By the numbers: Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm

Well, Sara, I don’t know where you live nor from what utility you obtain electricity. However, in the US, and especially in California where I live, wind and solar power have had zero effect on the price that customers pay for electricity.

Residential electricity prices in CA have barely kept pace with inflation, even with almost 10 GW of grid-scale solar power installed since 2005, and approximately 4 GW of wind power installed. see Figure 1 of this article:

http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/california-electricity-rates.html

I won’t speak to the German electricity market. I do note in passing that wind power at 11 cents US / kWh beats 30++ cents that you quoted. Perhaps Germany has 20 cents per kWh wrapped up in transmission and distribution. If so, then irate persons like yourself should investigate why those costs are so high.

For Captain Kiefer, re

“Your claim that wind or solar have no effect on consumer rates is groundless.”

No, it’s not. California, with substantial wind and solar, has had residential rates that barely keep up with inflation, per published EIA data. See Figure 1 in

http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/california-electricity-rates.html

“As one example for solar, PG&E is paying 18.5 UScent/kWh for wholesale power from Ivanpah.”

Once again, you pick the Ivanpah solar thermal with the power tower technology. That is an outlier with very low output and very high production costs, and will likely prove the last such plant of its type. Grid-scale Solar PV is sold at far lower rates. In addition, solar from PV saves a utility from running marginal plants during the heat of the day.

” Wind is responsible for the bulk of the $7 billion per year in new transmission the U.S. has been building since 2005.”

Now you complain about transmission lines built to support new generation. I see no such complaints about the transmission lines that connected Hoover Dam generators to Southern California, nor for those that connected Palo Verde Nuclear Plant near Phoenix across the desert to California, nor the long transmission lines that connect the hydropower in Washington State to Oregon and California.

“All of those capital costs go into the rate base and are passed onto ratepayers as well.”

No, the independent power producers that own the facilities take the risk of profit and loss from solar and wind. To the extent that a utility owns the assets, the asset value is rolled into the rate base.

“The national average cost of electricity has gone up faster than inflation since 2005 — only the second time in history this has been true. The first time was during the Carter-era period of solar and wind subsidies and mandates.”

Certainly not true in California, as I wrote above.

Ah, it’s Richard, with whom I’ve had so much fun jousting over the years. Wrong, again, I’m afraid. The facts just do not support your wishful thinking.

To wit: Actual reported annual capacity factors for Germany offshore wind, 2012-2015, have one below 40 percent, (38 percent) and the others range up to 52 percent. So much for your false statement that “no wind powered subsidy farm has managed to perform as promised prior to its construction.”

And I believe that you are located in the UK? The Crown Estate offshore wind also has published data on performance vs expected. As experience was gained over the years, the wind farms offshore are performing exactly as expected. You could look it up.

The economics of two wind farms, one with half the capital cost per kW of the other, and almost double the annual capacity factor, cannot possibly have the same cost of energy produced. Ask any economist worth his salt.

For Capt. Ike Kiefer,

You asked me, “Where did you find the figure that you are using?”

I used the figure you gave in your post, $130 ./ yr per kW installed capacity.

“Why is it the same for both Vindeby and Nordsee One?”

I used the same $/MWh result for both because that makes the Vindeby farm look as good as possible. However, using the same $130 / yr per kW installed, then dividing by the MWh/year production gives $35.76 for Nordsee One, and $67.46/MWh for Vindeby. I note that your post uses $65 for Vindeby.

“Why is it priced per MWh instead of per MW?”

When wind farms sell power, it is on a $/MWh basis. Fixed costs are rolled into that.

Therefore, we can use the revised figures if you like, although Vindeby comes out looking worse by comparison.

Nordsee One …….. $81 (capEx) plus $35 (O&M) = $116 / MWh
Vindeby………………$241(capEx) plus $67 (O&M) = $308 / MWh

Therefore, Nordsee One is expected to produce power at 38 percent the cost of the first plant. (116 / 308 = 0.377)

I do agree with your paragraph just above on O&M costs, not by direct experience myself, but because that is a good paraphrase of the NREL document I referenced. In particular, section 5.2 “Operational Expenditures,” and section 4.5.2 “Maintenance Vessels and Logistics Trends.”

Finally, the same analysis can be performed with a recent plant other than Nordsee One. The results will likely be essentially the same or better for modern plants. The analysis can be for a plant with 50 percent proven capacity factor, for example. There are three such wind farms in the NREL report on Figure 22, one each in Denmark, UK, and Germany.

Re the Ivanpah Solar plant, the shortfall was short-term and fully anticipated, indeed, the plant owners stated at the outset they would require 2 years operation to fully fine-tune the plant. Such has occurred.

As a retired Navy Captain, I suspect you fully appreciate the need to conduct sea trials for a new ship, to test all the systems and areas of the performance curves. That is even more important with a first-of-a-kind ship. Surely the Ivanpah solar plant should be accorded the same opportunity to test and fine-tune its first-of-a-kind performance.