![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.
Chris 4692:
The below pages from Iowa may be another good source to look at. Matches Roger’s 25% claim (24.76%).
Incidentally, based on a quick back-of-the-envelope, it looks like the generation numbers they are reporting are about 25-30% of nameplate (with a lower 17% in 2008 for some reason). 25-30% of nameplate seems a bit high to me, but I don’t have other data to dispute those numbers. If they are getting 25% on average, that is pretty good.
http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/energy/wind_generation.html
http://www.state.ia.us/government/com/util/energy/electric_profile.html
Col Mosby says:
June 16, 2014 at 12:43 pm
“—-
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.
—-”
300 thousand acres area needed for a capacity equivalent to a 1200 MW nuclear plant is probably a very extreme case rather than a normal. At least I recall having read that in a good flat terrain with a suitable wind profile the ideal siting distance between turbines is a 10 by 3 times diameter ( = 2 x blade length) of the sweep area. Typical blade length for a 2.5 MW (nameplate power) turbine is 150 feet , thus 3 such beasts could be planted on a rectangular plot (3×300) feet x (10 x 300 )feet = 2.7 million square feet or ~ 62 acres, and that comes out as 62 / 7.5 ~ 8.3 acres per each nameplate MW , and ( optimistically ) assuming average 33% load factor triples that area for any real life MW going into the grid . so at an ideal siting you would need about 25 acres per MW which translate to 25 x 1200 = 30000 acres for 1200 MW not 300000 . And the I also remember the article ( whose title though I do not remember, unfortunately ) where I read this also stating that at not so ideal terrain the area requirement could be up to 3 times more, or 90000 acres in such cases. Mind you those area requirements though being 1/3 to 1/10 of the number you stated are by no means small , 30 thousand acres is ~ 47 square miles so ( pretending intermittency and other various drawbacks are no or minor problems ) you wanted to replace the 1 million plus MW capacity now installed in the US you would need to cover an area equal to 47×1000000/1.2 ~ 39.2 million square miles or around 2/3 of the earths total land area, if you put them all onshore or 28 % of the oceans surface if you tried to put them all offshore. And if you wanted match our world installed 5.5 billion Kw of power generating capacity with wind you would need to carpet every square mile ( and then find some extra 40000 square miles somewhere) of both the land and the oceans with the bird blenders, assuming that all areas. And that is assuming that all of the earths surface is ideally suited for turbine installment, which of course would not be the case in real life and then your area requirement shoots up to an extra earth or two. Pure Madness I think we here have!!!
I for one am relieved to know that subsidies and credits and mandates and offsets are no longer necessary. No power generating company could refuse an 8-month payback. (Not only does something smell – it smells deep.)
Richard (yet again):
“Perhaps you would be willing to provide your explanation of why oil tankers are not sailing ships?”
Richard, I have a great respect for your opinion, the valuable insights you have posted on WUWT over the years, and your good arguments. The above is not one of them.
The question is most definitely *not* whether wind power is a good option as a *sole source, 24/7, level-power generation* for an isolated vessel traveling across the open ocean. The question is whether wind can be a *fractional contributing source to a larger energy mix* in a connected grid with other balancing sources.
Please understand the difference. Please recognize the nuance of the point. I have not argued that wind turbines are a panacea; I have not argued that it makes economic sense to build large scale wind farms; I have not argued that they save net energy when everything else is factored in.
I have simply pointed out the fact — readily available from many publicly-available sources — that intermittent sources of energy can be, and are in fact being, incorporated into the energy mix of grids. Whether this makes economic sense, whether other offsetting costs are involved, whether it is the right thing to do are all excellent questions.
Why oil tankers are not sailing ships is not.
Richard you are too funny.
I didn’t overlook any part of your statements. In fact, I would have to respond thusly:
Duh.
Wait…how to I bold that?
climatereflections:
I am replying to your post at June 17, 2014 at 10:48 am.
This will be my final iteration of my basic and extremely important point so if you again respond then you will have the ‘last word’ on the matter.
You again ignore my argument, provide much irrelevant waffle then say
Yes, “intermittent sources of energy can be, and are in fact being, incorporated into the energy mix of grids” but it makes NO economic sense and is the WRONG “thing to do” for a variety of reasons.
Considering those realities as being “questions” casts doubt on those facts.
And, as I have repeatedly explained,
If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would be sailing ships.
Your failure to provide an alternative understanding of why shipping does not use windpower demonstrates that you know windpower is NOT economic and is NOT reliable.
Windfarms should be called subsidy-farms because the reaping of subsidies is their only reason for existence.
Richard
richardscourtney: If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would be sailing ships.
That is an interesting comment. How about, “If nuclear power were economic and reliable then oil tankers would be powered by nuclear power”. You could put in “coal” for nuclear or wind in that sentence.
In the US it is natural gas that undercuts the price of wind power; shouldn’t oil tankers be powered by natural gas if natural gas were economical?
There are places in the world where the wind supply is less unreliable than the oil, coal and natural gas supplies. I don’t know if that is true anywhere in the US, but it is true in large areas in Asia and Africa. Wind power should be considered in those places.
Pamela Gray:
re your post at June 17, 2014 at 10:57 am.
Pamela, you are too funny.
You say
I did not say, imply or suggest that you did.
If you were to think about issues instead of personalities then perhaps your suggested analysis would not have overlooked the issues I stated in my post you claim to be replying .
Richard
Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.
While they are in operation the wind turbines reduce the load on the conventional energy sources. I expect that this will extend the life of the conventional energy sources. I don’t claim that this by itself would justify the wind farms, but does anybody actually know?
herkimer: Each case is different and it is not wise to generalize , but the exercise illustrates what can happen, namely that without the proper and complete analysis, . wind generated gains both in co2 and fuel usage can be voided by losses at back up plants. .making the entire use of wind turbines a negative cost upgrade .
Excellent comment. Do you have a link to the paper, or a complete reference?
Matthew R Marler:
re your post at June 17, 2014 at 11:07 am.
Your substitutions are not valid.
Wind was displaced by fossil fuels – originally coal – as the power source for shipping.
Wind is innately the most efficient form of motive power for shipping because ALL the collected wind energy acts to push the ship without mechanical loss. But wind was displaced by fossil fuels because fossil fueled power is more economic and reliable.
If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would still be sailing ships.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 17, 2014 at 11:19 am (replying to)
climatereflections:
Matthew R Marler:
Hmmmn.
That a parasite can be survived without killing its victim is NOT evidence that the parasite does no harm to its victim. One tapeworm, one whipworm or leech or one flea will not kill its victim – The person carrying that burden may not even notice.
Are two also “harmless” or benign? Do you extrapolate that to 20,000 intestinal worms or two dozen leeches?
At 1/2 of one percent, the vagrancies of a infinitely-mandated, infinitely and randomly variable wind turbine mix can be tolerated with care by the operators. At 10%, the grid cannot sustain the changes safely and reliably. That a company faced with political suicide for opposing a vengeful, venial ansd foolishly blind administration armed with their tax codes and regulators submits to the pressure is not surprising.
A nuclear-powered ship IS more economical than a diesel – See air craft carriers and submarines! BUT – That economic assessment of requirements MUST change based on the mission and the requirements: A single oil tanker crewed by 12 cannot be nuclear driven, a single wind turbine farm CANNOT drive an economy, but will suck it dry.
On a related note: Electrical production peaked … in 2007. Right before Obama took over as dictator.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/price-electricity-hit-record-may
“The electricity price index and the average price for a kilowatthour (KWH) of electricity both hit records for May, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The average price for a KWH hit 13.6 cents during the month, up about 3.8 percent from 13.1 cents in May 2013.
The seasonally adjusted electricity price index rose from 201.431 in May 2013 to 208.655 in May 2014—an increase of about 3.6 percent.
…
Per capita production of electricity in the United States peaked in 2007. Since then it has generally been on downward trend. In 2013, the U.S. produced less electricity per person than it did 1996.
Wind Turbin Farms are powered in fact by the redistribution of your wealth by your tax money and your tax money is a % of your life, wind turbin farms take life..
“Is the obsession with “climate change” turning out to be the most costly scientific
Blunder in history?”
I don’t see how, c – it’s a blunder of epic proportions (or, more likely, deliberate), but it’s hardly scientific.
climatereflections says:
June 17, 2014 at 10:48 am
Mr. Courtney has a tendency to overgeneralize. Others have that problem as well. It is a hazard of being passionate.
Chris4692:
re your post at June 17, 2014 at 12:43 pm.
Perhaps I do “overgeneralize”, but certainly NOT in this case. As I keep saying very specifically
Wind was displaced by fossil fuels – originally coal – as the power source for shipping.
Wind is innately the most efficient form of motive power for shipping because ALL the collected wind energy acts to push the ship without mechanical loss. But wind was displaced by fossil fuels because fossil fueled power is more economic and reliable.
If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would still be sailing ships.
That is NOT a “generalisation”. It is an illustration of the reality that windpower is not economic and is not reliable.
The clarity of the illustration is why windpower advocates have repeatedly tried to claim it is “not a good argument” (but they fail to counter it), have attempted to misrepresent it, and now claim it is a generalisation (when it is a specific example).
The only valid argument that could be made against the illustration is the opposite of your claim that I “overgeneralize”: it could be stated that one cannot generalise from the specific and my illustration is too specific for it to be an example of the general case. However, I keep pressing the point BECAUSE it is so clear an illustration, and it challenges windpower advocates to show why it cannot be generalised to cover the problems of reliability and economics applicable to windfarms.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 17, 2014 at 1:01 pm
“…If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would still be sailing ships…”
I agree with Richard. If windpower is so great, all ships at sea would be sailing ships, not just the oil tankers. Wind was replaced by fossil fuels, so his illustration is right on:
“…It is an illustration of the reality that windpower is not economic and is not reliable…”
Richard:
Thank you for offering me the last word. I will take the opportunity so that we can end the specific discussion on a logical note.
“Your failure to provide an alternative understanding of why shipping does not use windpower demonstrates that you know windpower is NOT economic and is NOT reliable.”
False. Complete non sequitur.
Let’s step back for a moment to some elementary logic:
Question 1: Is intermittent wind power a good sole source of energy for an isolated vessel on the open ocean that needs 24/7, level-powered energy?
Question 2: Can intermittent wind power successfully contribute to a larger energy grid mix when it is not the sole source (indeed, when it is only a fraction of the total) and when other leveling sources are available?
These are two separate questions. It is logically possible that the answer to the first question could be “No” and the answer to the second question could be “Yes.” You are conflating two very different questions with your example of oil tankers (an example you are quite fond of and have no doubt used elsewhere with just as much fanfare and zeal as in the present exchange). My apologies if no-one has ever called you on it before. But the fact remains that we can logically answer the second question with a different answer than the first. Thus, by simple force of logic, it does not follow that if wind power is a poor choice for oil tankers on the open ocean then it is also a poor choice in other applications.
(Incidentally, as another commenter noted above, we could use your oil tanker example and reference any other source of energy instead of wind — nuclear, hydro, coal, etc. — and the example would be precisely the same. This simple exercise should give us a hint that there is a fundamental logical problem with the example.)
It may well be that wind power is a terrible idea for large scale electricity grids. It may well be that building wind farms is a waste of money and resources. It may well be that no net energy is saved. If you would carefully read my comments you would see I have made no claims to the contrary.
But let’s have arguments based on the specifics of the large scale electricity grid, not some irrelevant, red-herring, non-sequitur about oil tankers not being sailing ships.
Cheers,
J. Philip Peterson says:
June 17, 2014 at 3:41 pm
On a seaship powered by wind, the ship has to move both with and against the wind, running with, tacking against. It also has to deal with calm. The ship also must keep a schedule. If the ship is going to have electricity, or hydraulics, or for lights or to pressurize a water system or ventilation system, there has to be a generator. If it is calm, there is no wind to operate a separate turbine for electricity, if you are running with the wind the effectiveness of a separate turbine to generate electricity would be reduced. If you are going to make the schedule you also have to have your standby power on board to drive the props.
For a wind farm on land, the wind mills can be pointed into the wind, whatever direction it coming from, just point in the right direction. If the wind isn’t blowing, the backup generation can be a hundred miles away, or it can be several units, on a hundred miles east, another a hundred miles west, another a hundred miles to the northwest. The backup generation would be what you would build anyway near the population centers. Electronics needed for controls, or oil pumps, or lights or whatever power needed can be drawn from the grid. If it is calm a while, the unit can be shut down to wait better conditions.
The situations are exactly analogous, until you think about the differences.
Sure.
If you need hot air, call a politician.
If you don’t need electric power, you can always rely on a windmill.
If you only need a little bit of power, you can trust the sun to rise tomorrow morning, and give you a little bit of power for 1/4 of the day. Maybe.
If you actually need power all the time, call an engineer.
RHS says:
June 16, 2014 at 11:27 am
I’m sure Spain would beg to differ about the payback time…
Exactly. Promised subsidies have been reduced and everyone involved from large companies to small investors are screaming blue murder.
I’ve taken a lead from Anthony and installed Pv generation on our roof. My particular bugbear is the cost of new nuclear power in the UK running into many billions of pound which is being passed onto the consumer who gets none of the profits. I’d rather see tidal energy developed if we are talking of that level of cost.
Chris4692:
Thankyou for so very clearly making my point – indeed, spelling out my point – concerning economics and reliability in your post at June 17, 2014 at 7:39 pm .
Richard
PS Sails can rotate to provide power from the wind from any direction. Indeed, as you say, wind turbines are sails which do this.