![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.
richardscourtney says:
June 17, 2014 at 3:15 am
Hop Lite:
You conclude your post saying June 17, 2014 at 2:54 am
… there is no gainsaying that wind is a net producer, diversifies the electricity generation portfolio and reduces dependence on foreign imports of energy for many economies that currently rely on politically unstable energy sources such as gas in Western Europe.
I deny it because it is not true.
______________________________________________________
I have not seen any reputable study showing that having wind on a power grid increases fossil fuel usage. This point, if true, would be a devastating blow to the wind industry and completely remove its raison d’etre. Why has this study not yet been done given it is quite straightforward to do? If you know of any can you give me references to them?
Why do oil tankers not use wind power? A variety of reasons but predictability of passage times is one major reason. To successfully use a hybrid wind/oil system in the supertanker business (overcoming the predictablity issue) would require a number of hurdles to overcome including vessel design, storm survivablity, experienced crews, increased manning levels on vessels etc. They would end up more expensive for all these reasons but that doesn’t negate the fact that considerably less fuel would be used in the passage compared with oil-only powered vessel.
Wind is more expensive today than fossil fuels on electricity grids but the real issue is energy security and long term energy sustainability. For countries like Ireland or the UK using the energy sources on our doorsteps makes sense. (Unless of course you can point to a reputable study that shows that wind increases fossil fuel usage!).
Hop Lite:
At June 18, 2014 at 2:23 am you say to me
My post at June 17, 2014 at 3:15 am was addressed to you and your post I am answering purports to be a response to it. My post is here and it included this
He said this in his keynote address, to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers on January 15, 2003 which is long time ago but it was not then disputed and has been disputed by nobody since then.
After you have demonstrated that David Tolley did not present a “reputable study” then we can move on.
Richard
PS I thank you for also providing explanation which shows my oil tanker illustration is correct.
Richard
I’m sorry but you are going to have to do better than that! Please indicate what study was done by him where he published it etc etc. Even global warming alarmists are not so insouciant in their style of referencing published work as you appear to be! Please provide a proper reference to a published study into this issue that demonstrates (with numbers!) that wind penetration in power gird increases fossil fuel usage. The electric power industry has had a lot of resistance to wind power as early wind turbines were poorly behaved and also it just kind of messed up the power engineers traditional world and most people dislike and resist change. I know the thinking in that industry well as I was associated with it for many years. Many of the power industry fears have proven to be unfounded.
I’m really uncertain what point you think you are winning wrt to oil tankers and sails. It really is not an analogous example and I am really confused as to how you think it is.
Hop Lite says:
Please provide a proper reference to a published study into this issue that demonstrates (with numbers!) that wind penetration in power gird increases fossil fuel usage.
Hop must be a newbie here. That info has been posted repeatedly. Like ethanol production, building windmills requires immense fossil fuel resources.
There is a search box; Hop Lite should use it, rather than demanding that others help him get up to speed on the subject.
Hop Lite:
re your post at June 18, 2014 at 3:00 am.
You say you are “confused”. I had noticed.
And you say you want “numbers”. But you are the one claiming “energy security” from reduced fuel use: I did not mention it. And you say the numbers “should be easy to obtain”.
I am certain that your claims are rubbish because those who operate windfarms and other power generation systems do not claim it and – as I stated and referenced – at least one refutes the claim.
If your claim is true and the numbers are available then provide them. Frankly, I think your assertion of significant reduction to fuel use has no relation to reality because if it were true then windpower advocates would be trumpeting it.
Richard
June 18, 2014 at 3:19 am
‘building windmills requires immense fossil fuel resources.’ – not sure why it would be immense as both the materials and construction are standard. However, many studies have indeed taken these capex energy usage into account.
‘There is a search box; Hop Lite should use it, rather than demanding that others help him get up to speed on the subject.’ – so asking someone to back up an assertion they are making with a citation is just being lazy? Well I never – must remember that for the future.
Thanks for the warm welcome onto this website – clearly you went to the Basil Fawlty school of hospitality!
richardscourtney says:
June 18, 2014 at 3:23 am
Sorry Richard but you are now making absolutely no sense and posting a load of non sequitor nonsense replies to the points that I make – haven’t the time for that.
I asked you to give here an actual proper citation to your claim that grid wind power results in increased fossil fuel usage. You have not done so – I am pretty certain I know why.
We make dynamometers & testing equipment. One small side business is test facilities for the speed-up gear box re-builders. The mean time to failure of this Achilles Heal for these things is 6 to 18 months. Count the non-working windmills in any large wind farm. Each 50,000# (or larger) gearbox typically exacts a greater cost to take down, replace, rebuild than it produces. All of the models showing return on these things ignore the real life of the thing. The real life results in a 10X un-subsidized real cost compared to conventional. BTW One additional item neglected in the models is the line loss from Iowa to Chicago etc.
Some people want to stick these things in the Great Lakes. Consider the insult to the over all system in costs, pollution, spills, port construction, transmission, to add ships and crews to maintain these machines at sea. I’m sure that these costs are also ignored.
Hop Lite,
A warm welcome to WUWT!
I did a search to help you. Happy reading!
Hop Lite:
Your offensive and silly post at June 18, 2014 at 3:39 am says in total
Bollocks! How dare you?!
I have made perfect sense and you do not cite anything I said which does not.
I have NOT posted any non sequitor.
I have answered each and every of your points.
I have twice given you a proper citation that grid wind power results in increased fossil fuel usage.
You say you want ME to provide additional information to justify YOUR assertion that windfarms would provide so large a reduction to fossil fuel usage that they would increase energy security. I refused, pointed out that I had provided evidence to support my view and it is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to provide evidence to support your assertion.
dbstealey pointed out that that your demand for me to fulfill your responsibility is ridiculous and your reply was to feign offence at his comment. I am certain I know why you pretended to be offended.
Richard
dbstealey says:
June 18, 2014 at 3:51 am
Thanks db – some interesting exchanges that give me a good idea of the style of Richard. It must be hard and exhausting for him to be permanently outraged and indignant!
I see a lot of sound and fury in those exchanges but hard facts are more scarce – a shame really given the great work many are doing here exposing the GW twaddle.
Hop Lite:
OK. I have read your tripe at June 18, 2014 at 4:25 am .
Your “style” is to state falsehoods and to demand that others provide information to support your falsehoods. In other words, you are merely another anonymous troll attempting to disrupt rational debate.
My “style” is to provide rational argument, information and evidence and to debate it if necessary. For example, my first post in this thread is at June 16, 2014 at 11:26 am here and AndyZ responded at June 16, 2014 at 12:17 pm saying in total
But – as your posts demonstrate – learning is not the purpose of anonymous trolls employed to spread pro-windfarm propaganda.
Richard
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.2
4.3 million (USD?) seems very high for a high school turbine. The smaller junior school that backed on to where I used to live wanted to install a 6kW wind turbine in the school playground as part of a UK/EU ‘sustainable refurbishment’ project (wood chip burners, solar panels, wind turbines et al) at a cost of around £25,000 to provide 10 kWhr of the 10,000 kWhr they used per annum. Many local residents protested including me. I communicated with the school governors and head teacher and objected because I calculated they would be lucky to get 1-2 kWHr and what about the safety of children going out to play under 1.5 tonnes of rotating machinery and were there any safety barriers? I got no direct reply from the school but they passed me the reply from their ‘Energy Consultants’ saying it was difficult to calculate the exact output but they ‘expected’ to get 3.5 – 5kWhrs – so not 10! Also they queried and didn’t understand my safety concerns. In the event their planning application went to appeal and the UK planning authority rejected it mainly on safety concerns (and good for them). This just shows the gullibility, and danger, of institutions wanting to tick ‘green’ boxes without actually understanding, and making no effort to understand, what they are getting.
richardscourtney: If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would still be sailing ships.
I see that you revised your statement in response to my criticism, even though you deemed my analogies not valid. That was a good thing to do, but it still isn’t correct. You ought to have written: If windpower were economic and reliable for powering ships, then oil tankers would still be sailing ships.
You did not dispute my claim that in some places fuel deliveries are less reliable than wind (earlier I wrote it “wind is less unreliable than [fuel deliveries]”.) Do you think it is false?
RACookPE1978: That economic assessment of requirements MUST change based on the mission and the requirements:
On that, you and I agree. But I would add in other factors. Where there is no grid, for example, the problems that wind turbines cause to grids does not matter. Similarly, where there are no fuel deliveries, the intermittency of the wind is less of a problem.
RACookPE1978: 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.
When is tax subsidized or legally mandated infrastructure like a tapeworm? Airports and roads? Turn signals and brake lights on automobiles? Flame resistant roofs?
RACookPE1978: 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.
You and I agree on the need for more and cheaper electricity. Since the passage of the electricity “deregulation” (*) bill under Governor Pete Wilson, the State of California has installed more generating capacity than it did in the previous 30+ years; most of that being natural-gas powered of many sizes, at least three plants near 1000 MW. It’s a shame we import so much of our natural gas instead of developing our own; and it is a shame that the San Onofre power plants shut down. The renewable fuel standard in CA is a bad policy.
*I put the word “deregulation” in quotes because the bill was undermined by some of the regulations that were in it that made the Electricity Crisis worse than it would have been.
Matthew R Marler:
I am replying to your post at June 18, 2014 at 8:46 am because it asks me a specific question and I do not want trolls to say I failed to answer. However, I point out that I was sincere in giving the ‘last word’ to climatereflections and, therefore, my answer is very constrained to your specific points.
Your semantic assertions are not relevant so my not addressing them has no affect on the logic.
You make two points which are not merely rhetorical and I answer them. They are
No, I “ought to have written” what I intended to write, and I did.
I wrote If windpower were economic and reliable then oil tankers would still be sailing ships.
It seems you are willing to agree that sailing ships are not used as oil tankers because windpower is not economic and reliable. But you want to claim windpower is economic and reliable for electricity generation. Well, no. Show how the issues listed by Chris4692 at June 17, 2014 at 7:39 pm do not apply to electricity generation. The issues are THE SAME and THEY HAVE THE SAME EFFECTS.
I have searched the thread to find your point about “fuel deliveries” and I have failed to find it. Importantly, I don’t understand it. Are you really trying to claim that fuel deliveries are less reliable than the wind which often stops? And if you are then claiming that then so what? Fuels can be – and are – stored and stockpiled, but wind has to be used when it blows or not at all.
Richard
Freaking idiots.
Wind power is absolutely useless as it disturbs the markets and bankrupts our conventional power plants that are only allowed on the grid for back up power generation.
But wasn’t bankrupting the West the inevitable move to establish corporate, read fascist Gobal Governance?
http://green-agenda.com and UN Agenda 21
Just screw the bastards.
Tar and feathers is what we need.
Drop the oil tanker analogy. It is invalid for many reasons, but the main is simple geometry. The diffuse power available to any wind catcher is based on its effective cross sectional area. A ship, however, is a three dimensional object. There was/is an effective maximum size to a cargo carrying sailing ship because its displacement volume increases faster than the cross sectional area its sails can bring to bear on the wind. Economics of scale favor large cargo ships and high density energy sources allow for powerful engines that can push huge cargo ships through the water.
There are many reasons wind farms are not economical, but they do not suffer the area/volume issue that oil tankers do. QED.
Scott Wendt,
Are you saying that windmills are two-dimensional?
I. got an answer to makelly,s question from one of their students. Using a calculator he laughingly replied. …. well its more than 20 years.
richardscourtney: It seems you are willing to agree that sailing ships are not used as oil tankers because windpower is not economic and reliable. But you want to claim windpower is economic and reliable for electricity generation.
I am willing to agree that sailing ships are not used as oil tankers because windpower is not economic and reliable for transporting oil.
I have searched the thread to find your point about “fuel deliveries” and I have failed to find it. Importantly, I don’t understand it. Are you really trying to claim that fuel deliveries are less reliable than the wind which often stops? And if you are then claiming that then so what? Fuels can be – and are – stored and stockpiled, but wind has to be used when it blows or not at all.
My first reference used something other than “fuel deliveries”, which is why I wrote [fuel deliveries] when referring to it. Yes, there are places in the world where wind is less unreliable than fuel deliveries: places with bad roads, fuel pirates and other sources of poor supply. It might still be the case that a wind turbine is uneconomical for a small isolated village, but it is not as easy to steal and resell a wind turbine as liquid fuel and the electrical wires and pylons of the grid.
Nope. But, I’m saying a ship has a volumetric displacement and a wind farm doesn’t. The ship’s mass (related to displacement) has to be big enough to support its sails. Therefore, the cross sectional area of a ship’s sails are tightly constrained in a way that, unfortunately, the size of a wind farm is not. The comparison is invalid.
rhchardscourtney: Your semantic assertions are not relevant so my not addressing them has no affect on the logic.
What does that refer to? You wrote a plain overgeneralization that you are now defending.