![IMG_20140524_195347[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/img_20140524_1953471.jpg)
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.
In addition the payback period is based on 2MW generation over the period, but in actuality, this will be stretched out much longer because the average output is much less.
climatereflections:
At June 16, 2014 at 1:34 pm you assert
Merely “annoying”? “Not a deal killer”? Surely, you jest!
The intermittence provides need for back-up and combined with the little power available in normal winds to make it very difficult for windpower to recover its capital costs in the absence of subsidies.
Windpower was used to power shipping and to operate mills for millenia. But windpower was displaced when the steam engine enabled use of greater energy intensity in fossil fuels to provide greater and continuous and controllable power.
If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would be sailing ships.
Richard
Allready mining for rear earth minerals to use in magnets, devestate large areas in China.
If windmills shall cover f.ex 10% of the needed electricity, mining has to be increased more then 10 times compared to current mining. Added to that a ton of copper is needed in each and 15-16 ton steel. Large scale windmills just make no sence.
That is quite preposterous. I was looking at UK power production a few days ago, their 5,000+ wind turbines were operating at 2.5% of capacity at the time. The UK is a windy place yet, their wind farms operate
below 20% of capacity more than half of the time,
below 10% of capacity one third of the time
below 2,5% of capacity one day in twelve
below 1.25% of capacity just under one day per month.
And the wind tends not to blow when power demand is highest, when temperatures are either very hot or very cold. Wind tends to blow more at night, when power demand is lower
Another hidden cost to wind turbine generated electricity supplied to the grid is the additional uncertainty it adds to natural gas contracts. Usually contracts are set a day in advance for delivery but utilities are often forced to buy all available wind without regard to gas in the pipe. When the deal for delivery is made the gas comes out of the ground and it has to go somewhere (the utility owns it and has to take it). When short term storage at the utility is exceeded the gas is vented to ambient. When wind came on line here our rates increased plus a wind surcharge was added to the bill. It is wind on the fast track but permitting for utilities to increase NG storage reservoirs is slow. (Look Ma no commas)
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:16 pm
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)
..
..
Any clue how much land is required for the mining, refining and processing of the uranium fuel?
Portsmouth RI took out a $3 million loan to install a wind turbine and sell the power to the National Grid. Five years later the turbine’s gear box failed. Estimated cost of repair: $580,000 to $730,000. As of 2013, the turbine had not been repaired and the town still owed $2.3 million.
Ask them about payback.
Expected life of complete turbine is 20-25 years, but gearboxes typically fail every 7-10 years.
I bet that the analysis in regards to paying off the power “debt” in producing a windmill is correct. I also noticed that the return on investment numbers for the payoff of the windmill were admittedly missing.
There is a fair sized wind farm between Indianapolis and Chicago. Last time I was through there my guess, three quarters of the windmills weren’t turning. Why would one windmill be running and the windmills all around it not be running? As a matter of fact the windmills that weren’t running appeared to me, a layman, to be “feathered” like they used to do with prop driven airplanes with a bad engine.
I hear that with electricity prices being what they are in the US power companies can’t justify repairing a broken windmill. The government paid to buy the windmills to start with so they run ’em till they break then let ’em sit. I also understand that underwriters are reluctant to insure a windmill, odds are good that there will be a weather event bad enough to damage or destroy the windmill before it’s paid off.
Are any wind turbines manufactured by factories powered 100% by the wind?
Are any solar arrays manufactured in factories powered 100% by the sun?
I interpret: at a 22% faceplate efficiency (Euro experience) creation energy return is 3.5 to 5.0 years (5 X 6-12 months). Now you have 15.0 to 16.5 years of operating life. At 22% operation, the operating life will be greater than 16 years but it will not be 5 X: things machinery standing idle still age
What’s the real median operating life of a wind turbine? 45 years at 22%? 10 years? Of which 9 are paying not just operating costs but material and labour costs of manufacturing.
It is obvious why subsidies are required for wind turbines. The operating efficiency and decay normal to operating outside of a Clean Roon kill profitability.
Claudius says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:51 pm
underwriters are reluctant to insure a windmill
..
https://www.travelers.com/business-insurance/specialized-industries/renewable-energy.aspx
http://www.northernalliance.co.uk/wind-turbine-insurance/
https://www.phmsociety.org/sites/phmsociety.org/files/PHM%20in%20the%20Mitigation%20of%20Financial%20Risk%20Mathias%20Horman.pdf
@John W. Garrett at 2:27 pm: I am subsidizing you and other Berkshire Hathaway shareholders: you wisely invest only in heavily subsidized industries.
Please keep in mind this is energy usage not cost. The abstract doesn’t list the exact figures used in calculations either. EROI is not the same as ROI.
Geoff says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:34 pm
That is quite preposterous. I was looking at UK power production a few days ago, their 5,000+ wind turbines were operating at 2.5% of capacity at the time. The UK is a windy place yet, their wind farms operate
below 20% of capacity more than half of the time,
below 10% of capacity one third of the time
below 2,5% of capacity one day in twelve
below 1.25% of capacity just under one day per month.
And the wind tends not to blow when power demand is highest, when temperatures are either very hot or very cold. Wind tends to blow more at night, when power demand is lower ” )
• •
John adds-
According to the wind industry, UK currently has 1,278 Windfarms (may 2014) comprising –
9,912 Turbines, + approx 18,000 small units,
Total Capacity = 23 GW
See – http://www.renewableuk.com/en/renewable-energy/wind-energy/uk-wind-energy-database/index.cfm/maplarge/1
As I write this UK wind is contributing (2 GW ) a mere 5% to our grid demand !! (we are importing more than that from France & Holland) & is operating at just 9% of its capacity !!…a tad better than the last 2 weeks !! – Look here – http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Also – http://www.ukpowergeneration.info/
( for the French grid See – http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/ ) •
Weather systems can be huge, Europe has had high pressure dominating for weeks, so sod all wind from Ireland to Poland, Italy to Scotland.
See the live production from your local RWE windfarm – http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/206488/rwe-innogy/sites/production-data-live/rwe-renewable-energy-live/ (a minus fig indicates them taking power from grid to rotate blades) Note: capacity in MW but output in kW, so ÷ output by 1,000 to compare.
And this is how much EXTRA we pay per mth for low density intermittent ‘green’ energy – http://www.variablepitch.co.uk/finance/ & yes the figs are £millions/mth.
Lots more info from-
Department of Energy & Climate Change ( DECC ) & Grid figs
( Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics ( DUKES)
http://tinyurl.com/n4k7n8 )
Do you really think that’s a sensible way to use precious resources ??
I won’t even start on the ‘community benefits’ scam.
It is a very dangerous world, when politics trump science & engineering facts.
Claudius:
At June 16, 2014 at 2:51 pm you ask
The turbines only operate when the wind is sufficiently strong but not too strong. But they must rotate at frequent intervals. The turbine blades are on one end of the shaft so their weight loads the bearings and bends the shaft. This squeezes lubricant from bearing surfaces and provides creep distortion to the shaft. Hence, failure to turn the turbine for long periods provides serious damage to the turbine when it restarts: inadequately lubricated bearing surface suffers wear and distorted shaft provides unacceptable vibration.
Therefore, if there is a long period when the wind is not turning the turbine then its generator operates in reverse by taking electricity from the grid and acting as a motor to turn the turbine.
Richard
Footnote
Creep is permanent distortion under load. For example, the weight of a chair compresses carpet beneath its legs. The compression provides elastic distortion of the carpet which recovers if the chair is often moved. But if the chair is not moved for a long time the carpet creeps to also obtain permanent distortion and observable depressions in the carpet remain when the chair is moved.
Eric Gisin says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:01 pm
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
=============================================================================
Maybe after midnight in Uganda. 500 electric ranges using one large burner on high rated at 1.5KW shuts down the grid. They would have to cook in shifts and run the heat pumps in shifts. Better figure a grid that can supply up to 5KW for instantaneous use for those 500 homes or live with brownouts and blackouts.
Great news. If they’re getting that kind of payback, they don’t need subsidies.
If they are such great practically perpetual motion energy producers, why are there 14,000 ABANDONED wind turbines in CA alone? Oh, that’s right–the subsidies ran out.
John W. Garrett says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:27 pm
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.
——————————-
John, I don’t think you understand how business works. Federal laws give benefits and subsidies for many type of projects and business. Only a “fool” would consider constructing a wind farm and selling the output w/o the Federal and State subsidies. And if they did, I can guarantee you, no power company would buy it. That’s why they are FORCED to buy it, even with the subsidies it is expensive. Buffet is no fool. He knows how to make money. And he is happy to take it from the gov’t. It’s legal. In fact it’s Mandated, thanks to the legions of useful idiots and dreamers in this world.
Here is a turbo tax article, but the money goes much deeper than this.
http://alturl.com/dmemd
See, the thing is, our society can subsidize many thing that provide benefits to it citizens. But you CAN NOT under any circumstances create ENERGY out of MONEY!!!!! It is ENERGY that is used to create MONEY. This is key, but it take a lot of study and the ability to believe what many find unbelievable, that is, “everybody” is wrong. Even the smart, caring people.
They are essentially saying that wind turbines do not need any subsidy as they pay for themselves within a year.
So all of the subsidies are pure profiteering.
Not a great surprise. Stealing from the poor and giving to the rich is the whole essence of ‘fighting climate change’. I often think that those that profit from wind turbines are the slimiest humans on the planet. They claim moral superiority for ‘saving the planet’ but I never heard of a ‘not for profit’ installation!
A payback period of only 8 months is impossible if normal business financial method s are used.
This claim must be based on ‘pie in the sky’ factors such as:
1. Regarding taxpayer funded subsidies to wind farms being regarded as income.
2. Ignoring the time-cost of money and/or interest charges.
3. The real time useful output of any wind turbine is less than a quarter of it’s rated output.
4. The real costs of construction and end of life disposal are probably ignored.
Anyone can make up a fairytale payback period to support anything involved in CAGW especially if they don’t publish their calculations so we can all see how they arrived at their claim.
Also, an earlier comment on this topic stated:
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. That’s a payback period of 2,150 years!
Take a journey in the facts of the “land of the absurd”.
The Irish wind assoc states they have 210 wind farms. 2600 MW of capacity which is about 1600 wind turbines. (dependent on size)
http://www.iwea.com/_windenergy_onshore
Now look at what they are doing.
http://www.eirgrid.com/operations/systemperformancedata/windgeneration/
Today, June 16, they are putting out about 250MW or 10% of capacity. Scroll back through previous days and you’ll see many days are even less than that.
Look at how the output can change 20% in just a few hours.
A good % of this energy is wasted, the grid operators know that, they are not going to allow a blackout to occur. Using wind to power a grid is like a family of 5 using a Corvette on a driving summer vacation. It sounds cool, but makes no sense whatsover.
Claudius says:
June 16, 2014 at 2:51 pm
As Mr Courtney said, long shafts cannot be allowed to sit in one position for long time periods. It is also the case that when the wind improves from too calm to a productive velocity the turbines are brought on line in steps, a few at a time to moderate the changes on the system.
In the US, the only Federal subsidy for wind power is a tax credit of $0.023 per kw-hour produced. There is no Federal subsidy for construction. Therefore, there is no incentive to let a wind tower sit without repairing it. If there is no production there is no subsidy.
There may be a state subsidy for construction in your state. If so, my sympathies.
Wind Propaganda! The pay back is in six months as long as electric Feed In Tariffs (FIT) are applied giving the operators $.30 kw/hr as they are in Vermont. http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6221
Reliability studies for larger turbines show they have higher sub-component failure rates. http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/59111.pdf
As the turbines and their components age the failure rates and downtime increase.
The ratepayers get hosed as the crooks supporting this scheme suck up taxpayer money.
The trixy they pulled was in the “large wind farm in the US Pacific Northwest”. That is one of the very few locations in the world where you can have somewhat reliable wind backstopped by large-scale hydro. In that case, it just may pencil out.
But not many other locations.
Norway in that case is perfect,. and even there only a few windfarms comes close to produsing what was planed.