish.
“So solar will win.”
You forgot politics. Companies like GE make windmills and they are a very strong political lobbist for carbon trading (and AGW).
The problem with wind power is: it is unsustainable. I took the Livermore Pass Project in CA and proved that it’s EROEI was not 14.87, but 0.29.
Developers of wind power projects must be required to submit the EROEI for any proposed wind power facilities, including connection to, and upgrading of, the grid.
Generous 5-year double declining depreciation and other tax breaks create windfall profits for developers, all at the expense of taxpayers and rate payers.
Tom,
Which alternative energy sources is growing without subsidies?
I have no doubt that wind and solar will be overwhelmingly successful in China. Given the way the Chinese government showed their expertise in acquiring use of extensive tracts of land and of dealing with citizen complaints when setting up the Three Gorges Dam, wind and solar can be as successful as hydroelectric has proven, when enacted in a similar manner.
As the Chinese have clearly demonstrated, and arguably the French have done when they deployed nuclear power, the success of alternative energy is inversely proportional to the amount of democracy allowed in the adoption. Alternative energy is most successful when government won’t allow any alternatives. ☺
MarkR,
Your energy markets are heavily distorted with energy taxes, subsidies and regulations. Remove all that and Solar is a pipe dream in terms of economic viability.
Solar is not and has no remote chance of becoming economically competitive with nuclear or hydrocarbon based energy generation for a long time.
How much does the Federal Government spend on energy-specific subsidies and support? (EIA)
The Federal Government spent an estimated $16.6 billion in energy-specific subsidies and support programs in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. Energy-specific subsidies have more than doubled since FY 1999.
Natural Gas – $0.25 per megawatt hour
Coal – $0.44 per megawatt hour
Hydroelectric – $0.67 per megawatt hour
Nuclear – $1.59 per megawatt hour
Wind – $23.37 per megawatt hour
Solar – $24.34 per megawatt hour
Tim Williams commenting upon a point raised by me says:
____________________________________________________________
“Depends on their size /efficiency, placement and how they’re decomissioned but in general you’re assertion seems to be at odds with some pretty thorough research on the topic.”
The second of the papers linked by you is behind a pay wall and accordingly I have not read it and therefore I am not in a position to comment upon it . The first paper you link does not really deal with the point I raise although gives some indication of how much CO2 would be used in the production and siting of a 70m high 2mw windmill but no actual figure is placed on it nor the CO2 involved in the logistics of getting the windmill to site. The paper suggest that the foundation uses 700mt of concrete and each windmill 234 tonnes of steel. The paper does not state how much CO2 is produced in thoose processes. According to the IPCC, cement involves the production of 1.25 mt of CO2 per mt of cement. Thus 700 mt of cement produces 875 mt of CO2. Steel produces 1.9 mt of CO2 per mt of steel, hence 234 mt of steel involves the production of 445 mt of CO2. Thus in these two raw materials, some 1320mt of CO2 is produced. This does not include the CO2 involved in getting everything to site nor in the production of other materials used (resins, copper etc) and the assembly of the machinery. The paper entirely fails to deal with the point that wind farms cannot replace conventional power stations and one has to keep on tap conventional power stations to cover 90% of the power which wind farms theoretically could produce in ideal condiions. Nor does the paper deal with power consumption involved in heating hydraulic oil/back powering the turbine when wind/weather conditions are adverse. As such, the paper does not refute the point I made.
The UK feed-in tariffs may be at risk. The Government Department for Excessive Climate Claptrap (DECC) is having its budget cut.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/spending-review/8062504/Spending-Review-what-it-means-for-the-Environment-and-Climate-Change.html
That leaves areas like the Feed in Tariff and Renewable Heat Incentive vulnerable to cuts. These energy subsidies are designed to help Britain switch to a low carbon economy. Funding to help build ‘clean’ coal-fired power stations and ports for building wind turbines are also under threat.