This seems like a candidate for the FAIL blog, hence my caption.
Here’s the story:
“We can’t control the weather,” Julie Vitek said in an interview from company headquarters in Houston, Texas. “We’re looking to see if we can cope with it more effectively, through the testing of a couple of techniques.”
She says the conditions in northern New Brunswick have wreaked havoc on the wind farm this winter.
“For us, cold and dry weather is good and that’s what’s typical in the region. Cold and wet weather can be a problem without any warmer days to prompt thawing, which has been the case this year.
“This weather pattern has been particularly challenging.”
Full article here
h/t to a whole bunch of WUWT readers, “TomRude” being the first.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Shevva says:
February 18, 2011 at 12:19 am
“Can anyone think of a world wide engineering project that will fail as bad as these wind tubines?”
Yeah, that’s an easy one. Fusion power. Fifty years of dumping money into research programs and it isn’t any closer now than it was 50 years ago. It’s perpetually 20 years away from commercial application. No one’s acheived break-even and even if they do there are no materials that can endure for anywhere near long enough in the reaction chamber to make it economically feasible.
One that already earned an epic fail just recently is ethanol from corn. Lots of people, including me, called that a monumental boondoggle years ago. The frontrunner for me for the last 25 years (ever since I read “Engines of Creation” by K. Eric Drexler in 1987) has been synthetic biology harnessing the proven ability of living things to convert sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into liquid and gaseous fuels compatible with current infrastructure that uses fossil fuels. I’m more convinced this is the future now than ever as the advances in synthetic biology have reached a point where it’s now just a matter of years away instead of decades – near as I can tell if you started planning a new advanced nuclear power plant today it would be a dinosaur before it had sold enough electricity to pay for itself. Meanwhile advanced biofuel pilot plants are coming online this year producing fuel competitive with oil at $30/bbl using nothing but wastewater, sunshine, air, and about 1 acre of non-arable land per 15,000 gallons of diesel. Even if they only get $60/bbl that’s still 33% less than the current price of crude oil.
Here’s a quick survey of companies leading the pack:
http://biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2011/02/15/algae-keep-on-rockin-in-the-free-world-pt-2-get-this-party-started/
Genetically engineered algae that thrive in sea water, brackish water, and municipal waste water on otherwise non-arable land with genes inserted into them so they’ll produce any hydrocarbon products from methane (natural gas) to diesel, ethanol, and jet fuel. Sounds too good to be true but it isn’t. Synthetic biology has truly awesome potential and cheap energy is just the beginning – the low hanging fruit – because it doesn’t take much tweaking of the genome to produce simple hydrocarbons. In principle almost anything that can be built by humans can be built by microscopic biological robots – the really cool part is that these robots can build more of themselves too. Microscopic living things are nothing more than tiny self-reproducing programmable machines. An incredible technology handed to us on a silver platter. The only work we have to do is learn how to mix and match desirable capabilities and insert or our own programmatic control. We’re getting really, really close. Genetic engineering is at a point that reminds me of where computer engineering was at in the 1960’s and advancing at the same pace.
Dave Springer,
What you see as a “knee-jerk reactionism” is, in many cases, a very understandable exuberance of the people who are totally gagged on other sites, whenever they are trying to say something. Give them a break, they deserve it — if only because most of them have that precious commodity, common sense.
Meanwhile, there is more than enough “cold and sober analysis” on WUWT, if you care to look for it. Deepest thoughts, on the other hand, are not necessarily cold and sober. Hot and drunk people have extremely useful ideas once in a while.
‘Damn – not that pesky WEATHER again..!’
Here in the UK under the ‘greenest government ever’ –
Icing is usually caused by a combination of fog and wind. High humidity is unavoidable during winter near the coast. So, the wind turbines will then only work when there is no wind?
EVAN.
Your wit is a delight, Thou or is it tho or thee or yea or thy wit is a delight. This english is a bugger.
Sorry, folks – got distracted before.
As I was about to say – here in the UK, under the ‘greenest government ever’ (the irony not lost on me, but it may be on them) – I recently had an exchange of e-mails with a guy at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (the two still linked – why, I’ve no idea). He proudly announced that the UK had ‘overtaken Denmark in offshore wind farm capacity’. Well – we all know I’m sure by now, just what the Danes think of wind farms – the cost of their electricity bills; the blight on property; and the zero impact on fossil-fuelled generating capacity.
As I write, the UK is producing 1.5% of its electricity demand from wind – up from 0.8% overnight – and up from a laughable 0.1% during our coldest weather just before Christmas. Still a bit shy of the intention of 30% by 2030..!
The problem here, of course, is that – contrary to what the politicians think, isolated in the Palace of Westminster:
a) Its windy, but not THAT windy
b) Its extremely intermittent – and bears no relation whatsoever to demand.
Have they learnt nothing from history..? Have they not spotted that windmills were abandoned in a big hurry 200 years ago when steam power began to provide reliable and controllable energy..? Do they think that the wind pattern around these islands has suddenly changed to suit their policies..?
So… the wrong kind of weather.
Andrew30 says:
February 17, 2011 at 2:46 pm
I wonder how the windmills will be affected when the inevitable forest fire sweeps through those pines in the photo.
Is there any data of how they will respond to the 500 degree, ember laden, 100 mile an hour wind that arrives with a 300 foot conflagration in tow.
=======
well I sure hope someones round to take some pics and post them when it does happen, theyd interfere with water bombers too I guess?
Dave Springer says:
February 18, 2011 at 12:33 am
Chas says:
February 17, 2011 at 9:34 pm
“Here in Ontario, where ‘Green’ is king courtesy of provincial legislation, wind power must be dispatched prior to other generation.”
Canada’s electricity is close to the lowest cost in the industrial world at some $0.6kwh.
Oh please! That is the Retail Price number they put on the bill to confuse small children and gullible green policy lovers. It will not confuse you for an instant if you review a Hydro One (Ontario) invoice!
The real cost is about $190 -$220 per MWH. ($0.22 per KWH). Depending on the state of the tide, the mood of the bureaucrats and the phase of the moon.
They (The Electric Utilities) have broken out the bill and itemized it into delivery and Debt Reduction and GAM charges… many of the categories are fantasy mechanisms for increasing the bill. See articles by Parker Gallant in the National Post and also carried on Wind Concerns Ontario.
The Global Adjustment Mechanism (GAM) is a Fudge Factor which lumps in various inefficiencies payoffs and any other charge that comes to mind. It makes up the difference between the actual wholesale cost of power and whatever they figure the market will bear. It guarantees a certain minimum profit to an retailer of electric power. We can only guess at that minimum as there is great secrecy surrounding some issues.
Never underestimate the ability of bureaucrats to dream up money collection schemes. They make the world go round — or something…
In the case of Dave Springer vs the Consumers of Ontario…
Please note that while Dave Springer wrote $.6 kWH — I think he meant $.06 per KWH which is often stated as the “Retail Price” of power. This is versus the wholesale price of power which is often $0.025 – $0.025 these days. The wind Power addition lowers the value of the power exported, while raising the price that must be charged on the home front.
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/infoCentre/ic_index.asp
At the time of posting…
Current hourly price: 1.97¢/kWh at 8:00 a.m. EST
… or $0.0187 per KWh —It was BELOW my stated range
I hope that that is more clear.
Judd says:
February 17, 2011 at 7:34 pm
I was, with my sister & brother driving backwards down the Alaskan highway …..
This bothered me all night. I just have to know why? Was it a transmission problem? A dare? A new ‘extreme’ sport?
Dave Springer says:
February 18, 2011 at 1:33 am
Shevva says:
February 18, 2011 at 12:19 am
“Can anyone think of a world wide engineering project that will fail as bad as these wind tubines?”
Yeah, that’s an easy one. Fusion power. Fifty years of dumping money into research programs and it isn’t any closer now than it was 50 years ago. It’s perpetually 20 years away from commercial application. No one’s acheived break-even and even if they do there are no materials that can endure for anywhere near long enough in the reaction chamber to make it economically feasible.
====================
As the late Doctor Bussard humourously noted in his Google lecture – Fusion works, you only have to look up into the sky to see it, and not a single one of them is toroidal!
Doctor Bussard, like yourself, was scathing about the big fusion projects – JET and Tomahawk. After 50 years of working with toroids, he said, the one thing we’ve learned is that they are no damn good.
However. . .
Dr Bussard was working on inertial electric containment fusion – a completely different beast. So far, laboratory experiments have been promising, and the verdict on feasibility has been touted to be given in the next couple of years. If it does work, it will have proved more than anything, the prescience of Eisenhower’s farewell speech – that the nations scholars on government paychecks is indeed gravely to be regarded.
In regard to Dave Springer says:
February 18, 2011 at 12:46 am
Dave, the more people, the more chance for not well thought out comments. However there are many good comments as well.
In regard to wind power you have a long way to go to convince me. I have found many aritlce on how wind has raised the cost of power in europe and here.
In deciding what something costs so many factors must be looked at.
Wind is subsidized in many ways. Nationaly and by states. Also by the fact that when wind does not meet its commited grid production their failure costs are carried to conventional power plants, but not vice versa. Thye biggest subsidy however is in the capitol costs of building conventional power plants. The higher your percentage of wind power, the greater the need for conventional back up. This ratio is FAR higher with wind then any other conventional source, therfore it is logical that some of the cost ofconventional power must be ascribed to wind. Even in an existing power grid, as you add wind you must increase the percentage of your backup, due to the highly fluctaing nature of wind. This means other conventional plants may be producing much less when the wind blows, and recieving less revenue relative to there FIXED overhead, and so have to increase their rates, while wind rides for free on their necessary back up and rising conventional rates. In the previous thread on wind many good comments had numerous links to examples of where and why wind raised rates in Denmark and Europe. Rates have risen rapidly in Texas due to many many factors, wind is one of them. Remmove the false financial support, and wind generators would not be built except in very rare cases.
Senator Inouye – tear down this farm!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ms_baboo/4921118105/
*****
1DandyTroll says:
February 17, 2011 at 2:57 pm
They will, if, and only if, it is economically feasible, work for as long as the economical life time has been chosen to be. Which, weirdly, uhu, just happens to be for the maximum amount of years one can get subsidizes for. I believe it is 20 years in EU now, down from 25. Apparently they downed it because no commercial viable wind farm has yet to make it for even 20 years. Ironically the physical life expectancy went down to 15 years, although one has to take this with a grain of salt for it only means it is not economically to maintain after 15 years, but even after 10 years it is too costly (wind mills can only change to new generators if they fit the old design and what not, apparently even the foundations set today won’t be able to handle a larger version in the future.) so when new updated hardware hits the scene they can’t be interchanged for the old crap and who wants to keep squandering maintenance money for stuff that keep generating less for each revolution?
*****
Interesting. The coal-plant where I worked had units built in 1920, 1944, & 1957. The 1920 units had been scrapped, but some of its auxiliary equipment is still in use. The 1944 unit was overbuilt like it could survive a bombing attack (remember, 1944). It still runs reliably today (but not base-loaded) after 65+ yrs despite nothing “new” on it other than the precipitator — even the boiler tubes are original (many were pad-welded & shielded to combat flyash erosion). The 1957 unit runs reliably & is base-loaded during relatively high-demand periods. The whole 345-MW plant including 100,000-ton coal pile takes up a mere 25 acres along the river.
They are kept running because it’s too expensive to replace them w/new generation (and there are distribution-system voltage support reasons, too). The new EPA rules could force them to shut down.
RACookPE1978 says:
February 17, 2011 at 11:12 am
Thanks for that. I hadn’t seen that factor explicitly mentioned, only the inefficiencies of fast ramp-up/ramp-down. But it makes sense that added stress = added wear and maintenance.
oldseadog says:
February 17, 2011 at 11:14 am
Why don’t they put electric heaters in the things, so that when the wind stops and the frost comes they can keep the units from freezing?
Well, they have to have back-up generating plants anyway, don’t they?
They already need power to keep turning when winds are too low, etc., so they don’t seize up.
And — it’s the BLADES that are icing up. Do you want to try to electrically heat the BLADES?!?!?! What a joke that would be.
The wind turbine engineers and planning managers I work with expect no more than 5-7 years lifetime for the generator machinery (hydraulics, oil and lubrication, bearings, speed reduction gearbox, blade gearing, housing yaw controls, control hydraulics, brakes, etc.) internals; 7-10 years (maybe!) for the little 1.0 to 1.5 MegaWatt generators themselves before needing replacement or major overhaul, and 15-20 years for the towers and base bolts and the pod housing itself. All is not “lost” however: The structural engineers figure 400 – 1000 years for the concrete base. 8<) (Though the rebar will rust out sooner than that.)
Nobody knows about blade lifetime: The newest, largest, heaviest, most flexible and most complex blades are also the most highly stressed blades with the most vibration and the highest dynamic loading. These are also the blades in the most exposed conditions at the possible highest towers that increase the dynamic vibrational movement with each rotation. We "think" the new composite blades will last more than 5 years. Maybe.
Unfortunately, all wind turbine machinery maintenance takes place inside the little pods at the top of a 150 foot to 250 foot climb up a single ladder. Any parts or tools you need need to be brought up with you as you climb. Makes repair hard, dangerous, and expensive. (No porta-potties up in the tower either – kinda tough for a 12-hour shift.)
And all of this means that repairs and maintenance – which are NOT subsidized by tax incentives and property tax reductions and construction subsidies – will be skipped or ignored or simply "be forgotten" as windfarms are abandoned when the initial "take a picture of my taxpayer-funded green energy windmill" breaks in 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9 years. And, unlike current coal mines where very-expensive enviro refilling and careful re-landscaping is mandatory, there is NO legal requirement to strip down abandoned windmills and restore the property to its original condition.
More comments. Relative to baxter75 and other comments: For years, wind energy researchers have worked diligently to make airfoils relatively insensitive to leading-edge roughness so that dirt and ice have a minimal affect on lift and energy production. However, the airfoils are still affected to some extent. Prior to the evolution of the recent, improved airfoils, blades were cleaned of insects and dirt by spraying – when needed. Black blades have been used, but don’t seem to produce much help. The major effort has been to use hydrophobic coatings that impede ice buildup. This helps.
The cost of energy from wind turbines varies with the winds, cost of money, turbine costs etc. Without subsidies, the cost of energy for land-based machines ranges from about 7 to 11 cents per kWh. It used to be less until commodity prices went up and many of the best wind sites were used up. These cost numbers are levelized over 20 years, and include a levelized operation and maintenance cost that can range (in the early years) from 1 cent per kWh to more than 2 cents/kwh in year 20. 20 years is the design life of turbines, but they often last longer if properly cared for. Subsidies of on the order of 2 to 3 cents/kWh (PTC, grants, Renewable Energy Certificate, etc.) help reduce the above costs of energy.
Wind Turbines generally can retain close to their normal prodcution effectiveness for their lifetime – if blades are given care and the control systems checked. The turbine output variation due to variations in wind speeds is often accommodated by electric utilities in the same manner as variations in loads, such as when lights are turned on in the morning or off at night, etc. It is often seen as a “negative” load, and very often helps to improve the reliability of meeting the utility load and (where used in abundance) leads to the purchase of fewer fossil-fueled plants in the long run.
So, these systems work, are a decent investment, and help the environment. That’s why governments, researcher and decision-makers who understand the benefits and costs of wind energy have been supportive.
Wind power Friday Funny from xcrd
http://xkcd.com/556/
Someone mentioned Bussard’s PolyWell project, now carried on by Emc2, under contract to the US Navy.
Another (even smaller) outfit (no gubmint funding whatsoever) is LPPhysics.com — and it may achieve break-even this year. Would likely have already done so if the switches they purchased as state-0f-the-art 45kV gear weren’t actually only able to handle 25kV. About 9 of the last 12 months were eaten by hand-engineering of upgrades, now complete.
If it clicks, electricity prices would crash by a factor of 10-50X (depending on market), about 6¢/W to install, and 0.3¢/kwh at source. Tiny generators (ship in standard containers), ~5MW each, no radiation, direct power output (no steam turbines!). Timeline is now about 3-5 yrs. out. LPP would sell licenses to mfrs. world-wide for local marketing and use.
At which point every wind and solar plant on the planet becomes pricey scrap; economic road-kill. Hurrah!
Bill;
your numbers are just the wind industry’s PR.
Energy extraction from ANY low-density source requires large commitments of real estate and capital, and maintenance is a horror show just because of proliferation of units and dispersal.
(To cap it off, turbine infrasound wrecks people’s health and quality of life. Google WTS (Wind Turbine Syndrome). There’s a reason every community with actual or threatened local siting goes ballistic in opposition. )
Roger Sowell says:
February 17, 2011 at 7:40 pm
… It has worked in California for decades. Note that the wind-turbines here generally don’t contend with ice or snow. At least, not yet. Stay tuned on that one.
One can click on this link to see the variations in wind power for the day in California.
http://caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html This graph is updated daily.
==================
Look at the output today(2/18). All those wind turbines in Ca produced today was an ave of 300 MW. On small NatGas plant in someone’s backyard could produce three times that much.
Wind power besides being unreliable and undispatchable, is unsustainable. Wind power facilities will consume more than 3 times the amount of energy needed to design, fabricate, erect, operate, maintain and decommission than they will ever produce. Wind power is a collosal waste of resources.
Get the facts. http://www.windpowerfraud.com.
Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
February 18, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Wind power besides being unreliable and undispatchable, is unsustainable.
But what do you really think? lol
I will see that this link is passed along to the “right people”!
Maybe we will talk at length some day. 🙂