![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.
This is great news! We need to end all subsidies for wind now because obviously they don’t need it when they pay out in 6 months. If you achieved an average of 6 month payouts on large oil and gas projects you’d be an industry rock star! And the extra $2/kw.h I pay for electricity since my state mandated wind farms provide a portion of the state’s energy, we don’t need that anymore. Great news indeed in the land of alternate reality.
The article seems to be paywalled. A pity, since the results sound revolutionary. Does anybody know where a full text is available?
I love green economics, where the cost of money is always ZERO.
And this large scale power storage… I want to see that.
And I would like the wind and solar producers to PAY for that storage they require.
If this is even close to the truth, then no further subsidies are required….. Great IMO……
taking bets on how long until Obama repeats this………
The article is talking about energy production not cost. They are saying that it takes 6 months to a year to for the turbine to produce the amount of energy equal to that use to manufacture, install, and maintain the turbine through its life. I agree with Anthony that they do not include the energy costs of backup power production. They also do not state how they calculate the energy production of the wind turbine, are they using the rated capacity or some fraction of the rated capacity? Energy is a small fraction of the total actual cost of a turbine and ironically I beleive enrgy from a wind turbine would be too erratic to be used in the production of a wind turbine. This is a classic misdirection.
1. Including subsidies?
2. Production, installation, and maintenance costs should also include the fact that not all turbines are running at the same time or same speed. Did they calculate the result based on full installation of all turbines and running at projected speed and hours? We know that in real life, this isn’t happening. Turbine farms do not run at the before-going-online projected speed and hours.
They should use an existing farm’s total output dollar cost including subsidies (a subsidy is not income, it is a cost) compared to the incoming total energy unsubsidized dollars to determine when they are profitable. Profitable in their own right, not padded by my tax dollars. In fact all energy sources should be thusly calculated. Oil is no sacred cow to me.
And I am not saying we should not subsidize energy. We subsidize other infrastructure necessities that help us as a country of businesses to make and sell products. It just needs to be considered a cost, not an income source by those who want to dig oil or catch the wind.
And how much does construction of each windmill cost? How much does maintenance cost? (including subsidies for each). I don’t see either in the article. Just a hunch, but I don’t think it ever recovers it’s cost.
Average household power use is 1KW. The windmill is 2000KW. With a capacity factor of 25%, average output is 500KW, exactly what 500 households use.
battman says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:36 am
Local high school has a turbine installed about one year ago at cost of 4.3 million, said to save the school almost 20,000 per year.
===========
Do you think the school will be around in 215 years to see the payback? No math classes at that school?
This report is a bit of sleight of hand- a magical illusion to keep people from noticing that their wallets are being picked from their pockets by windmill promoters.
Even if the report’s basics were accurate: that the *energy costs* of manufacture can be recovered relatively quickly, what about paying for the materials, labor, overhead, transporation, construction, grid hookup, operating costs of maintenance and repair, the costs of having backup power ready at a moment’s notice, etc.?
The windmill financial viability studies I have seen show that most windills do not pay for their own depreciation, and barely cover operating expenses. And would fail that without legally required buy-ins of wind power and tax payer direct subsidies.
Richard:
That helps immensely. I learned a great deal from that paper. Thanks for the info.
andy
The variability of wind is a known factor: years of wind data are available to be evaluated. The wind data can be applied to proposed turbines to estimate a future power output and the fluctuations.
Modulations of power production to match fluctuating demands is an every minute occurrence: operation of power systems is a technical problem that is there in the system, faced every day whether there is wind energy as part of the system or not.
The variations needed in conventional power plants to accommodate wind are changing conditions that can be projected in advance: the loss of efficiency in fuel use by reductions in output can be projected.
The characteristics of wind power are known. Large electric utilities that already have wind power installations, know the trade-offs, both the benefits and the draw-backs, the capital and the operating costs. These large electric utilities are evaluating wind power and are adding more. They are not naive users, they are sophisticated producers and distributors of electricity. They do their own evaluations. They know about standby requirements. They know about the changes in efficiency with modulating production. They know about power surges. They know how the wind changes. They evaluate all these, use their own capital and add more wind power, and compete for sites.
The technical requirements mentioned in this thread are known. Yet private producers have evaluated all these technical problems and invest their own capital, sign long term agreements for the use of the land with payments to the owners. This should give pause to those who raise these technical objections. Maybe those who deal with power generation everyday know a little more than you do.
It is unfortunate that the analysis is skewed by government subsidy, but when private enterprise commits it’s own funds there is a good chance that the technical problems are not unsolvable.
@ur momisugly tomcourt –
700 tons of concrete? As the foundation for a 2 MW wind turbine? By my incredibly loose calculations, that’s about 200 cubic yards, or 20 transit mixers’ worth of concrete. Maybe in ideal conditions where there’s a minimum of topsoil to displace, but I’d bet that the real average concrete required to anchor a turbine that big is at least double that 700 ton estimate.
A possible solution to the problem of intermittent or insufficient winds to power the turbines.
Place the majority of wind turbines outside congress and leave the doors open. Enough Hot Air there to power a small country if properly harnessed
Climate math.
The most flexible math there is.
@ur momisugly Eric Gisin –
That’s fantastic… now show me a perfect, lossless storage and recovery method to smooth out the power demand of your ‘average’ house to something approaching 1 kW.
I know that my electric bill goes through a distinct cycle where peak summer usage is roughly double peak winter usage, and about five times what I use in the spring and fall when lighting and HVAC use bottom out at the same time.
Warren Buffett, who lost $900 million on the TXU energy bankruptcy, may be wrong again if he assumes government will guarantee him a profit for his wind and solar investments.
“Warren Buffett briefly lost track of how many billions of dollars his Berkshire Hathaway Inc. is spending to build wind and solar power in the U.S. That didn’t stop him from vowing to double the outlay. […]
“Berkshire has been able to plow so much into renewable energy because it can use tax credits to offset profit at other businesses, Abel, the 52-year-old CEO of Berkshire Hathaway Energy, said yesterday. Units at Buffett’s company include auto insurer Geico, Dairy Queen, Shaw carpet and T-shirt maker Fruit of the Loom.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-10/buffett-ready-to-double-15-billion-solar-wind-bet
The biggest criticism of windmills is seldom the amount of energy required to build them, and any associated emissions. It is the high cost of producing power.
Here is one of the most comprehensive analyses I’ve come across :
http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Hidden-Cost.pdf
In this analysis the cost depends upon what type of backup energy is being used : coal or natural gas. It only cares about the monetary cost of building the machines,not how much energy is expended in doing so. The business about electrical storage availability being a solution for wind’s unreliability is absurd. The wind can disappear for days, even weeks, far beyond not only the capacity of any storage system, but the ability for the wind power to ever fill that capacity and simultaneously provide the power expected by the grid. The environmental footprint of a wind system is apparently huge – I have seen estimates that almost 300,000 acres would normally be required to site enough turbines to produce the same gross amount of power as a 1200 MW nuclear power plant.
Sound power 104dB – that is VERY loud.
Chris4692 says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:27 pm
I work for one of those “Large Electric Utilities” that generated it’s own power. A while ago, legislation was passed forcing divestature of much of the existing generation facilities into private facilities and opening up the energy market to competition (ALA ENRON). This created an artificial increase in energy prices as the facilities were no longer under the control of a regulated Utility. My County is now being forced into a CO-OP situation with an agregated GREEN Generating Company. We can’t Opt in, we must Opt out.
What I can say is thet, IF Wind and Solar generation is so “Cost Effective” then why arent there Solar Panels being installed at the local offices for the Utility? I can understand On Sight wind generation not being installed within city limits though. Who wants to live next to one of those?
I work for one of those “Large Electric Utilities” that generated its own power. A while ago, legislation was passed forcing divestiture of much of the existing generation facilities into private facilities and opening up the energy market to competition (ALA ENRON). This created an artificial increase in energy prices as the facilities were no longer under the control of a regulated Utility. My County is now being forced into a CO-OP situation with an aggregated GREEN Generating Company. We can’t Opt in, we must Opt out.
What I can say is that, IF Wind and Solar generation is so “Cost Effective” then why aren’t there Solar Panels being installed at the local offices for the Utility? I can understand On Sight wind generation not being installed within city limits though. Who wants to live next to one of those?
Eric Gisin says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:01 pm
The grid does not run on average power. It runs on instantaneous power. Your house will be dark from 100 KW for two days and 0 KW for 8. Average power 10KW.
This is one of the most egregious examples of blowing smoke I’ve ever seen. They present a new metric which proves that wind generation is economical because it outputs as much power in a few months as is spent on it over its lifecycle. By their own standards I can then “prove” that dynamite will have a “net benefit” within one second, orders of magnitude better than wind power. As the article and several here have pointed out, continuously usable energy over the long haul apparently doesn’t figure into the equation. Anybody know how I can go about applying for federal funding for more studies on this?
Chris4692 says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:27 pm
It is unfortunate that the analysis is skewed by government subsidy, but when private enterprise commits it’s own funds there is a good chance that the technical problems are not unsolvable.
Or the subsidy and MANDATES are irresistible. We did this once before with housing loans. It did not turn out well.