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.
Tom have you read these books yet?
The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Energy (Peter Huber, Ph.D. Mechanical Engineering, MIT, 2005)
Gusher of Lies: The Dangerous Delusions of Energy Independence (Robert Bryce, 2008)
Power Hungry: The Myths of “Green” Energy and the Real Fuels of the Future (Robert Bryce, 2010)
The Solar Fraud: Why Solar Energy Won’t Run the World, Second Edition (Howard C. Hayden, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Physics, 2005)
crosspatch says:
October 14, 2010 at 12:54 am
…
“I am not aware of a single installation that has ever lived up to its claimed power production after installation. Do you know of any? The most common number I have seen is actual production at about 30% of the “capacity” rating that was used when the generation was sold to whoever bought it. The project in Minnesota was a total failure this past winter when the system delivered exactly 0 watts during one of the coldest periods in the state’s history and they sorely needed the power. The mechanism froze.
Wind turbines placed in cities across Minnesota to generate power aren’t working because of the cold temperatures.
The Minnesota Municipal Power Association bought 11 turbines for $300,000 each from a company in Palm Springs, Calif.
Special hydraulic fluid designed for colder temperatures was used in the turbines, but it’s not working, so neither are the turbines.
There is a plan to heat the fluid, but officials must find a contractor to do the work.
Get that? You have to expend energy to heat the hydraulic fluid so the windmill will work. ”
—
Heh, we got one of those turbines. It wasn’t really a serious project. It was stunt for the southwest metro area. These are not serious turbines. I think they’re only 150kW units, and each city (suburb/exurb) got one. The real problem was they bought the damn things from California and never bothered to check their operating temperature range. On a positive note I actually saw our turbine run for the first time last month. I’m so proud of our local utility.
China must be stopped or they will do away with the solar industry in the world the same way the did with mining companies. When they get a monopoly, we’ll see the same thing we have seen with the rare earth metals. Enforce strong tariffs in every branch of industry where China is subsidizing of face extinction.
Well said. Thank you.
Why oh why are we evn subsedizing wind or solar power, people and companys invovled in them see a cash cow and are jumping on the band wagon. If it is such a good thing for this country or the world why dont they do it with out taxpayer support!!!! Then you will see how good of a deal it really is.
Until the latest infatuation with wind and solar, the trend in energy sources was towards lower land footprints. Back in 1910, 27 per cent of all agricultural land in the US was devoted to feeding horses. Cue horseless carriage. Adding all the oil wells, pipelines, refineries, highways and back streets, parking lots etc currently devoted to cars adds up to less than half the area. This is despite a huge increase in population and in distances covered.
Similar things apply to domestic and industrial power. A single family reliant on wood for heating in the colder US states requires a small forest. Back in the 19th century, it took 1,000 acres of timber a year to fuel one furnace for iron smelting. Enter Mr Edison. Forest areas in the US are now increasing steadily (around 3 million acres a year).
The clear path to continuing this process is to gradually increase the contribution of nuclear power. Solar on home roofs can never be more than a minor contributor, simply because of the power intensity required by much modern technology. Giant solar farms in the desert and huge windmills are both ugly blots on the landscape, and completely unnecessary.
Alex, excellent points. This is why we have progressed to more and more denser forms of energy.
The natural progression is: Wood – Coal – Oil – Natural Gas – Nuclear
richard verney says:
October 14, 2010 at 5:54 pm
————————————————————————————–
Thanks for reading the link. I respectfully suggest you read it again especially the results of the Life cycle assessment.
For further reading have a look at this…http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf
LCA and caclulating carbon footprints of electricity generatiuon really isn’t that controversial.
I totally accept your point that wind alone cannot replace all alternative ways of energy generation. I accept conserns over energy distribution over large grids etc.. I can’t find anything about the heating of lubricants in adverse weather but I suspect it’s covered in the maintainance calculations and is probably negligable depending on the siting etc…
“Wind
Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the
lowest carbon footprints. As with other low carbon
technologies, nearly all the emissions occur during the
manufacturing and construction phases, arising from the
production of steel for the tower, concrete for the
foundations and epoxy/fibreglass for the rotor blades.10
These account for 98% of the total life cycle CO2
emissions. “http://www.parliament.uk/documents/post/postpn268.pdf
So how long before the governments decide that subsidies aren’t going to improve the technology much?
Tom Williams:
At October 15, 2010 at 2:11 am you quote a political document that says;
“Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the lowest carbon footprints.”
Nonsense!
Windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. So, windfarms make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output.
Importantly, the increased emissions from power stations operating at reduced efficiency while displaced by windfarms are properly attributed as emission from operation of the windfarms.
So, instead of citing a political tract, let me quote somebody who is responsible for operation of both power stations and windfarms.
David Tolley (Head of Networks and Ancillary Services, Innogy (a subsidiary of the German energy consortium RWE) has said of windfarms in the UK,
“When [thermal] plant is de-loaded to balance the system, it results in a significant proportion of deloaded plant which operates relatively inefficiently. … Coal plant will be part-loaded such that the loss of a generating unit can swiftly be replaced by bringing other units on to full load. In addition to increased costs of holding reserve in this manner, it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant under NETA.”
(NETA is the New Electricity Trading Arrangements, the UK’s deregulated power market.)
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
October 15, 2010 at 5:02 am
___________________________________________________________
I challenged the point Richard Verney made that “… a lot of CO2 is used in the production, transportation and installation of wind farms. In particular, vast amounts of concrete are required as foundations. When this is taken into account and the additional power used to heat lubricating fluids in extreme cold and/or to back power the units when wind levels are inappropriate, there has been no saving of CO2 emissions.”
I believe this to be inaccurate. Oh you can (and will, I’m sure) quite legitimately argue the relative financial costs of electricity generation, even the more holistic impacts such as aesthetics and sound pollution, together with your point that the current level of wind power supplied to the system represents a CO2 saving that has been offset by downloading of the coal plants etc..
I don’t think, however, you can seriously question the many studies that have been conducted into the relative savings of CO2 emissions per Kwh of electricity produced.
As a very rough comparison we’re talking around 7g CO2 per Kwh. for wind power from a relatively inefficient turbine (obviously dependent on many factors but roughly a good ball park figure) to around 540g CO2 per Kwh for the European average* for other means of electricty generation.
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/sustainability/wind-turbines-and-the-environment/life-cycle-assessment-%28lca%29.aspx
“The LCA shows that 1 kWh electricity generated by a V82-1.65 MW onshore turbine has an impact of 6.6 grams of CO2 during the life cycle. If this is compared to the CO2 emission of 546 grams per kWh from European average electricity it is clear that the environmental burdens are significantly lower for electricity generated by wind turbines.”
*This compares to figures from the USA (http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/page/co2_report/co2emiss.pdf)
Against Coal 2.1lbs per Kwh, Gas 1.3lbs per Kwh
Tom is right about wind.
I know two ranchers each with over 100 turbines. They get paid a % of the gross.
Both also have wind measuring towers they put up over 25 years ago and still collect data from them. They also get data from the turbines.
First, the total power generated over a year is about 25% of the rated output of the turbines.
Second, the efficiency of the turbines drops over time for the same wind speed.
When they run the trends out for the whole 20 years, they think the actual power generated will end up being 18-22% of rated output.
Given the same money invested in a nuke plant, you’d get 90% output. Even at half the rated capacity due to a higher sunk cost, the nuke would generate 250% more power and probably last twice as long.
Ref – D. King says:
October 13, 2010 at 10:19 pm
“So solar will win. Not because they’re nicer guys, but because their industry is more fragmented and they have more demanding customers.”
Chinese solar is doing fine.
The U.S. is having trouble competing.
_______________________________
The US IS NOT having trouble competing!!!!!!!!!! They AIN’T COMPETING!!!!!!! They’re giving it all away, it’s called SUICIDE.
“”” Austin says:
October 15, 2010 at 8:38 am
Tom is right about wind.
I know two ranchers each with over 100 turbines. They get paid a % of the gross. “””
Well Austen, I would suggest that your two rancher friends need to find themselves a more creative contract lawyer. The wind isn’t really theirs in the first place; it is just passing through from somebody else’s place.
What they have to sell is Location, Location, Location !!!
So they should be charging their squatters for the total time that their wind mills sit on their ranchland.
If you go to Hawaii, or the Florida Keys, and want to go fishing; every single business operator who would take you, will charge you for the total time you are using their services. I know of no fishing guide who will charge you just for how many fish you catch; rather than how much of his time and boat you take up.
So your friends need to be billing the fan owners for how long they occupy the premises; after all, why the heck should your friends be assuming the risks of adequate wind supply; the fan owner should be the one making that bet. And the whole time they are on the rancher’s land they will of course need 24/7 access to do required maintenance and repairs; so the rancher is inconvenienced for the entire time his place is occupied by these gamblers.
Well Tom, wind power is just as much solar as is PVE or solar thermal. As near as I can judge, solar wind is not; and likely never will be used locally as on one’s house for example. Building codes, and homeowner associations simply won’t put up with those hideous contraptions on neighborhood homes (it’s ok with me). But both solar PVE and solar thermal are used at the local home level; although the thermal units are of low energy quality.
As for the large farms; wind does have some advantage in that multiple land use is still possible; as in the rancher land re-use situation. Large PVE farms however are a different story; and multiple land use is not very likely. The vulnerability of large solar cell arrays to vandalism or sabotage/terrorism, means that large farms would need to be security fenced; and maybe even armed guards to enforce total human exclusion from the whole area. large area solar thermal, particularly the high temperature solar tower type also are vulnerable.
I don’t think you are going to uproot tens of thousands of residents from already occupied; and often Native American occupied desert land areas where big solar farms are being contemplated. That is never going to fly; and one does need to consider the environmental impact of stopping that much solar energy from reaching the ground over such vast areas that were previously sun baked. To claim it won’t caue climate change is a bit hard to defend.
Kum:”Wind is cheaper than Nuclear, and Solar will be considerably less in a few years ”
The only difference being, of course, that Nuclear and Fossil actually work, and Wind and Solar don’t. Aside from the fact that both Solar and Wind are unmitigated environmental disasters for vast swaths of the planet already, while contributing nothing useful to the power grid of any country in the world.
Tim Williams:
At October 15, 2010 at 5:39 am you assert:
“As a very rough comparison we’re talking around 7g CO2 per Kwh. for wind power from a relatively inefficient turbine (obviously dependent on many factors but roughly a good ball park figure) to around 540g CO2 per Kwh for the European average* for other means of electricty generation.
http://www.vestas.com/en/about-vestas/sustainability/wind-turbines-and-the-environment/life-cycle-assessment-%28lca%29.aspx”
Twaddle!
If you want to dispute what I wrote at October 15, 2010 at 5:02 then please do. But your response of citing a wind turbine manufacturer’s advertising brochure (that does not address my point in any way) smacks of desperation.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
October 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm
————————————————————————————–
Your ‘point’ ,for it’s worth, was to say that ‘Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the lowest carbon footprints.’ was…’nonsense’.
The quote in question was from a UK government report and I’ve supported it with another comissioned by the Welsh assembly government and a further report from a turbine manufacturer, I’ve made a comparison with figures from the US Dept of energy that estimates CO2 per Kwh from two fossil fuel sources.
The fact remains that electricity produced from the current generation of wind turbines in a life cycle analysis (of which there are many) produces a tiny fraction of the CO2 produced per Kwh of that from fossil fuel power generation sources.
I can’t put it any clearer than that. You can bluster and rant away with ‘twaddle’ if you like, but I’d be intrigued to see if you can produce anything from anyone that would counter that very simple point.
Tom Williams:
Your comment at October 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm is outrageous.
It asserts that I – not you – blustered. No! You repeatedly blustered by failing to address my point in any way but, instead, first you cited a political tract and when I rejected that with real evidence you then cited a sales brochure from Vestas.
I repeat what I said at October 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm:
“If you want to dispute what I wrote at October 15, 2010 at 5:02 then please do. But your response of citing a wind turbine manufacturer’s advertising brochure (that does not address my point in any way) smacks of desperation.”
And if my post at October 15, 2010 at 5:02 is too difficult for you to find I copy it here.
“”
“
Ooops pressed the wrong button. Here is the complete post.
Tom Williams:
Your comment at October 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm is outrageous.
It asserts that I – not you – blustered. No! You repeatedly blustered by failing to address my point in any way but, instead, first you cited a political tract and when I rejected that with real evidence you then cited a sales brochure from Vestas.
I repeat what I said at October 15, 2010 at 1:27 pm:
“If you want to dispute what I wrote at October 15, 2010 at 5:02 then please do. But your response of citing a wind turbine manufacturer’s advertising brochure (that does not address my point in any way) smacks of desperation.”
And if my post at October 15, 2010 at 5:02 is too difficult for you to find I copy it here.
“Tom Williams:
At October 15, 2010 at 2:11 am you quote a political document that says;
“Electricity generated from wind energy has one of the lowest carbon footprints.”
Nonsense!
Windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. So, windfarms make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output.
Importantly, the increased emissions from power stations operating at reduced efficiency while displaced by windfarms are properly attributed as emission from operation of the windfarms.
So, instead of citing a political tract, let me quote somebody who is responsible for operation of both power stations and windfarms.
David Tolley (Head of Networks and Ancillary Services, Innogy (a subsidiary of the German energy consortium RWE) has said of windfarms in the UK,
“When [thermal] plant is de-loaded to balance the system, it results in a significant proportion of deloaded plant which operates relatively inefficiently. … Coal plant will be part-loaded such that the loss of a generating unit can swiftly be replaced by bringing other units on to full load. In addition to increased costs of holding reserve in this manner, it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant under NETA.”
(NETA is the New Electricity Trading Arrangements, the UK’s deregulated power market.)
Richard”
The point is that
“Importantly, the increased emissions from power stations operating at reduced efficiency while displaced by windfarms are properly attributed as emission from operation of the windfarms.”
Your blather has not addressed that in any way but, instead has falsely accused me of bluster.
So, stop blustering and answer the point. Put up or shut up.
Richard
Wind power is ideal for pumping water. If you pump it uphill, of course you’re storing potential energy. In Australia, we’re water-poor, but there’s no provision for storm water collection, and of course the Greens go absolutely bonkers at the first talk of building a dam. Still, it wouldn’t take much time, space or treasure to build a few new environmentally friendly lakes at slightly higher elevations. One might even call them ‘habitats’, since everyone knows that ‘reservoirs’ are environmental poison. Bet a few small turbines on the down-hill run might prove handy in remote areas, or even feed into the power grid (the input would be a lot less variable than wind per se, hence more efficient). And the water, of course, would be available for irrigation, manufacturing, maybe even drinking. Easy done … if the powers that be weren’t so viscerally opposed to that sort of environmental vandalism. Instead, they’ve opted for $2,000,000,000 desalination plants in capital cities. Now that we’ve had a bit of rain, the one they built in Brisbane is pretty much idle, though it still costs taxpayers $1,000,000 a week. Go figure. The ways of god, government and greenies are mysterious, and it’s not given to us mortals to understand them.
Richard S Courtney says:
October 15, 2010 at 2:36 pm
————————————————————————————–
So you’ve seen my ‘bluster’ and raised me a ‘blather’….although in a thread about wind I think bluster is the more appropriate term.
This link will calm most of your concerns as it addresses them directly.
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/ref_three.pdf
“In the day-to-day running of the UK power system it is coal plant which is taken off load when additional base load plant, such as nuclear or renewables, start to generate. This is clearly demonstrated in data published by The National Grid Company which describes the make-up of plant on the system at various times. The nuclear and Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) plant operates continuously throughout the day and the output of the coal plant is changed to meet changes in demand. It should be noted, as discussed earlier, that the output from coal plant will not change in response to every fluctuation in wind output. It will be adjusted in response to the aggregated change in demand, of which wind only contributes a small proportion.”
It’s worth a read, but I’ve no doubt at all you’ll dismiss it as biased etc…
We aren’t going to have any form of usable energy for long if we can’t afford to pay the real and actual costs of it.
Being a civil engineer, I do know engineering economics. I see no figures for maintenance. I see no evidence that these alternative energy devices will last as long as it will take to return the investment. Without huge government subsidies, none of it would be constructed. And . . . those subsidies are a real cost to each and everyone of us who pays taxes, or our children, or our grandchildren or . . .we will have to default on debts, and that costs someone.
Windmills were useful for farms and ranches, as the water pumped could be stored. And those farm people used far, far less water than present people do. I know, as I was once one of them. All children sharing the same small amount of bath water, heated on a wood stove on Saturday evening. Outhouses that didn’t have to be flushed. Water had to be pumped by hand for the most part.
Coal could be slurried and pumped through pipelines, but it would cost more, and getting gubmints permissons to put in pipelines is extremely costly and time consuming.
We here in the US have enough known and extractable coal, natural gas, and oil, without counting the enormous amount of shale oil, to last more than 400 years. I am quite sure that technology will be improved in the next 4 centuries. No point in jumping headlong into bankruptcy over foolish fears.
The automobile companies got no gubmint subsidies, nor did the railroad companies, and utilities were paid for by investors, who got a fine return on investment. As for promise, nuclear fusion had promise . . . 50 or 60 years ago, and from what I read, still is said to “have promise”. “Has promise” is no different than pie in the sky bye and bye.
Hey! The trade war is warming up a bit:
US to Probe China’s Green Technology Trade Policies
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20101015-712516.html
Tim Williams:
Thankyou for at last addressing my point in your response at October 15, 2010 at 4:45 pm .
However, your response makes an assertion which is not true when it quotes an advertisement from the British Wind Energy Association at
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/ref_three.pdf
saying;
“It should be noted, as discussed earlier, that the output from coal plant will not change in response to every fluctuation in wind output. It will be adjusted in response to the aggregated change in demand, of which wind only contributes a small proportion.”
It is tempting to give the Mandy Rice Davis answer (Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?).
However, I point out that the (as you admit “biased”) assertion from an association of wind energy providers says that “wind only contributes a small proportion” of “the aggregated change in demand”. And this is an admission wind power DOES contribute to “the aggregated change in demand”. And it asserts that “the output from coal plant will not change in response to EVERY fluctuation in wind output” (my emphasis).
But nobody has said that EVERY fluctuation in wind output would be sufficiently large for it to have a discernible effect on demand from thermal plant.
I repeat the quotation that I have repeatedly stated above (first at October 15, 2010 at 5:02 am ) because it directly refutes the misleading implication of the statement in the PR blurb which says;
“the output from coal plant will not change in response to every fluctuation in wind output” .
I repeatedly wrote above:
“let me quote somebody who is responsible for operation of both power stations and windfarms.
David Tolley (Head of Networks and Ancillary Services, Innogy (a subsidiary of the German energy consortium RWE) has said of windfarms in the UK,
“When [thermal] plant is de-loaded to balance the system, it results in a significant proportion of deloaded plant which operates relatively inefficiently. … Coal plant will be part-loaded such that the loss of a generating unit can swiftly be replaced by bringing other units on to full load. In addition to increased costs of holding reserve in this manner, it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant under NETA.”
(NETA is the New Electricity Trading Arrangements, the UK’s deregulated power market.)”
The quotation you provide from the British Wind Energy Association’s PR blurb tends to confirm that they know David Tolley is right.
Richard