Bishop Hill points to an essay in the Spectator Matt Ridley: The Beginning Of The End Of Wind which is a summary of the arguments against wind power. He (and I) were not aware of this point:
Putting the things offshore may avoid objections from the neighbours, but (Chancellor, beware!) it makes even less sense, because it costs you and me — the taxpayers — double.
I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.
…
So even if you accept the most alarming predictions of climate change, those turbines that have ruined your favourite view are doing nothing to help. The shale gas revolution has not only shamed the wind industry by showing how to decarbonise for real, but has blown away its last feeble argument — that diminishing supplies of fossil fuels will cause their prices to rise so high that wind eventually becomes competitive even without a subsidy. Even if oil stays dear, cheap gas is now likely to last many decades.
Though they may not admit it for a while, most ministers have realised that the sums for wind power just don’t add up and never will. The discovery of shale gas near Blackpool has profound implications for the future of British energy supply, which the government has seemed sheepishly reluctant to explore. It has a massive subsidy programme in place for wind farms, which now seem obsolete both as a means of energy production and decarbonisation. It is almost impossible to see what function they serve, other than making a fortune from those who profit from the subsidy scam.
Even in a boom, wind farms would have been unaffordable — with their economic and ecological rationale blown away. In an era of austerity, the policy is doomed, though so many contracts have been signed that the expansion of wind farms may continue, for a while. But the scam has ended. And as we survey the economic and environmental damage, the obvious question is how the delusion was maintained for so long. There has been no mystery about wind’s futility as a source of affordable and abundant electricity — so how did the wind-farm scam fool so many policymakers?
kbray in california 1:24 “I understand that a hydroelectric plant only needs to open a water gate to get the turbines to start spinning up again. They respond very quickly. I suggest leaving the nuclear plant running “full steam” or “full heat” and as long as you maintain steam pressure the steam turbines would spin up not far behind the water driven ones.”
In a hydro plant the turbines are designed to be operated at the temperature of the water, which is close to the temperature of the ambient temperature turbine.
A steam plant’s turbines are designed to operate at very close tolerances at the temperature of the steam, It takes IIRC 16 hours to get a turbine up to operating temperature from a cold start before it can be brought on line. To bring the steam turbine online at short notice it would have to be kept at temperature via a constant steam feed.
jim hogg, Glasgow says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:30 pm
funnelling slower waters into narrower streams and having reversible equipment that catches the flow in both directions – surely not beyond the modern mind
——————
If we can put a man on the moon in 1969…
========================
George E. Smith says:
“”””” ColinW says:
Are there any reliable sources to back this up other than “I have it on good authority from a marine engineer…”? “””””
So Colin, who would then back up your “reliable sources” that you propose would back up the author’s Marine Engineer ?
Would Connolleys wikipedia, be an authoritative enough source ? Why would anyone believe ANY opinion other than their own ?
========================
markx says:
ColinW : March 5, 2012 at 4:59 am
aid: “….Are there any reliable sources to back this up other than “I have it on good authority from a marine engineer…?….”
Common sense and logical thinking should give you a clue that he might be on the right track.
========================
Unlike you guys I went and found something more concrete on the subject, which I posted near the top:
Seems to be a shallow water problem from this article on scouring:
“A question mark hangs over the long-term stability of Europe’s shallow-water turbines, after research linked to the Horns Rev 1 wind farm found that high-powered currents were causing the stone “armour” around the base of monopile foundations to collapse.”
[http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article302545.ece]
I think the first post by amicus curiae: March 5, 2012 at 4:38 am
Coal fired power station $79 per kw/h (kilowatt/hour)
may refer to mw/h as I pay $0.1499 per kw/h off-peak and $0.2499 peak power and get paid $0.68 kw/h for solar feed-in.
cwj says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm
If that is an issue, you can have the steam turbine connected to the electrical generator via a clutch. Leave the steam turbine at idle speed. The exhaust can do other work in the meantime.
I find 16 hours to warm up the steam turbine hard to believe if the boilers are up to temperature. I have an exhaust driven turbo charger on my truck, similar to a steam turbine. It also has close tolerances. It comes up to speed within seconds. 16 hours must be related to heating the boiler.
“All of it is theft by people who have discovered the enormous advantages of a law degree and suit, over a gun and mask.”
When it’s finally shut down, and the thieves are exposed and (hopefully) gutted of their profits, and when we find a way to clean up governmental systems so that presidents can’t give their buddies billions to pursue such obviously worthless busywork, and when we refine those systems to such an extent that we no longer see that every retiring politician and his family and his friends have mysteriously become billionaires during his time in office, you’ll be thanking the lawyers who were responsible for those changes.
Yes, there are enormous advantages to having a law degree, but that’s true whether you’re a thief or a reformer. If you need to demonize people in easily-recognized subgroups, demonize thieves, not lawyers.
ChE says:
March 5, 2012 at 11:57 am
And some become stars.
See Al G.
Budgenator says:
March 5, 2012 at 1:53 pm
If you want your wind-farm to do well, the secret is the fertilizer, put down a good layer of unicorn manure and the crop will take right off!
——————————————————-
The crop yields from the unicorn manure are undeniably excellent (for those that own uncicorn farms – they don’t call it funny money for nothing).
For the rest of us who have families to feed – not so good.
Makes me sick. They treat us peasants like, well, peasants.
The sea is a cruel mistress – no way yer gettin’ yer money back, cap’n.
Specifically on the subject of off-shore windfarms I agree totally with other commenters that 25 yrs operating life is pure BS.
And its not simply the sand and gravel foundations that are a worry.
I have kept an eye on many modern marine constructions, including shipping, and even those using copious amounts of stainless steel and constant maintenance are hard pressed to keep the structure corrosion free. These windelecs, with all their delicate moving parts and electronic, and none up there every day with the grease gun and paint-pot, are never going to last the decades.
I fly over these wind fields (wind carpets according to the Danish) daily, and the number of windelecs not facing into wind and turning is alarming (but predictable).
.
All I want to say here is :
5)The molten salt reactor can react to load changes in less than 60 seconds (unlike “traditional” solid-fuel nuclear power plants)
from wiki:
The molten salt reactor offers many potential advantages:[5]
1) inherently safe design (safety by passive components and the strong negative temperature coefficient of reactivity) using an abundant supply of thorium to breed uranium-233 fuel.
2) much cleaner: as a full recycle system, the discharge wastes from the reactor are predominately fission products, most of which have relatively short half lives compared to longer-lived actinide wastes. This can result in a significant reduction in the containment period in a geologic repository (300 years vs. tens of thousands of years)
3) can “burn” some problematic radioactive waste (with transuranic elements from traditional solid-fuel nuclear reactors)
4) possible even in small, even 2–8 MW(thermal) or 1–3 MW(electric). Submarine or aircraft size is possible
5) can react to load changes in less than 60 seconds (unlike “traditional” solid-fuel nuclear power plants)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
Let’s try Thorium.
jim hogg, Glasgow @ur momisugly 1:30 pm “I think you need to take a trip out to one of the thousands of areas where there is a rapid tidal flow for upwards of 18 hours a day. And even where it’s not rapid – around most of our less rugged and varied shores – the key thing is that there is considerable flow over a vast area . . . . funnelling slower waters into narrower streams and having reversible equipment that catches the flow in both directions – surely not beyond the modern mind – are just two of the methods by which even a modest and variable flow can be captured.”
It would flow a predictable amount of time per day, but just as predictably the flow would slow to a stop twice a day at times rotating through the day, sometimes no flow corresponding to peak demand. It would save fuel, but would require a backup.
The relative costs per kWh output over the lives of various electric power plants utilizing various technologies have been readily available for years to anyone with a calculator, a bit of curiosity and a rudimentary understanding of cash-flow analysis. I’ve lain out those numbers in comments on this site several times. That some governments have traveled so far up the financial dead-end path of wind and solar power generation while many of their citizens cheered them on tells something about institutional and group behavior we should all find frightening.
climatereason says: March 5, 2012 at 10:37 am
I agree about nuclear but no nation is likely to use it as their primary source of power at present, just as a small part of the overall mix, if they use it at all
tonyb.
———————————————————
China, France, Russia, Korea, India, and there’s forward motion in the Baltics. There are 37 large nukes under construction in Asia. Reference: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf47.html There’s even hope for the USA increasing its nuke share, with Watts Bar, Bellefonte, and Vogtle making progress. As for throttling capability, the owners have strong incentive to run at full capacity, as most of the cost is building the things. Fuel is cheap and the work force costs the same at part throttle. And the utilities get credit for CO2 reduction. (This is important in some jurisdictions)
Here’s one for the alternative energy fail file:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9101874/Minister-praises-plan-to-heat-swimming-pool-from-fires-of-crematorium.html
That paper I referenced is 2 years old. Here’s an update as of last month. More nuke plants being built than 2 years ago, but Japan has backed off. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/NPP-energy-availability-1991-2008.gif
shows Availability factor of nuclear is on the decline and currently less than 80%
http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/images/npp-by-age.gif
Shows a majority of Nuclear plants are older than 25 years and a substantial number are older than 35years. Decommissioning that lot will cost!
The state of Fusion:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2011/05/state-of-fusion.html
There is a fair amount of radioactive waste. The next generation will use beryllium walls in the chamber – This is not a pleasant substance!
Power plants designed for back-up
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.com/2011/05/efficiency-of-power-plant-operating.html
From the UK
Data of power delivered (interactive)
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html
When was France demoted in status as a ‘nation’ ?
(Did your forefathers get stared down Napoleon or something?)
“Nuclear power is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country’s total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.”
– wiki world
@1DandyTroll: it doesn’t matter what the EU says or doesn’t say about the lifespan of wind turbines. Twenty years life expectancy has been standard from the manufacturers for decades. In fact if you read Vestas technical specifications, you discover that the full lifespan is only achieved by performing at no greater than 75% of nominal rating. Operating for extended periods of time at full capacity greatly shortens the life of the turbine. So that 1 MW wind turbine you bought is only a 750 kW machine, because you’re going to shut it down every time wind speed would cause it to exceed that amount.
Funny how “the convential wisdom” or “the meme” of AGW and/or peak oil has penetrated and settled into even the skeptical minds here.
Nuclear fuel must be mined and distilled from diffuse sources. It can be a costly process and it is not unlimited in supply. It evenually leaves waste which requires disposal.
Coal mining disturbs vast tracts of surface and also leaves waste requiring disposal.
We have a vast supply of natural gas stored in shale, probably all over the world. It is cheap to produce and generates no waste requiring disposal.
We also have great reserves of oil contained in shales, which could be used to produce plastic products for centuries to come. Thanks to the aforesaid shale gas, we can reduce the amount of oil we wastefully burn.
So why all this argument over “alternatives”?
Is there nothing important left to wring our hands over? Are we so habituated to drama that we have to create it from nothing? When will we allow ourselves to enjoy the peace and comfort we have found?
Load following with nuclear power plants actually reduces their energy availability factor. Because of the inefficiencies and fuel burn issues, it necessitates more frequent refueling. That’s why you’ll note that France’s avail. factor is lower than the USA’s and some other nations. As to other data, here’s some that may be useful or of interest, from: http://world-nuclear.org/info/default.aspx?id=406&terms=availability%20factor
re post by: climatereason says: March 5, 2012 at 10:37 am
Hi Tony,
I agree that it’s unlikely that nations will move towards using it as a primary source if they’re not already. But if you’ll recall, I was replying to your comment:
I accepted your stipulation wrt shale gas, which would make the most sense… and therefore replied that “Nuclear would make vastly more sense than wave/tidal.” One has to consider, aside from all the problems with wave/tidal still not being developed enough to be commercial (and who knows when or if it ever will be), and who knows what environmental/fish kill/other problems will wind up being an issue, that many nations don’t even have an ocean on their borders! The USA has huge ocean borders, and yet I’d hate to imagine what extensive installations would be necessary to power our vast interior with wave/tidal power….
Also to: Dave Worley says: March 5, 2012 at 7:23 pm
On the contrary, peak oil hasn’t sunk in here at all, and we aren’t drinking the alarmist’s kool-aid in this regard (please note my comment above). Quite a few of us argue against the idea any time it comes up. That said, we certainly have noted the all too common absurdities and ridiculous political decisions being made all over the world when it comes to energy issues – and so we debate the pros and cons of various ‘alternatives’ being discussed, because right now some very counterproductive actions are being taken by far too many trying to reduce CO2 emissions. Besides, we really like to toss around ideas and information about all sorts of things, learning more in the process. If all we did was say “it’s clear there are plenty of fossil fuels available, and with frakking, for some nations natural gas is likely to be very cheap and plentiful, so that’s all we ought to consider or discuss….. well, things would get very boring here very quickly, no?
kbray in california says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:31 pm (responding to)
cwj says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm
If that is an issue, you can have the steam turbine connected to the electrical generator via a clutch. Leave the steam turbine at idle speed. The exhaust can do other work in the meantime.
I find 16 hours to warm up the steam turbine hard to believe if the boilers are up to temperature. I have an exhaust driven turbo charger on my truck, similar to a steam turbine. It also has close tolerances. It comes up to speed within seconds. 16 hours must be related to heating the boiler.
Your car’s turbo-charger responds that quickly because it weights a few ounces, and has a 2 to 3 inch diameter. It is compressing a few lbs of gasses to a few inches of pressure over nominal.
A (large) power plant turbine is housed in a cast steel envelope machined to those 1/10000 of an inch at each of 12 24 inch diameter shaft bearings, and to 1/1000 of an inch clearance at the tips of several hundred turbine blades mounted in a 150,000 lb rotor turning at 3600 rm (60 times a second) generating 900 Megawatt to 1200 Megawatt of energy: millions of horsepower. That entire machine has to be warmed up evenly and smoothly each startup so it DOESN’T vibrate and rub and destroy itself. AS it warms, the tops of each blade are in the hot steam at the top of the turbine cover, while the bottom of the blades 12 feet to 18 feet below are in the cooler air of the condenser. Forget the high pressure turbine casings, just that change in temperature across the LP rotors will bend the 200 foot long machine and cause rubs.
Got a turbine already warm? Already on the turning gear? Boiler already hot? Who’s going to pay to keep it that way? Regulators won’t let you steam out-of-spec, and you can’t burn fuel inside the limited enviro spec’s unless you’re near rated air flow and temperature!
Smaller ones? Like a 150 Megawatt to 280 Megawatt gas turbine? Sure, you can start those faster – if you’ve kept them turning and kept their lube oil and generators warms and near-operating temeprature. But then again, you better plan on tearing them down every 24 month, replacing all the blades and worn tip seals and inspect for casing cracks and blade damage. And, by the way, plan on another 120,000.00 to 280,000.00 extra dollars for crack repairs in the 25 foot diameter 1/2 inch thick, high-chrome-stainless steel exhaust manifold from those over-fast heatups to 1200 degrees.
Wind power without pumped water storage is (self-snip).