![IMG_20140524_195347[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/img_20140524_1953471.jpg?quality=83)
From Inderscience Publishers , something sure to make greens go “See, I told you!”, except for that little fatal mistake at the end. Read on.
Wind turbine payback
US researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the US Pacific Northwest. Writing in the International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, they conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.
Wind turbines are frequently touted as the answer to sustainable electricity production especially if coupled to high-capacity storage for times when the wind speed is either side of their working range. They offer a power source that has essentially zero carbon emissions.
Coupled lifecycle cost and environmental assessment in terms of energy use and emissions of manufacturing, installation, maintenance and turbine end-of-life processing seems to be limited in the discussions for and against these devices. “All forms of energy generation require the conversion of natural resource inputs, which are attendant with environmental impacts and costs that must be quantified to make appropriate energy system development decisions,” explain Karl Haapala and Preedanood Prempreeda of Oregon State University, in Corvallis.
The pair has carried out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of 2MW wind turbines in order to identify the net environmental impact of the production and use of such devices for electricity production. An LCA takes into account sourcing of key raw materials (steel, copper, fiberglass, plastics, concrete, and other materials), transport, manufacturing, installation of the turbine, ongoing maintenance through its anticipated two decades of useful life and, finally, the impacts of recycling and disposal at end-of-life.
Their analysis shows that the vast majority of predicted environmental impacts would be caused by materials production and manufacturing processes. However, the payback for the associated energy use is within about 6 months, the team found. It is likely that even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.
Haapala, K.R. and Prempreeda, P. (2014) ‘Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines’, Int. J. Sustainable Manufacturing, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.170-185.
=============================================================
The mistake, or some might call it an inconvenient oversight:
Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.
The problem here is the assumption that a wind turbine is the equivalent of a conventional coal or nuclear power plant. It isn’t, and as we know wind is not a constant thing:
“My biggest fear is if you see 20 percent wind on your system, and then it comes off at a time period where you don’t have resources to replace it — that’s going to, could, result in a blackout situation,” he says.
If there was not a backup power source that could be controlled 24/7/365 for those 500 homes, they would be in the dark when the wind falls below minimum levels needed to operate the wind turbine.
For example, a popular wind Turbine, the Vesas V90-2.0 2 megawatt turbine says in the technical specifications:
4 meters per second is equal to 8.9 miles per hour. By my own observation, I can say there are quite a number of days where wind is lower than that at ground level and even at tower height. Today for example, there is quite a number of areas with low or no wind in the United States. The blues are the low wind speed colors.
Source: http://earth.nullschool.net/#2014/03/26/0900Z/wind/surface/level/equirectangular=-96.36,44.28,879
As we have seen before, when power is needed most, we can’t always count on the wind to blow at a level that will keep a wind turbine producing, requiring another power source to back it up. Thus, it is a blatant fallacy to claim:
…each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.
Scott Wendt:
I am starting to think you are willfully misunderstanding.
Your latest post at June 19, 2014 at 5:43 am says in total
That is NOT what anybody would do. As YOU pointed out, a single oil tanker would be replaced by many smaller sailing ships: indeed, whale oil WAS conveyed by many smaller sailing ships. But nobody would choose to convey oil like that now.
However, it is claimed that many small windturbines can replace a power station. The reasons that claim is a bad idea are THE SAME REASONS that many small sailing ships are a bad idea for replacing an oil tanker.
If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would be sailing ships.
This is comprehensible to both numerate and innumerate people, it is true, and all your arguments about it emphasise its truth. It needs to be shouted because it can be understood by anybody.
Richard
Karl:
re your assertions at June 19, 2014 at 6:01 am.
Yes, everybody read the article and early in the thread several pointed out that energy return is a pointless metric.
Your financial figures are wrong because you say they are “cost” but they are price.
Cost = price + subsidy
Richard
@ur momisugly richard
Your argument that
“The reasons that claim is a bad idea are THE SAME REASONS that many small sailing ships are a bad idea for replacing an oil tanker.”
Is specious
The only reason supertankers are used instead of numerous small ships — is because oil fields, pipelines and onload terminals are extremely small in number, and receiving facilities and refineries are the same. And economy of scale is important due to the geographic distances between supply and end user. Where pipelines acan be built they are.
Multiple small power generation stations are much better than large ones — they make for a more resilient grid, both against natural disaster, and bad actors.
A recent example — in 2011 a tornado damaged the interconnects to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Power Station in Alabama USA. The majority of the residential connection grids were undamaged, however because of the highly centralized nature of the power station interconnects — Power was completely out to the majority of North Alabama for almost a week.
@ur momisugly richard — please cite the current subsidies for all power generation types in the US
As in — don’t leave out the Free financing and loan guarantees for Nuclear Power Stations
FYI — The wind production of $23 per Megawatt Hour tax credit has expired as of DEC 2013
The $3 Million cost of Installation is cost in real dollars no subsidy
Karl:
You adopt a common tactic of windfarm salesmen when – in your post at June 19, 2014 at 6:20 am – you pretend one issue is a different issue.
You say to me
Yes, distributed power generation does improve grid resilience.
But the turbines of a windfarm or a collection of windfarms are not distributed generation: they are a single power source subject to possibility of failure. Indeed, the turbines ALL stop generating when the wind changes to become insufficiently strong or too strong so they provide the certainty of frequent total failures.
Richard
Once again a specios argument — nothing necessitates hundreds of turbines comprising a windfarm. — At hub height a 30% capacity factor is about the norm — just about everywhere.
There are several installations throughout the Appalachian foothills that site a few turbines together, then a few miles away site some more, etc.
Community based power generation where capacity factor is accounted for when sizing the distributed farm is not only smart — it is inevitable.
Building integrated PV, along with community based small scale solar farms and a few turbines WILL HAPPEN — arguing that wind is not cheaper in the long term than coal or NG is just plain incorrect.
Karl:
re your post at June 19, 2014 at 6:25 am.
You say
Please state the ongoing benefit of that subsidy having reduced the payback time for the windfarms you are citing.
Also, please state the value of any mandates for the grid to take the windpower.
We can assess your sales pitch when you provide full and transparent information instead of the misleading propaganda you have posted in this thread so far.
Richard
Karl:
I object to your post at June 19, 2014 at 6:33 am.
You raised the “specious argument” of distributed generation.
I pointed out your argument is specious.
Your post I am answering again changes the subject and claims I made a “specious argument”!
I suggest you report back to your employer and ask for the job to be undertaken by a more competent salesman for windpower.
Your product is expensive and unreliable so is a hard sell. And the selling needs more competence than you are displaying.
Richard
Also FYI — there are turbines with cut-in speeds of 3.0 m/s http://www.windenergysolutions.nl/wes50
And here is a link to turbines under development that cut in at 2 m/s and peak generate at 4 m/s
http://www.ecogeek.org/component/content/article/3728-new-technique-for-low-velocity-wind-turbines
And here is a CNET citation about a honeywell product that cuts in at 2mph (yes mph)
http://www.cnet.com/news/small-wind-turbine-works-at-low-wind-speeds/
Let’s try a similar question to the one you are so fond of. /Bold on “If diesel electric engines are so great (on locomotives), then they would build diesel electric oil tankers!” /Bold off
Diesel electric engines ARE wonderful on locomotives. The ‘extra’ weight helps the engine pull the train.
The constraints are much different for a ship. The extra weight is a killer. The direct coupling of the engine to the shaft is better, avoiding all the extra weight. (Reducing extra displacement needed to float the engine.)
My question is bad at proving diesel electric is bad, because it is obviously wrong. Your shouted question is also bad because the conditions and constraints for floating engines are SO different than those for wind farms.
What payback time are you talking about? Even if you added that $23/MWH production credit (that only lasted 10 years from startup when it was in effect) you get a cost of $.023 + .023($23/MWH) *10/25(subsidy years vs lifecycle) = $.0322
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/electricity_generation.cfm
Wind LCOE is less than coal — and less than 3 out of 5 types of NG fired plants
And even cheaper than Nuclear — after taking into account the NUCLEAR Subsidy.
Karl says:
June 19, 2014 at 6:43 am
Yes, and those single examples of low speed cut-in rates only illustrate that the high speed efficiency and high-speed cut-out rates and average (optimum speed) power generation efficiencies are lower as well.
In the southeast US, right under the “near-doldrums” of the Bermuda high pressure system covering eastern TN, VA, NC, SC, GA, north FL, AL, and MS, calculate for me please how many 2 MWatt wind turbines over how many acres of clear-cut pine forest are needed to equal a single 600 MWatt combined cycle power plant running 24/7/365 running quietly and invisibly on only 30 acres.
There are NO regional wind backups.
Solar is cut out by the clouds, haze and humidity to 1/4 its clear sky intensity.
Now, generate the power you claim you can.
And based on real world advances in turbine technology and decreasing costs — coupled with real world increases in Nuclear, Coal, and NG plant construction and fuel costs — the numbers will be more in favor of Wind and PV as time goes by.
FYI — UL listed PV panels for $.74 a watt (5 years ago it was $5 a watt)
http://sunelec.com/
Karl claims:
June 19, 2014 at 6:51 am
The actual cost of wind is 150.00/MWatt-Hr.
@ur momisugly RA COOK
Why clear cut anything — the hub heights are 100 meters — much higher than any loblolly, white, or other eastern pine can ever hope to grow. The lumber industry especially in north carolina has created plenty of areas devoid of trees where turbines could be sited — and the roads as well.
Alabama has plenty of cotton fields and cow fields ….
FYI — Most of the “pine forests” you describe are only there because they were planted to support the paper and lumber industries and are at most a few decades old waiting to be cut down again.
But to answer your question — Zero acres of clear cut forests are needed.
Every state you mentioned has offshore wind resources that can more that meet your example of a single NG fired plant. (which does not have a 100% on station capacity)
You underestimate the solar resource, lots of people here in Bama have PV installed.
Offshore capacity – 35% 2MW = approximately 90 turbines (thats 630MW effective) at an installed cost of approximately $450 Million (5 million per because of offshore)
RA COOK — EIA says 80 — and 96 for Nuclear (86 after subsidy) but ignore the citation all you want
900 turbines — $4.5 billion missed a zero — apologies
MISLEADING PAYBACK TIME.
From the article:
“However, the payback for the associated energy use is within about 6 months, the team found.”
Translation, this is the payback time for the energy used (i.e. to become socalled “Carbon Nuetral” for the energy to manufacture install, etc), not the actual payback for the cost of the equipment.
Sheds a different light on the findings than what they are trying to convince people to believe.
@ur momisugly Karl
It’s true the federal production tax credit (PTC) expired Dec 2013 for NEW wind turbines.
However, all existing turbines AND the turbines under construction will continue to soak up the subsidy (for their first 10 years of production).
The proposed wind farm down the road from me built roads in November to the turbine sites so that they would qualify for the PTC.
Iowa’s PTC did NOT expire, nor have the other incentive programs.
Pam – What fossil fuel subsidy? Name it, because they do not exist. If you want more information on the subject, a good analysis was done on the subject of energy subsidies and costs on Power Magazine 3 years ago.
http://www.powermag.com/chart-a-new-course/
http://www.powermag.com/busting-myths/
@richardscourtney
I finally thought of a good analogy/question for you.
“If wind turbines are so effective, then why don’t people (and cities) use them to pump their water?”
Wind mills used to be everywhere on the rural landscape pumping water for farms. As soon as the electric grid was expanded into the rural areas they became obsolete. Electric pumps powered from a stable power grid were much, much better. This is a better “apples to apples” comparison.
Scott W:
re your post at June 19, 2014 at 9:41 am.
Wind turbines are used to pump water at locations distant from an electricity grid. This is one of the niche markets for wind power because reliability does not matter (water can be stored). Electricity grid supply is not such a niche market for wind power because reliability does matter (electricity cannot be stored in significant amounts so must all be used when generated).
Richard
Yes, all true. But, if a municipality tried to directly pump water with a modern wind mill (more efficient when skipping electric conversion), they would need many more water towers to build up the supply for when there is no wind. They could build a fleet of wind powered pumps linked to towers, OR they could just reply on electric pumps and a small number of water towers. This example illustrates the problem with wind power without all the extra problems in building/floating/moving a wind powered tanker.
Hospitals have back up generators, either diesel or natural gas. You could also ask why they don’t use wind turbines. This too is fair comparison because it compares land based uses.
Scott W:
re your post at June 19, 2014 at 10:47 am.
OK, if you think your illustration is useful then use it, but I think it will spread more confusion than information because it will engender the obvious response that, “Wind power IS used to pump water”.
Personally, I will continue to use the accurate, true and undeniable statement; i.e.
If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would still be sailing ships.
Indeed, if people try to deny it then that engenders response which demonstrates the issues of economics and reliability.
Richard
The technical answer to your question is that sailing ships FAIL the economy of scale test because wind energy is too DIFFUSE to power bigger, more efficient ships.
But, have it your way. I fear you do more harm than good with that analogy. As you stated, wind pumped water is limited to niche markets. You and I know why. So, when someone challenges my analogy I’ll ask them why it is limited. And, since it often suggested that it would be good to use surplus wind energy to pump water uphill into storage tanks for later conversion to electricity, then I’ll ask why don’t municipal water utilities pump their water with wind? And, it would seem to be a good idea to combine those processes. Why not? We know. Wind energy is not dependable.
One additional small critique of your analogy. You still say “sailing ships”, yet you challenged my explanation when I used sails. You should then drop “sailing” if you envision modern wind turbines sitting on the tanker’s deck.