![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.
LeeHarvey says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:28 pm
I get 700 tons = 345 cubic yards (at 150 lb/cubic foot)
Guessing 30 ft diameter base, that would be 13 feet deep. Which seems small to me, though they may not have to keep the foundation at that large a diameter the whole way down. I’ve not seen that part of the construction so I don’t know what kind of a foundation they use.
Adding to the negatives, turbines have been fingered for the destruction of large numbers of
flying creatures, most notably bats, which are very beneficial for agriculture. Also raptors and one interested bird lover believes that the endangered Whooping Crane population has suffered
recent severe losses, which he hypothesizes was due to wind turbines. Those studies of massive bat kills around turbine sites led to the idea of shutting down the turbines during certain times of the day and night. Apparently they believe that won’t totally eliminate the slaughter, but will reduce it substantially. It will also increase the cost of wind generated power even more.
I am a believer in monetary costs roughly reflecting the energy/resource costs when it comes to energy and resource production. If the energy payout is only 6-8 months then someone is making huge margins in the manufacturing and installation of wind farms. More likely the time for energy payout is closer to the monetary payout.
Some quick calculations assuming a 25% operating capacity and $2.4 million price tag for each turbine the payout on a turbine is about 5.5 years. The time to payoff is longer once you consider maintenance cost, which also increases the energy required to create the electricity. Maintenance is cheap on these farms, simply Google “lighting strikes wind farms” for a clue on how much a wind farm costs to keep operating.
Wind power blows…..or not
–AnonyMoose says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:23 am
It looks like they’re only comparing energy flows, not cash flows. They’re saying that the energy used in creating the turbine is similar to the amount of energy created by the turbine in 8 months, so after that the turbine is creating new energy. It is not saying that the cost in money is replaced in 8 months.–
Yeah I think this is what is meant. As I vaguely recall PV panels take twice as long. Or energy consumed to make a PV requires about 1 1/2 years of energy that PV panel could make- but I don’t think that includes everything such as installation costs.
So in terms of energy used to make the thing which makes electrical power, wind mills are better than solar panels. But this is not too surprising as the manufacture of PV panels requires far more energy than most people imagine.
“Is the obsession with “climate change” turning out to be the most costly scientific
Blunder in history?”……Christopher Booker
ChrisM says:
Perhaps there should be two grids. One for wind turbine advocates, and one for old fossil fuel fools, with no interconnectors. Then we would see the true capabilities of the bird choppers.
Where would nuclear, regular hydro and pumped hydro go? Presumably the wind turbine one would get solar too. Though my money’s on it being useless without some gas turbine backup anyway.
Though in solar capitial of world beging such bad place to generate electical I would not be surprised is solar panels never return the electrical energy they consumed making them and all the other electrical cost they consume. Or they sort of like charging a battery once, then tossing it away..Or they like buying non rechargeable batteries as crazy idea to generate electrical power.
Still waiting for the day “wind farm” meansputting in energy to generate air circulation to counteract mankind’s use of tall buildings disrupting the North American airflow. The “Stagnation Alarmists” will no doubt cite large city core decreases in wind speeds and not wish to notice the pristine sites where wind speeds are unaffected.
battman says:
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.
Any examples of machines which work perfectly for 215 years? Or is that 20,000 per anum after the annual maintanance cost has been factored in.
Hey – this article is discussing the “Energy” payback time period – NOT the economic payback time. BIG difference. So this misleading article is talking about how long until the wind turbine produces the electrical ENERGY amount used to create and erect the turbine. Who cares if it only takes 6-9 months to pay back (generate) the same amount of electricity used to build this, if the cost to the consumer for each KWH is 8-10 times that from hydro or gas-fired power plants. The consumer is still screwed into paying HUGE electric bills, for intermittent power, which still has to have a full capacity power plant “hot & spinning” to take over WHEN the wind stops blowing. Operation and maintenance costs are many times greater than for fixed traditional power plants, which contribute to the very high cost of each KWH produced by these bird/bat choppers.
Why pay 40 cents/KWH for wind power, when conventional hydro and nuclear power is in the 5-6 cents/KWH range? It’s all about forcing us to use the energy source the global warming alarmists, activists and politicians want us to use to further their agenda.
I think there is an error even earlier. How can the working life of a turbine impact the payback time?
If it is 5 to 8 months, then it shouldn’t matter if the turbine is failing in 2 years. You have already been paid back. One suspects they are doing some sort of fuzzy math, that required them to stretch out to 20 years.
And the “net energy cost” to drill an oil well can be very low or zero also… just use flare gas from adjacent wells within the same field to generate the power required plus a little extra for the grid. These kinds of calculations are senseless… simply fodder for useful idiots.
Good spots. Read this tripe before commenting.
Three fundamental errors that should never have passed peer review. First, paying back electrical energy is not paying back all energy. concrete and steel are made using a lot more than just electrical energy. Wrote my undergrad thesis on that concerning nuclear rather than wind, a long, long time ago. Second, used nameplate capacity without adjusting for capacity factor. Last year US CF was 31%, UK was 24. Third, ignored the backup capacity, which operates on average about 75 % of the time to make up nameplate. (Actuals are less and the real calculation is more complex, but this heuristic gives the directional idea). That backup is INCREMENTAL to what the grid would otherwise require. It’s cost is left out of the new DOE and EIA levelized cost estimates, which have to be roughly doubled. And the energy cost of making those is left out, also.
Wind will never be able to compete, even with nuclear, without subsidies that can never end. Yet still better than grid solar.
Back in my “previous life”, the major utility I worked for was “beaten up” by the state regulators, and to install a certain amount of gas turbine peakers (needed for growth, summers) they had to “subsidize” 100 Megawatts of wind turbines (100 units that is.). That they did, placing them in the WINDIEST PLACE in the STATE (clue, somewhere near, around the Dakotas, a very open and windy area.) Subsequent to development, and for the next 10 years, I was able to watch the Grid Operations System (GOS) system,and see the amount generated. Yep, after 10 years of operation, the wonderful wind power (“free”, don’t you know) produced an AVERAGE of 8.7 Megawatts, orr 8.7% capacity factor. (The gas turbines, of course, produced about a 99% cap factor, not “free”.) Now, what of this? Despite the FIGHT the utility had to go through with the PUC (Public Utilities Commission) the cost figures came out. Installed, each unit was a little under $2 Million. Using STANDARD industrial amortization, the net cost during that 10 years, was…hang on to your hat, about $1.65 per KWHr. If you had a standard cost of $100 a month for your electricity, if you had WIND power you could be paying $2000 a month. Wonderful way to personal bankruptcy and national bankruptcy.
Intermittence, as annoying as it may be, is a distraction and is not, in and of itself a deal killer.
As others have pointed out, the key to this discussion is that they are talking about energy payback, not economic payback. Two very different things.
” ChrisM says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:06 am
Perhaps there should be two grids.”
Indeed.
I would also like there to be two healthcare systems here in Ontario, Canada: one for those who believe in wacky medicine like chiropractic, Traditional Chinese Medicine or other such woo (which I am FORCED to pay for in our wonderful socialized nation), and one for those of us who are rather ok with science-based medicine.
You sign up for one or the other. If you believe in homeopathy, you can’t go to a modern hospital. Ever. In fact, all alternative medical places should only have alternative green power running them…
Real life often differs from what your book says and unfortunately there are quite a few people (in gov) out there who are educated but have no real life experience to back it.
Our school dept set up an entire energy efficient school once during a fed induced grant frenzy. Its system was supposed to be self contained and provide the heating and cooling for said school. The school itself is buried into the ground with a grass roof. We live in an area with volcanic rock below dirt, so digging it in to the ground cost 5x what was projected. Then as a result of the dirt and grass over the building they were getting poisoned inside.. and the problems with the heat/cool system were endless. Well 10+ yrs or so later the bill came in for all the constant maintenance, constant replacement of parts, The bill also included additional “support” air conditioning and heating units, purchased because the engineers design would totally fail during too hot or too cold of weather and when it was switched for season changes.
Well as it turns out they spent more cash on electricity, equipment and maintenance in the “green school” then any other building in the entire district, and almost as much as the rest of the schools combined. So this year they scrapped they green and put in an old fashion boiler and some roof AC units… and the lesson learned here? Just cause the engineer thinks its possible, doesn’t necessarily make it possible. It was not a total loss though, I think the building itself might be a good alternative to a square one in tornado alley. 🙂
It should be noted that the specs indicate there is also a cut-out speed of 25 m/s (56 mph). So when the wind blows too strongly, the turbines aren’t generating.
climatereflections says: June 16, 2014 at 1:34 pm
Intermittence, as annoying as it may be, is a distraction and is not, in and of itself a deal killer.
As others have pointed out, the key to this discussion is that they are talking about energy payback, not economic payback. Two very different things.
Energy payback is a meaningless metric. I would bet they made it up, hoping the public can’t discern the difference.
sounds like it means payback for the energy used in 8 months assuming that initial cost is free and maintenance is free and one doesn’t have to include rotating backup systems. Otherwise, I don’t think the darned things have yet been able to break even in operating cost without subsidies.
Col Mosby says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:43 pm
By way of comparison, the campus for Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle is 3,100 acres and has two operational 1,215 MW reactors with two additional AP1000 reactors (1,250 MW gross, 1,117 MW net) approved and under construction. If the above figure is correct, it would take 1,200,000 acres of wind turbines to equal the output of Plant Vogtle alone.
A working life of 20 years? With how many bearing and gearboxes plus the occasional blade being replaced in that time? And what then ? Total replacement?
The word from the maintenance engineers for the vast array of large Vestas here in Godzone is that there is plenty of work keeping them going, but the owners are not making any money.
Mind you, this is a subsidy- free environment, and the competition (complement?) is large amounts of hydro.
And the lines company is still trying to get the remote 33,000 volt switch ( that had to be installed to accommodate the whirly-gigs intermittent output) to listen to the dispatchers.
Another take on this at
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2014/06/bizarre-payback-analysis-being-used-for-alternate-energy.html
Would somebody please explain to me why I am subsidizing Berkshire Hathaway’s massive wind turbine investment.
The last time I checked, Berkshire Hathaway didn’t appear to be in need of subsidies.
(in full disclosure, I am a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder).