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?
Ah, foundations. I know a bit about those.There was a time, in the mid-1990s I think, when I thought windmills were a nifty idea. Free energy, like. I was working in construction when the world was going ape over this new revolutionary marvel that was, incidentally, going to provide a lot of years of work for our guys. There was no Anthony Watts and WUWT around at the time, so I was put right by a general labourer, an Italian gentleman of modest means and partial primary education. In a heavily accented, grammatically mangled, but a melodically pleasing and descriptively lavish language resembling English, he managed to explain to me how the foundation materials and labour for the foundation system alone would out-cost any possible profits from the energy these gizmos might, maybe, maybe just might generate. “But they would be cleaner,” I countered. And so, with the measured, patient demeanour of the ancient Roman construction maestro gently instructing a passing idiot, he explained to me that just the preparation for the projects alone would burn through…poofah-bang, capisce?…any good the windmill could produce even in two life spans. The amount of fuel this work would use up for the construction phase was considerable, but money being a form of energy as well, there would have to be a goodly amount of it too, to cover things like the ongoing transportation needs, accommodation and workplace facilities of personnel, not to mention legal, administrative, medical, licenses, fees insurance, etc. That was one of my many steps in the dharma of skeptical enlightenment, a near-mystical bodhi/awakening event introducing me to the imutable laws of boondoggles. Cripes, we’ve been fooled and ripped off again, havent we?
RACookPE1978 says:
March 5, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Thanks for that explanation. Your description is much larger than a turbine I saw at a hydro plant.
I would try to improve that design by adding another steel shell with a vacuum outside the steel envelope to create a thermos effect to retain heat and keep it evenly distributed for a longer period of time. Electric wire heat strips on the envelope could also help keep it up to temperature for a more rapid restart. It sounds ornery and almost too big. The larger you make that turbine, the more everything is stressed to the limits of tolerance. I would design more and smaller turbines that could be “quickly” hoisted from position and replaced, then sent out for overhaul. However one big one like that is very impressive. Throwing blades must be quite the event. Probably not very tolerant of an earthquake’s violent shaking ?
cwj says:
March 5, 2012 at 11:48 am
While others have shut down their plants, because they could not absorb their losses.
I am not in the ethanol-production business and don’t know why some producers still keep going while others shut down their plants, although I would say that the circumstances and reasons vary enormously with each producer and the location his plant is in.
However, I seem to recall that what got perhaps all of them into the business of ethanol-production were government loan guaranties, and that those were given independently of the subsidies per gallon that the wholesalers or consumers had to pay later on.
That makes me wonder whether all of the defaulted loans that the taxpayers are on the hook for will have been recovered by the time all subsidies stop and no more ethanol is being produced.
Still, I did state that the source out of many others I pointed to (the second one on the list, right after Wikipedia) gives you an idea of why ethanol is being produced. I did not say that the one link out of very many gives you an exhaustive cash-flow analysis of the ethanol-for-fuel-production and -consumption scam.
some British wag renamed these wind farms as ‘subsidy farms’, too true alright
Where my tax is going:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027708/Samantha-Camerons-father-nets-350-000-year-subsidised-wind-farm.html
Shona says:
March 5, 2012 at 12:12 pmAnd what love about it is that we sell a lot of it to Britain, so all those times the windmills are offline, British homes are running on nuclear lol.
The UK is 20% Neuclear anyway. France is covered in wind farms.
re post by: cwj says: March 5, 2012 at 2:03 pm
cwj, it sounds as if you’ve no understanding of the scale involved. See this good article, with photos: http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-limitations-of-renewable-power-part-1/
For a typical nuclear power plant, you’re talking a turbine that is about 36 ft long, and 15 to 20 ft wide, used to turn a generator that weighs between 250 to 400 TONS!! Their operating speed is between 3,000 to 3,000 rpm. You can’t do a cold start and spin up anything that massive terribly quickly, it’s just too much torque on the system, too much time to heat up, load & phase have to be balanced, etc. I’ve been on operating turbine decks (actually worked for a while in a room on the turbine floor. Even with ear plugs it’s still loud, and you feel it in your bones). I’ve also walked along and examined a turbine that wasn’t in it’s housing yet. The precision engineering that goes into them is incredible, all to keep it perfectly balanced and able to spin up without ripping itself, it’s housing, and anything in it’s path to shreds. Turbine missiles are carefully planned for, shielding, and including the angle of the turbine so if it does go, it won’t take out anything critical. but you hope to heck you never see one. Frankly, it’s awe inspiring that mankind can build and safely operate such massively powerful things.
It was on that turbine floor, in the room we had to work in temporarily that they actually had a spider infestation. These were very very knarly BIG brown mottled FAST spiders who lived up on the ceiling, two stories above. They’d wind up coming down on their blasted strings all too often. The guys played macho of course, acting as if the spiders didn’t bother them, but you could tell they didn’t like them at all either, gave us all the willies. smooshed spider all over the floor too where we’d roll a chair leg over ’em if they were on the floor, or pop them with a step or book as the case may be. I was the newbie, and the only woman too in a bunch of men who were pipefitters or various engineers and operators, supervisors, etc, and basically just used to being crass and crude without thought. The types that just looooooooved to test a woman and be sure she’s not too thin skinned or emotional.
So I knew beyond shadow of doubt that probably the first day, maybe the second, I would magically discover one of the biggest nastiest spiders in my hardhat AFTER I’d put it on. Or in my books or papers. Or on my chair…. well, you get the idea. They’d be sure to get me. So I Figured I had to do something to head the spider friends off at the pass. Get outside, work in the dirt getting all dusty and nasty, or work on my car and get all greasy, or work with the horses, etc., and I’m fine, I don’t mind it at all Bugs, now I DO mind bugs. I REALLY mind bugs. So it was important to figure out a good way to head off all the upcoming spidy attacks from the guys. So I came back after having been out working for a bit, and everyone was there… the biggest, nastiest spider I’d seen yet just strolls right down it’s string in front of me. A couple of the guys happened to see it and were watching to see my reaction, so this was the perfect opportunity.
When that spider was nearly to the ground, I reached up about eye level and got that spiders string between thumb and forefinger, and snapped if off, so I had my new pet monster on it’s string walking around. The second he felt me messing with his string, he started swarming right back UP the string towards my hand. Time to start the game of Spider Yo. I started bouncing my hand up and down, which of course bounced him up and down… that slowed him a little, but not much, he was still coming up the string – so I bounced him a LOT harder. Yet he was STILL managing to slowly come up the string!! Well, I was getting a little desperate, but no way I was going to show that to the guys, no, I was all calm and coolness, just playing my little game of spider yo-yo. At this point I had ALL the guys crowded in as close as they dared (NO ONE wanted to risk touching that spider!). I’m bouncing that spider, and bouncing, almost flinging him down each stroke, but he’s just hanging on, that durned spider was NOT going to come off that string for anything – and *I* was not going to let it get up to my hand either, no WAY. Most of the guys were rooting for me, a few for the spider. Everyone was breaking out laughing, inbetween a few exclamations and sequels, especially if the spider happened to get thrown a little in their direction. But this blasted spider, was STILL coming up the string slowly.
I started bouncing him off the floor. That buggar STILL hung on!! Finally, when it was about 6 inches from my hand, I swept my hand sideways so the string had to go across the edge of the desk, and that broke it off onto the desk and off of my hand (thank gawd!!!). Whole thing took very little time, happened really fast. The guys thought it was absolutely hilarious. Thus I’d created the game of spider yo, and all the guys had to try it themselves. Everyone was nervous, scared the spider might win and actually make it to your hand. One of the funniest was a fellow who tended to be a bit of a braggart got this really big spidey, and that sucker was unstoppable and ungodly fast. When it got a foot or so from his hand, he got panicky and tried my patented “sweep the string onto the desk in such a way that it transfers.” He tried it, no joy! String still stuck to him even after several tries. And now he’s getting almost panicky, and he finally managed to scrape the spider off it’s string when it was inches from his hand! He was white and sweating at the end, and we were all laughing like mad.
A few of the guys were pretty spider phobic too, like I was, and they worked just as hard to act as if they were completely unbothered by the spideys. Which meant that they felt they HAD to play a game of spider yo at least once or twice, just to prove their manhood (and avoid finding spiders in their stuff!) I know those ONLY tried spider yo a time or two because they felt that I, a soft delicate (ha-ha!) woman had done it and they couldn’t be shown up by a woman!! You could tell all the guys felt a bit that way about the spiders, I mean, heck, we’re all human. But, there was never a single spidey in my hardhat, or books, or desk, or chair, SUCCESS!!! So, even tho I had the absolute willies inside when I started the game, I sure didn’t let them know it, and the game of spidey-yo was out outrageously successful. I’m sure the spidey’s may have a different view on the issue. Regardless, it did loosen things up a little, provide a little laughter amidst the secretive terror. {VBG} It even got to be a thing of pride to find the biggest, toughest, nastiest looking spider and win at spider yo. (you win if the spider drops off his string before he gets to your hand or before he’s so close to your hand that you have to scrape/transfer his string off your hand onto some other surface.(where upon they were summarily dispatched with book, or shoe, or roller on the chair leg). All it took was a little imagination and ingenuity to develop the game of spider yo-yo, the guts to actually play it the first time, and the ability to pretend to be much cooler about it than I was – and presto, I got along great with all those guys the entire time we worked together. Anyhow, there’s the end of my meandering off into old memories for you all, as I’m sure you’ll be glad to know.
So, back to the point. A number of other turbines can be seen using bing: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nuclear+power+turbine&qpvt=nuclear+power+turbine&view=large&FORM=VBCIRL#x0y783
From RACookPE1978 on March 5, 2012 at 8:40 pm:
My machinist knowledge says something sounds off. The shaft and the housings at the bearings being machined to a tenth (tenth of a thou, tenth of a thousandth of an inch) isn’t much of a problem, such a sizing for a press-fit bearing is not special, although at that size five tenths could be acceptable. More believable as a number would have been a tolerance on the size of +/- a tenth.
But only a thou clearance blade tip to housing on a monster that size? Credulity strained, broken, disintegrated into fine shrapnel. For a steel housing, I could believe you can get a thou distortion from moving a housing section from horizontal to vertical, at least, thanks to gravity. The housing would have to be much larger than the bore for the blade assembly, providing structural strength to the top part of the bore, to prevent such distortion, if even possible.
I tried looking for steam turbine manufacturing specs, found the Alstom site with this pdf describing them, but no such info. But I can tell by looking, they are not holding a thou blade tip clearance on those brutes.
I did find this page describing a new laser technique for measuring turbine tip to housing clearance, it specifies ~500 μm being measured. That’s about a 0.020″ clearance, which sounds much more believable. As mentioned when referring to Figure 3, something else to consider, while testing the new method in operation, the spacing changed during a throttle change. Yup, as the turbine spins faster, the diameter gets bigger, the spacing gets smaller. That’s just normal physics, as the centrifugal force “pulls” on the blade end and causes elastic deformation. For such large spinning rotors inside a non-rotating housing, allowing only a thou for clearance would be disastrous mis-engineering.
BTW, in that Alstom pdf, pg 6, it says their turbines don’t need preheating before startup. Actually, going by that document, their turbines seem a lot more forgiving and flexible than what you have said about steam turbines in general. Might be worth a read to see what the current technology says is possible.
Capell says:
March 5, 2012 at 8:40 am
For an authorative analysis of UK generation costs see:
http://www.iesisenergy.org/lcost/
Summarizing: coal, gas, nuclear and the Severn Barrage (now there’s a surprise) come in at about £60/MWh. onshore wind: £190/MWh, offshore wind £270/MWh………………..
//////////////////////////////////////////
Any one who has any experience in shipping/off-shore will know that the costs of maintenance with respect to the off-shore farms is grossly underestimated.
The off-shore environment place a heavy toll on machinery and make maintenance difficult and expensive. The costs of maintenance will be considerably more than twice that of onshore wind, and I would not be surprised if it were even more than tripple.Assuming that the onshore estimate is accurate, a more realistic estimate for off-shore would be £400 to £600/MWH.
In addition, there will be far more downtime since there will be many more periods when conditions will simply be too dangerous for maintenance to be carried out.
I would not be surprised if one sees a life expentancy for off-shore generators of around 5 to 7 years; they becoming uneconomic to repair after this length of time.
When this fiasco is over the shit will hit the fan as wind energy is so patently flawed and it does appear that many of those in power or with influence are directly or indirectly benefactors of this policy. There will be shrill cries to follow the money.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
March 6, 2012 at 4:40 am
Remember what you are measuring: Bearing surface tolerances include various “waviness” (imagine the high frequency ripples on a water surface caused by a rock landing on the water) while wind-driven waves produce a larger, slightly longer wave shape. At the same time, the tide is changing the whole height of the surface. All variations have to be machined out to within spec, and each has a differeent specification at different places on the bearing. Its more than just diameter and length. In turn, the location of the bearing (in terms of x, y, and z) and its angle w/r to the theoretical shaft centerline at different temperatures (in terms of pitch, roll, and yaw) have additional tolerances.
Tips are machined to that close a tolerance, but the machining tolerance is not the final “fit” into the turbine casing and tip seals. That total clearance between “everything” allows for the differential growth between the casing, the liner, the seals, the turbine blade, and the net air gap for the labyrinth seals. Also, the blade tip clearance (cold) has to be measured w/r to the growth of the rotor itself radially and the blade root margins for all 60 blades in that row.
If I have just 6 parts, and all six parts have meet their +0.002 tolerance band, I still get a blade rub because the total difference is 0.012 inch – which causes the blade tip to hit the casing when the net 0.010 margin is exceeded. At 700 mph.
My BS meter clangs every time someone starts pushing nice reliable tidal power. Immersing spinning devices in salt water and keeping them from turning into scrap in fairly short order is a very trying business. Maintenance would be almost unimaginably difficult and expensive. If you think accessing 600′ high turbines in the sea is fun, just try the same thing underwater, with 100X more massive devices!
Clang! Clang!
P.S. The O&M budgets for windmills, land or sea-based, are total fantasies. There aren’t, to begin with, enough mechanics and techs who can stand working unsupported at those heights… only a smallish minority of those with the requisite skills can handle existing tower repairs, and wind turbines are much worse (smooth aerodynamic support poles not the least of the reasons.) Further, the sites are (necessarily) windy, which makes access far more dangerous.
Beyond that, the internal turbines and rotors have limited tolerance for angular changes in force (just a few degrees), and few sites have co-operatively directionally consistent winds.
Literally stupidity on stilts.
Clang! Clang!
I suspect that the primary use of wind power in the post-carbon era will be what it was in the past, for shipping, unless we learn how to release the potential nuclear energy of thorium on a large scale. I seriously doubt that the energy return on investment would make these complex wind-power systems practical on a planet where many scarce critical resources have been utterly depleted. That state of depletion will probably not be an issue for any of us alive today, but the crunch-off of exponentially increasing usage may be upon us now or soon in the not too distant future.
On the decline of the Roman Empire, it has been stated that there was no fixed point in time where the average citizen would mark that their civilization was gradually going downhill, until the barbarians finally sacked the city.
****
Rational Db8 (used to post as Rational Debate) says:
March 6, 2012 at 4:23 am
It was on that turbine floor, in the room we had to work in temporarily that they actually had a spider infestation. These were very very knarly BIG brown mottled FAST spiders who lived up on the ceiling, two stories above.
****
Yeah, the plant where I worked was spider infested, especially in the fall as it got colder & they all migrated from the outside of the building to the inside (or underneath the precipitators). Didn’t usually bother me, but one autumn while underneath the precipitator on the catwalks among the bottom-hoppers where it’s warm, I suddenly realized I was enclosed by hundreds, no thousands of webs each w/their fat owner in the middle. Felt like Hitchcock’s “The Birds” movie. Spiders apparently don’t mind sulfur-dioxide…
From time to time I have my conceptual misunderstandings corrected by the knowledgable folks that frequent this blog. Thank you: RACookPE1978, kadaka (KD Knoebel), Rational Db8, and others.
Comparing a green windmill to a behemoth thermal steam turbine generator is like comparing one grain of sand to a cubic yard of sand… they are magnitudes apart. The steam turbine output cannot be duplicated by current green energy devices. It’s like removing your car’s engine and replacing it with bicycle pedals… it will work, the car will move, but not even close to its prior performance.
Steam turbines can provide the power we need. Nuclear generated steam is the greenest non-carbon source of steam we currently have available. The other mosquito solutions are a waste of time and money.
We need a massive buildout of nuclear power now to satisfy the warming interests regarding CO2 and to provide the power our growing world population requires. Get serious or else don’t bother.
Spector says:
March 6, 2012 at 6:40 am
I suspect that the primary use of wind power in the post-carbon era will be what it was in the past
Powering politicians?
Jim Hogg. Thank you for your comment.
Better if you try and lose the snark a little because more people would engage with you .( “a little learning”. “If understanding such as yours is widespread amongst those who would make judgements in such matters, then perhaps that explains the lack of developent.” {Your spelling mistake not mine}) This is not SkS.
I drove rig supply boats around the North of Scotland, occasionally shooting the inner passage at Stroma for the fun of it before the Coastguard got radar, so I am quite well informed about tides. I would suggest you read the following, as I did, from the University of Strathclyde. http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/Web_sites/03-04/marine/index2.htm Their conclusions are interesting but my point stands that there are few areas where this technology is useful and that peering out of the window at the overfalls off the Mull of Galloway does not make it into a useful tidal stream. Neither the technology or the infrastructure exist currently for tidal power so it is in much the same ballpark as Thorium reactors, Warp engines, and the controlled black hole from the Mekon. Damming the Clyde and the Forth would be a much better option. Roll on Scottish Independence.
I am currently in France and my last electricity bill showed 82% nuclear power and 9% hydro plus a few minor contributors. There are a few incidents at the power stations, mostly in support structures, but the reactors themselves cause very few problems. There have been no deaths from nuclear contamination, The only major issue has been the availability of cooling water during dry spells. New generation reactors do not have this problem nor do they make fissile material as I understand it. Greenpeace was formed with the intent to destroy the nuclear industry and in the UK they were pretty much successful, resulting in the deaths of countless coal miners, gas rig workers, and many more from respiratory disease, not forgetting the deterioration of buildings due to sulphur etc.
Now Greenpeace have thrown their weight behind wind turbines.
I rest my case.
I’d like to know if the low frequency vibrations will drive the fish away. It will certainly affect whales who communicate via low frequency. PETA should be in an uproar.
Here’s a comment from 93′, in an apparent discussion regarding hurricane damage, that gives a brief but good idea of startup issues. You’ll also note that apparently the NRC put the kabosh on hot standby post TMI (e.g., the idea that has been mentioned in this thread a few times, of keeping a nuclear plant at operating temperatures, while bypassing the turbine, to allow quicker return to electrical production or some load following). http://yarchive.net/nuke/nuclear_plant_startup.html
Whilst I am at it. I don’t know if anyone has ever tried to hold a rig boat under a crane in 30 foot waves but if they expect someone to approach a tower structure with a rig tender and land a maintenance crew who will have to climb the structure with all their kit then best of luck. And if their idea is to fly a sikorsky through the blades, even with the brakes on, and drop the guys on the top then good luck with that too. Glad I am retired.
re post by: Disko Troop says: March 6, 2012 at 12:33 pm
I see a new reality tv series on the way. “Windworkers” or some such. Bringing you the dangerous and difficult travails of the offshore windmill crews. Along the lines of “Dangerous Catch” or “Ice Road Truckers” but in the treacherous waters of the Northwest Sea!
Stas Peterson says:
March 5, 2012 at 2:01 pm
I’m definitely not up on current state of fusion research, but I don’t believe even 1 single net watt of power has been generated by all the fusion reactors built to date. And I believe the longest sustained fusion reaction is measured in seconds. Please correct me & provide references if I’m wrong.
[brief pause while I do my own research …]
According to Wikipedia see here:
Yale University built a Combined Cycle Gas Turbine co-gen facility in 1993 that produces 16 megawatts on a reliable basis whenever they need it while the best fusion research reactor to date can sustain barely 10 megawatts for a half second. And it takes 7 countries pooling their resources together to build a bigger one? This indicates to me we’re a long way from practical fusion power.
I’m not a nuclear engineer but I know successful thorium reactors have been built going back to 1965 and anything which produces heat can be used to generate power. So I really can’t agree with your assertion above.
@Alan Watt;
I think that “meso-fusion”, to coin a term, is in a forbidden zone. The Plasma Gods will permit stellar plasma fusion — and micro-fusion. Containment of chaotic potent turbulence is one of the biggies, and neutron flux is the other.
Check out the micro side, generically called DPF (Dense Plasma Focus) at LPPhysics.com . Their project, “Focus Fusion”, tiny and privately funded though it is, is the closest by far to unity (break-even) of the known (non-black) programs. It uses physics judo to exploit instability to produce an imploding “plasmoid”. Working with deuterium in the test phase, it will soon advance to proton-boron fuel. That is “aneutronic”; the only outputs are alpha particles (helium-4 ions) and electrons. The latter are fed back into the plasma pulses, and the former are squirted out in a beam which will pass through a series of solenoids to “drain” the current into capacitors. X-ray “brehmstrahlung” is both minimized by the tuning of the fusion “temperature” and mag fields and harvested in a shell of thousands of foil layers. Mild shielding suffices to protect from the slow neutron and gamma radiation from stray “side reactions”; the immediate enclosure is expected to be “below background” within 9 hrs of shutdown for refueling, maintenance, etc.
The net output is pure electricity, neutralized helium, and a low-grade waste heat (perhaps usable for building heating, etc., but probably not worth exploiting). So: no steam turbines required or involved. Capital and operating costs are on the order of 5% of the best/cheapest coal facilities. Fuel cost is negligible (boron is very abundant), <$10/MW-year. The geometry and physics restrict the individual generator size to the 5-25MW range, depending on the advances of cooling tech (for the electrodes). Total footprint of an installation about the size of a home garage. Servicing every few months, a day or two downtime.
Scientific break-even likely this year (subject to about another $750K in funding on top of the ~$2 million spent since late 2008, when the experimental rig was built). Thereafter, another $20-40 on mass-production prototype refinement over 3-4 yrs should see a licensable design to be made inexpensively available to all interested manufacturers, world-wide.
It renders the entire CO2/warming discussion moot, as it makes distributed waste-free power available everywhere.
typo: “another $20-40 million…”
Timeline clarification: the FF (Focus Fusion) experimental rig was funded late 2008, and completed and began running in fall ’09. It has advanced rapidly from the point reached >10 yrs ago when DoE was instructed to cease funding all fusion research except tokamak designs by Congress. Progress has been held back by about 40-50% by the need to engineer in-house and commission custom components to replace under-performing commercial-grade switches etc., with only skeleton staffing (about 3 FT and 3 PT, depending on priorities and funding, at any given time).