By Roger Sowell (1)
Figure 1 Artist’s Depiction – Hywind Scotland credit Statoil ASA Environmental Statement
Background
This article is the result of a request by Charles The Moderator (ctm) for me to write a more in-depth piece on my views of wind energy systems. About one week ago, WUWT had an article bashing the Hywind Scotland wind farm (7/28/2017, see link) on which article I offered a few comments. I also added a link on the Tips and Notes page to the Hywind Scotland project’s Environmental Statement (ES). That ES is the rough equivalent to an Environmental Impact Report in the US. Many technical details are included in the ES. That note in Tips and Notes prompted ctm to ask me to write this article.
Having withstood for several years the slings and arrows (including libel) of many commenters and guest bloggers at WUWT, I was reluctant to write a positive piece on wind energy. I reserve such articles for my own blog. But, ctm is a persuasive and charming fellow, and I agreed to write this. I have attempted to use plentiful references and citations throughout, and those only from reputable sources. For example, Statoil’s claims to 40 years offshore experience, built and operated more than 40 offshore oil and gas structures, some of those offshore structures are powered from shore by undersea cables, and the details of their Troll platform, are from Statoil’s own documents online. If those facts are in error, the fault is theirs. However, those facts also align with my memories of working with Statoil guys over the years.
Forging ahead, it should be remembered that another article of mine is online at WUWT (and my own blog), on the serious consequences of breaking the libel laws online. See link to “Climate Science, Free Speech and Legal Liability – Part 1.” In plain English, it is OK to disagree, but argue your points with facts, and argue politely.
Introduction
This article’s overall topic is part of the questions, what should a modern civilization do to look to its future electrical energy needs? Then, what steps should be taken now to ensure a safe, reliable, environmentally responsible, and cost-effective supply of electricity will be available in the future? These questions have no easy answers; they occupy a very great deal of time, energy, and written words.
More to the point, what should an advanced society do in the present, when it is very clear that two of the primary sources of electric power will be removed from the generating fleet with 20 years, and half of that removed within 10 years?
Two scenarios are discussed: first the world electric generating situation, then that in the United States.
The basic facts are these: at present, worldwide electricity is provided by six primary sources: coal burning, natural gas burning, nuclear fission, hydroelectric, oil burning, and a mix of renewable energy systems. Of the renewables, most of the power is from wind turbine generators (WTG), second is solar power, and the rest is from a few other sources that include geothermal, biomass, biogas, and others. (source: EIA and other reputable entities). For approximate percentages, in 2012 the world’s electric power was provided by Coal 39.6, Natural Gas 22, Hydroelectric 17.6, Nuclear 10.7, Oil 5, Wind 2.4, Solar 0.5, and Other 2.1. Figures for different countries are available from various references.
In the United States, however, the mix of energy sources is changing rapidly over the next two decades. The essential facts in the US are a great number of nuclear plants will retire; many coal-fired plants will retire, many natural gas plants will be built; and a great number of wind turbine generators will be built. Within 20 years, almost every one of the 98 nuclear plants in the US will retire. Half of those will be shut down within 10 years. That is most significant, because coal plants produce 30 percent and nuclear plants produce 18 to 19 percent of all the electricity in the US. With most of those shut down in 20 years, the US is facing a deficit of almost one-half of the electricity supply. In energy terms, coal and nuclear provide approximately 2,000 million MWh per year. (EIA for 2016). For the shorter term, ten years from now, one-half of those shutdowns will occur, leaving a shortfall of 1,000 million MWh per year.
An aside to look more closely at coal burning power plants and their rapid closures in the US. Coal is no longer king, no matter what anyone says about the matter. The fact is, as I have long stated and written, that coal burning power plants were intentionally given a pass on environmental issues. They were not forced to comply with many of the environmental requirements of the US Clean Air Act. Instead, the coal industry found ways to “perform maintenance” that added capacity, while retaining the grandfathered status. Only a few coal burning power plants were required to comply with the pollution laws. Recently, that all changed. Now, coal burning power plants are closing in record numbers because the owners cannot afford to install the expensive pollution control equipment. (Reference: MIT paper, 2016, MITEI-WP-2016-01; also see http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2016-ELI_Grandfathering.Coal_..Power_.Plant_.Regulation.Under_.the_.CAA_.pdf) I am aware that this is a controversial statement at WUWT, having made this statement before and receiving blistering comments on that. Yet, facts are very stubborn things; they do not care one bit what anyone thinks of them. Facts just are.
The facts of US nuclear power plants are just as plain: the fleet of 98 plants is aging. Almost half, 47 out of 98 still running, are between 40 and 47 years old. (reference: https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/spent_fuel/ussnftab2.php ) Within 10 years, it is almost certain that all of those reactors will be shut down permanently and retired. Many of the nuclear plants are losing money and have done so for a few years. Some have received direct government subsidies recently to keep running. These direct payments are in addition to the numerous other subsidies that US nuclear plants receive, such as for indemnity from radiation releases, federal guarantees on construction loans, softening of safety regulations, laws prohibiting lawsuits during construction, and others. .
In the arena of electricity generation at grid-scale, conventional and new technologies contend for market share. Over the past decade, new technologies that use renewable energy as the motive force have become more prevalent. Wind and solar technologies are two that are presently at the forefront of market share and development effort. As the traditional mix of generating technology changes in the next two decades, wind energy will certainly play a greater and greater role. In early 2017, combined output from hydroelectric and renewable sources slightly exceeded nuclear power plant output (Figure 1 from EIA, figures in billion kWh per month). Also notable from Figure 2 is the almost complete absence of energy from wind (dark green area) before 2010.
Figure 2 US Renewables with Hydro v Nuclear
The growth of wind energy has been substantial in only 7 years, from almost zero percent to 7.5 percent of US total electricity. The growth in wind energy is shown also in Figure 3, where wind energy, for the first time, was the same as the output of hydroelectric plants in 2014-2015. As an aside, Figure 3 is the real hockey stick. The data is from EIA, but the graph is my own. This graph made quite a splash on Twitter on 5/2/2016 among the #windenergy crowd. (@rsowell is my handle)
Figure 3 US Hydro v Wind Energy
The US has more than adequate wind resources and natural gas resources to fill the generating gap from retired nuclear and coal power plants. Onshore wind capacity at present stands at a bit more than 84,000 MW, (windexchange reference) with another 25,000 MW under construction. Natural gas power plants of 190 GW could easily be built to meet the need. Wind turbines of 170 GW could be installed and remain well below 20 percent of all electricity generated annually. The added 170 GW of wind is well below the estimated 11,000 GW of wind capacity that exists onshore in the US.(Lopez, A. et. al. Technical Report NREL/TP-6A20-51946, July 2012) These figures, 190 GW for natural gas, and 170 GW for wind energy are found as follows. The need is for new natural gas power plants to generate 1,000 million MWh per year. By dividing 1000 million by 8766 hours per year we obtain 114,076 MW (and multiply by 1 million). By then dividing by 0.6, the natural gas power plant capacity factor, we obtain 190,127 MW or 190 GW to install.
The 170 GW of wind capacity to install over the next decade is found similarly, but using 0.35 as the capacity factor. The desired result is to have wind energy make up 20 percent of the total electricity in the US annually, the “penetration” as it is known. With existing wind energy already at 7 percent penetration, the need then is for 13 percent from new wind turbines. Multiplying 0.13 times 4,000 million MWh/y we obtain 520 million MWh/y. As before, we divide by 8766 and multiply by 1 million to obtain 59,320 MW. This divided by the capacity factor of 0.35 gives 169,486 MW, which is rounded nicely to 170 GW of new wind capacity.
The nice result here is that total installed natural gas power plant capacity would exceed wind plant capacity. Therefore, when wind speed declines below generating speed, the natural gas power plants have plenty of capacity to make up the power deficit. Wind generating capacity at present is approximately 84 GW, and the new capacity to install is 170 GW. The total of 250 GW is less than existing natural gas power plant of approximately 260 GW. When the new natural gas power plant is added, there is 260 (old capacity) plus 190 (new capacity) which yields 450 GW of natural gas power plant capacity.
This gives a viable solution for the first ten years. Natural gas capacity would be 450 GW total, wind would be 250 GW total, and wind penetration would be a nice, round figure of 20 percent.
The second decade would require similar added capacity. An additional 170 GW of wind capacity would add 13 percent more to the penetration. That would then be 20 plus 13 for 33 percent total. That would present almost zero problems on the national grid. Total wind capacity would then be 250 GW plus 170 GW, which yields 420 GW. (reference DOE Wind Vision site states slightly more than 420 GW can be added by 2050 in their analysis. https://energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision ) Natural gas capacity would be another 190 GW, for a total then of 450 plus 190 to yield 640 GW. With 640 being comfortably greater than 420, there is adequate natural gas power plant capacity to take over when the wind speed declines.
One question arises, then; can wind turbine generators be added at a rate necessary to achieve 170 GW over ten years? That is an average of 17 GW per year. From actual history, it is noted that in 2012, US wind capacity of a bit more than 13 GW was added. Also, 10 GW was added in 2009. It is clear, then, that 17 GW per year should be no problem. The US wind energy supply chain would be required to increase output by 4/13 or approximately 30 percent.
A second concern sometimes is expressed, as the land area required for a large number of wind turbines. That is not a problem, however. Studies of actual, modern, efficient wind farms found that on average, total land required is 85 acres per MW installed capacity. (Reference: Land Use for Wind Farms Technical Report NREL/TP-6A2-45834, August 2009 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf ) The study used hectares, giving 34 h per MW. Converting appropriately, we obtain 85 acres per MW installed. The total land area, then, for 420 GW or 420,000 MW of wind capacity is 85 multiplied by 420,000 and divided by 640 acres per square mile. The result is then 55,800 square miles when rounded up a bit. For perspective, that is almost exactly the area of the state of Iowa, which has 56,272 square miles. Of course, the wind parks would be spread out over the states and not all concentrated in Iowa. Another consideration is almost all of the land with wind turbine generators can and would be used for its original purpose.
Why the focus on wind and natural gas? One might prefer to build sufficient nuclear plants or more coal power plants instead of wind and natural gas power plants. Nuclear and coal power plants are discussed below.
It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to build a sufficient number of nuclear power plants – 40 to 50 of them – in the next decade to replace those that retire. Recent news (7/31/2017) shows that the two new nuclear plants under construction in South Carolina at the V.C Summer plant have been halted with no intention to finish building them. (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-31/scana-to-cease-construction-of-two-reactors-in-south-carolina ) The South Carolina plants are approximately 35 percent complete, many years behind schedule and several $billion dollars over budget. The projects were halted when the revised estimate to complete showed $26 billion. In order to start up 40 to 50 nuclear plants ten years from this date, the 40 to 50 plants must be approved and under construction today also. Clearly, that has not happened. New nuclear plants also have a very high price for electricity produced.
It would also be unwise to build new coal-burning power plants since the remaining amount of US coal that can be mined at a profit is limited to 20-30 years or less at current prices. (Reference: Luppens, J.A., et al, 2015, Coal geology and assessment of coal resources and reserves in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming and Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1809, 218 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1809 ) If coal prices rise, perhaps by increased demand or subsidies, more coal can be mined. However, high coal prices require a coal burning power plant to have higher electricity sales prices. That simply would not occur with natural gas and wind power at such very low prices as today. New coal-fired plants would lose money, just like the new nuclear plants would.
World-wide, the numbers are similar. Coal production is limited to no more than 50 years, unless some force increases the price at the mine-mouth. (Rutledge, David, “Estimating long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms,” International Journal of Coal Geology, 85 (2011) 23-33 http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rutledge/DavidRutledgeCoalGeology.pdf )
Why onshore wind?
Why, then, the big push for wind technology? Below are listed a few reasons in support of wind power. Following that is a description in some detail the new 30 MW Hywind wind park being installed off the northeast coast of Scotland by Statoil.
Onshore wind farms have benefited greatly from private and public funding over the past decade. The wind turbine generators are already low-cost to install and operate. Projects are profitable in the Great Plains region of the US where the sales price for power is 4.3 cents per kWh. (source: 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2015-windtechreport.final_.pdf ) The federal subsidy is to end in 3-4 years. Most importantly, the installed cost has steadily decreased over the years, by a factor of 3 in the past 7 to 8 years. The low capital cost is the primary reason that wind power is being installed at 8 to 13 GW per year in the US. It must be acknowledged that the reductions in capital cost per kW occurred only because the federal and state subsidies for wind technology allowed developers to design, build, and install better and better designs. Whatever arguments there may be against subsidies, wind turbine generators have benefitted substantially from the subsidies.
Installed costs will continue to decrease as more improvements are made. Designers have several improvements yet to be implemented such as larger turbines, taller towers, and increased capacity factor. Oklahoma just announced a 2,000 MW project with 800 turbines of 2.5 MW each. Onshore wind farms will soon have the larger size at 4 MW then 6 MW turbines similar to those that are installed now in the ocean offshore.
Wind repower projects have even better economics. Repowering is the replacement of old, inefficient wind turbine generators with modern, usually much larger, and much more efficient systems. The wind will not have changed, was not used up, in the same location. In fact, the taller turbines reach higher and into better wind that typically has greater speed and more stability. The infrastructure is already in place for power lines and roads. Repowering may be able to incorporate legacy towers as the upper section of new, taller towers for larger wind turbine generators.
Wind power extends the life of natural gas wells. Wind power creates less demand for natural gas. This reduces the price of natural gas. That helps the entire economy, especially home heating bills, plus the price of electricity from burning natural gas. But, this also reduces the cost to make fertilizer that impacts food, since natural gas is the source of hydrogen that is used to make ammonia fertilizer.
Wind power is a great jobs creator. Today, there are more than 100,000 good jobs in the US wind energy industry. Many of the wind industry jobs are filled by aeronautical engineers. Instead of designing airplanes with two wings that fly in a straight line, they design wind rotors with three wings that turn in a circle. There are approximately 1.2 jobs per MW of installed capacity, with 84,000 MW and 100,000 jobs. That’s approximately the same ratio as in nuclear power plants, with 1 job per MW.
Wind provides security of energy supply. No one can impose an embargo on the wind. There are no foreign payments, and no foreign lands to protect with the US military.
Wind provides a good, drought-independent supplemental income via lease payments to thousands of families nationwide, due to the distributed nature of wind turbine projects. Almost 100 percent of the land can continue in its original activity, grazing cattle or farming. Marginal land with no economic activity now produces income for the landowner. 85 acres is required for 1 MW of WTG.
Wind power promotes grid-scale storage research and development. Wind energy generated at night during low demand periods can be stored then released when demand and prices are higher. As always, some losses occur when energy is stored and released later. Storage and release on demand has spinoff into electric car batteries. EVs will reduce or eventually eliminate gasoline consumption, and that will spell the end for OPEC. The entire world’s geopolitics will change as a result. Recently, the CEO of BP, the major international oil company, predicted that the next decade or two would bring such a surge of EVs that oil demand would peak, then decline. The CEO is right, too. When it becomes patriotic to drive an EV rather than a gas guzzler, EV sales will zoom. A gas guzzler will be seen as an OPEC enabler.
Wind power hastens nuclear plant retirements as electricity prices decline. Nuclear plants cannot compete with cheap electricity from cheap natural gas. As stated above, wind energy keeps natural gas prices low by reducing the demand for natural gas.
Power from wind is power without pollution. Wind power has no damaging health impacts from smoke, particulates, or noxious sulfur or nitrogen oxides. The American Lung Association encourages clean, pollution-free wind power.
Summary to this point.
The utility-scale power generation mix in the US will change substantially, even dramatically over the next ten and twenty years. Nuclear power will be almost non-existent. Coal power will also be greatly reduced or almost absent. Wind power will be four to five times as much capacity and generation compared to today. Natural gas power will grow to replace the nuclear and coal production, but will loaf along as wind generation occurs. Only when the wind dies down will natural gas power plants roar to life at full throttle. This describes the US situation.
Several other nations also have similar issues to face. Of the approximately 450 nuclear power plants still operating world-wide, roughly one-half will retire within 20 years, and for the same reasons as do those in the US. Old age, inability to compete, and safety concerns will shut them down. A similar analysis can be done for each major nuclear power country with aging reactors, including Japan, France, Canada, UK, and Germany. On average, with 20 years being exactly 240 months, that is roughly 1 reactor per month to be retired. The booming business of the future will be reactor decommissioning.
Next is part two, the specifics on offshore wind and the Hywind Scotland wind park.
Why, then, offshore wind?
In addition to all the benefits of onshore wind power listed above, offshore wind farms have a few benefits of their own. First, a couple of drawbacks that exist with offshore wind power. It is well-known that offshore wind power has higher costs to install, and higher operating costs due to accessibility issues when compared to onshore wind farms. However, these drawbacks are somewhat offset by the much larger wind turbine generators that can be installed, taller towers, and better wind as measured by both velocity and stability. Lease payments do not flow to private landowners, typically, but to the government that controls the local part of the ocean.
For areas that do not have the very good onshore wind that exists in the interior of the US, offshore may be an ideal place to develop wind energy.
Larger turbine designs for offshore wind projects can be evaluated and adapted for onshore projects.
Much of the world’s population lives in cities near the ocean. Transmission lines to bring the energy from the offshore wind turbine generators to the cities may be shorter, compared to running long distances overland.
For those who cannot see the beauty in a technologically advanced wind farm, an offshore wind farm can place the systems out of sight.
The marine industries get a boost with offshore wind farms.
Offshore wind farms are ideally situated for a few forms of grid-scale storage. In particular, one of those is pumped storage hydroelectric with the ocean as the lower reservoir and a dedicated lake higher up onshore. Another form is the MIT submerged storage spheres.
Offshore wind farms very recently, Spring of 2017, won an auction in Germany that contained zero government subsidy as part of the bid. With more and more advances in the technology, the era of subsidized offshore wind farms may be over. Time will tell.
Offshore wind farms bring additional capacity to play. Using the US for example, the government estimates 11,000 GW of wind capacity is economically feasible onshore. An additional 4,000 GW of wind capacity is economically feasible offshore. Offshore wind power increases the US total by a bit more than one-third.
Finally, offshore wind power brings affordable electricity to islands that presently have very expensive electricity due to burning oil in power plants, or diesel in piston-engine generators. Offshore wind power is a mainstay of Hawaii’s plan to obtain 100 percent of the electricity in the islands from renewable sources. Some storage will be necessary to balance out the fluctuations in demand.
The Hywind Scotland floating wind farm uses the moored spar technology, appropriately modified for the single-tower system of a wind turbine generator.
Hywind Scotland Project
Figure 4 Conceptual Layout From Hywind Environmental Statement
Technology
As depicted in Figure 4, Hywind Scotland has five floating, seabed-moored spar-type wind turbine generators rated at 6 MW each for 30 MW installed capacity. Note, these are the same size as the offshore wind park in Rhode Island in the US. Block Island system offshore Rhode Island started production in 2016. Note, however, the Block Island system’s towers are not floating, but are anchored to the ocean floor.
Each Hywind Scotland WTG has three mooring lines anchored to the seabed. These mooring lines split into two, so there are six anchor points on the floating tower. (ES 4-5) see Figure 5 below.
Figure 5 Undersea Mooring Schematic – from ES
WTG has a proprietary motion compensation system to ease the load on critical bearings. (ES 3-1)
WTG has three rotor blades. The rotor blades are pitch-controlled. Rotating speed varies with wind strength, from 4-13 RPM (ES 4-19).
The WTG are provided by Siemens, a major vendor of offshore wind turbine generators. The model is SWT-6.0-154. Access is available by boat and a ladder system inside each tower.
Hub height for the WTG is 101 meters above sealevel.
Cut-in wind speed where power generation begins is 3-4 m/s. Cut-out wind speed for WTG protection is higher than 25 m/s. (6.6 mph – 55 mph) (ES 4-19) See Figure 6 for wind direction and range of speeds at the site. Wind speed is higher than cut-in speed more than 95 percent of the time.
Figure 6 Wind Rose Showing Direction/Speed – from ES
Power is collected from the 5 WTGs and brought to shore via a single cable along the seabed, length approximately 25 to 35 km. The power is tied into the national grid. Power is at 33 KV, 50 HZ and AC. Undersea power cable to shore is armoured and 0.5 m diameter. Power can be drawn from shore if the need arises. Diesel-powered generators can also be used at any WTG (ES 4-6)
Each WTG is connected via inter-array cable, 33 kV at 50 HZ and AC. Cables are armoured and approximately 0.5 m diameter. The temporary loss of any one WTG for repairs or maintenance will not affect the output of the others. (ES 4-5)
A smaller floating WTG prototype operated 10 km off the west coast of Norway since 2009 to 2014 and withstood 20 m waves and 40 m/s winds (approximately 88 mph). The prototype was a single WTG with 2.3 MW capacity. (ES xi and 3-1)
Seafloor area required is 15 km-2. With capacity of 30 MW, the ratio is 2 MW per km-2. (ES 4-2)
Water depth is 95 – 120 meters (ES 8-8)
Each of the WTG Units will be equipped with code-compliant navigational lights for marine operations and aviation that will automatically turn on in the dark. (ES 4-7)
Statoil ASA, a Norwegian oil and gas company, is the designer, and investor. Statoil has more than 40 years of offshore oil and gas experience with more than 40 separate offshore installations, most of which are in the harsh conditions of the North Sea. Statoil designed and built the world’s largest object that was ever moved over the Earth’s surface, the Troll A platform. Troll A was designed in the late 1980s, approximately 30 years ago. It began operating in 1996. Troll A is a complex concrete and steel structure that sits on the ocean floor in more than 300 meter deep water. The platform itself is far above the ocean surface. Troll A is more than 470 meters from top to bottom. Statoil also has long experience with power cables along the ocean floor from shore to offshore structures.
Hywind Economics
Economics are improved over the initial one-turbine, 2.3 MW prototype. The prototype generated 40 GWh over several years and demonstrated a 50 percent annual capacity factor during one year. Lessons learned at Hywind Scotland’s 30 MW system will be employed in future, large-scale wind parks. Hywind Scotland’s installed cost is GB £210 million (approximately US$276 million. $/kW = 9210.) But, this includes undersea cables. Note, this is just a bit less than the Block Island 30 MW system in the US, which cost US$300 million.
The unsubsidized economics for the small, 30 MW Hywind Scotland system gives a sales price of electricity at $215 per MWh sold for a 12 year simple project payout. This is based on 45 percent annual capacity factor and investment as above. Revenue would be an average of $23 million per year. With public funding sources as described in the Environmental Statement, the economics are very likely substantially better. This price point, $215 per MWh, is competitive with peaker power prices.
With economy of scale and 60 percent reduction in installed cost for a larger 600 MW park, and 12 year simple project payout, no subsidies, the electricity could be sold at $89 per MWh. At that price point, offshore wind becomes competitive with baseload natural gas power with LNG at $10 per MMBtu as the fuel used.
Bird Collisions
The environmental impact on numerous species are included in the Environmental Statement. The impact on birds is summarized here.
Avian collision mortality was predicted in the Environmental Statement for species that commonly fly at rotor height (101 m) using a range of modelling scenarios. This showed that the predicted additional mortality was negligible compared to the numbers of birds that die from existing background mortality causes. (ES 11-1)
With one exception, predictions of the size and duration of potential impacts shows that for all species for all times of year effects would have negligible impact on receptor populations. The exception is razorbill, for which a potential disturbance effect of low impact for the breeding population is identified owing to the very high densities sometimes present in August, a period when individuals of this species have heightened vulnerability to disturbance. This impact is nevertheless judged not significant. (ES 11-1)
The negligible impact conclusion is consistent with studies in the US on bird mortality from wind turbines. In the US, approximately 1 billion birds die annually from various causes. Ninety-six percent of those are caused by collisions with buildings, power lines, automobiles, and encounters with cats. Less than 0.003 percent were due to wind turbine impacts. (Erickson et.al, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191 (2005), Table 2 https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_1029-1042_erickson.pdf ) In addition, bird fatalities decline as older, truss-style support towers are demolished and modern, monopole support towers are installed.
Conclusion
There is a need for electric power generation technologies to replace the rapidly aging and retiring nuclear power plants in several countries within the next decade. Also, coal at today’s prices has a limited horizon of 20 to 50 years. In the US, coal power plants are shutting down due to pollution equipment costs. It is prudent to develop safe, reliable, and affordable means of generating power. Wind power has improved dramatically in the past decade to take its place as such – safe, reliable, and affordable. More improvements are identified and already in the pipeline. In addition, wind as an energy source is eternally renewable and sustainable. The benefits of reduced natural gas demand, lower natural gas price, less air pollution, improved human health from lung diseases, economic benefits for land owners with wind farm leases, increased jobs, increased domestic manufacturing and service businesses, all make wind energy desirable.
The offshore, 30 MW Hywind Scotland floating spar wind energy system is built and backed by the very experienced Norwegian company, Statoil ASA. Even though it has subsidies, the project’s unsubsidized economics would make it attractive against peaker power plants. The improved economics due to economy of scale will make this competitive with main gas-powered plants where LNG is imported for fuel. The Hywind Scotland technology for wind turbine generators, floating moored spar supports, and undersea power cables is already proven. The location chosen, off the eastern seaboard of Scotland, has excellent wind with 40 to 50 percent capacity factor.
A 600 MW or larger offshore wind farm using the Hywind Scotland design can be expected in the next decade. Wind energy technology continues to improve with demonstrated, year-over-year reductions in cost to install.
Additional References:
http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/hywind-scotland-pilot-park-united-kingdom-uk76.html
Abbreviated in this article as ES: https://www.statoil.com/content/dam/statoil/documents/impact-assessment/Hywind/Statoil-Environmental%20Statement%20April%202015.pdf
Footnotes
(1) Roger Sowell is an attorney in Science and Technology Law. Since earning a BS in Chemical Engineering in 1977, he has performed a great many engineering consulting assignments worldwide for independent and major energy companies, chemical companies, and governments. Cumulative benefits to clients from his consulting advice exceeds US$1.3 billion. Increased revenues to clients are at least five times that amount. He regularly makes public speeches to professional engineering groups and lay audiences. He is a regular speaker on a variety of topics to engineering students at University of California campuses – UCLA and UC-Irvine. He is a founding member of Chemical Engineers for Climate Realism, a “red-team” style think-tank for experienced chemical engineers in Southern California. He is also a Council Member with the Gerson Lehrman Group that provides advice to entities on Wall Street. He publishes SowellsLawBlog; which at present has more than 450 articles on technical and legal topics. His widely-heralded Truth About Nuclear Power series of 30 articles has garnered more than 25,000 views to date. Recently (2016), he was requested to defend climate-change skeptics against an action under the United States RICO statutes.
an interesting article, though the featured wind farm is an untypical/experimental installation – perhaps better to also consider a more typical current install like this one with its 8MW ‘fixed’ turbines…
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/17/mersey-wind-turbines-liverpool-uk-wind-technology
and now with added storage:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/06/07/dong-energy-plugs-offshore-wind-farm-world-first-battery-system/
(Out of interest, last Friday lunchtime UK wind was supplying just over 15% of demand, with another 15% from solar…
Gas at 29% and coal at 2% exactly matched that, with 23% from nuclear and the rest from various bits and pieces.)
Then there was the day Australians installed capacity of over 4000 mws was only generating 25 mws with the surviving coal plants flat out to keep the lights on.
Griff
FFS………the rabid socialist Guardian again quoting maximum capacity, nameplate production instead of real numbers that are likely half of what they theoretically produce.
Quit the biased MSM references and try citing something substantial.
Man you have a thick skin, but not half as thick as your head.
At last a sensible analysis based mainly on data and analysis, not rhetoric and preconceived bias.
There are a few points I would take issue with – in particular that nuclear will be phased out. I think there is a very strong argument for base load energy generation. There is also very little reference to PV which has largely matched falls in wind costs and may be more routinely installed at the construction stage rather than retro fitted.
The proposition that use of carbon fuels – oil, gas, coal – have no impact on the environment it laughable. All sources impact – the only question is how.
Electric vehicles will become the norm in urban areas as batteries become cheaper and higher capacity, and charging technologies or battery exchange improves.
There will be situations which require petrol and diesel 4WD vehicles – towing boats, caravans, horses, unmade roads. But they may still be banned from urban areas or subject to swingeing charges.
“All sources impact – the only question is how.”
The only question is how much.
Terry Warner,
“At last a sensible analysis based mainly on data and analysis, not rhetoric and preconceived bias.”
Think about that, just for five minutes, then get back to me.
misleading title. Further, it rather jumps all over the place. An airy dismissal that “not all turbines will be in iowa” — well, no. Many of them will carpet california as they do now. And it’s not a trivial impact environmentally as anyone who has visited the Mojave area of CA can attest. http://clui.org/sites/default/files/imagecache/ludb-image/ludb/ca/4427/5663657988_a0d1e5a6d3_o.jpg The author assumes that coal will shut down and nuclear will shut down. Apparently there will never ever be any new technological developments to utilize these energy methods (like say, fusion power) . no one will ever find new oil deposits (http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/10/investing/alaska-oil-discovery-repsol-spain/index.html and http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/17/us/midland-texas-mammoth-oil-discovery/index.html). Or improve fuel efficiency in petroleum engines. no one will ever build anything using hydrogen (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170425124226.htm). Use of windmills has it’s place. It’s unfortunate that the article didn’t address it’s actual title topic — the idea of using an offshore windmill system in Scotland rather than veering off on “windmills are wonderful and can do no wrong” piece. No form of energy is without drawbacks and asserting that windmills are somehow uniquely blessed in that department makes any other claims suspect.
Peggy Richter
++++++ (name the +’s, you get all you want)
You hit the nail on the head. To date the charge of state utility commissions was to regulate power companies and grid design so that the CONSUMER paid the minimum for electricity. This article uses a rational that this is no longer considered appropriate. Otherwise the author would have assessed a power grid as one entity and done an economic analysis of what power generation systems would minimize the cost to the CONSUMER. Instead he tries to show that wind power is competitive (it is not when you add in the backup power needed).
Jim Gorman
August 5, 2017 at 5:57 pm
Instead he tries to show that wind power is competitive (it is not when you add in the backup power needed).
——————————
Let me add to that the little tiny thing that is very clearly shown in the analyses of the article in question.
The wind power is indeed competitive, as the death of coal for energy is imminent and certain.
Obama during his legacy made sure of that by building and paving the road to the coal’ guillotine, and now Hillary Clinton will quick march the coal towards it in due time, and chop chop the coal head goes and dies……(which to be fair makes this blog post very informative by the way)
Oh wait…..Hillary lost the elections…..gosh there is another type of sheriff in town……
Oh shit I always have to pinch my self from this dream and wake to the reality of the President Trump in USA….
Guys wake up from your dreams and nightmares……….actually really Donald Trump is your actual real President,
Have faith guys, wake up, still Trump will be your President even after you wake……..it is not a dream actually…:)
And sorry about the nightmarish people,,, same for you too, Trump still will be there your President if you decide to wake, ether you like it or not,,,, but at some point you too got to wake up to the reality and try your best to move on with your life within the reality, I guess.
Sorry Jim, I am opening this in a plural addressing and not even sure if you are an American….:)
cheers
Just a thought that popped into my head: That these gigantic Windmills, besides being harmful to humans living nearby, have an extreme negative to earths landscape. The scenario reminds me of the Libya and Syria vista after the U.S. performs its Regime Change for democracy.
Not to mention the astronomical cost of wind power… He says it cheap, but forgets it heavily subsidized or the cost are paid indirect by the consumers.
And ruining the face of the planet for saving the climate?
Come on people, thorium is the way to go…
Very thorough article, but I do resent being reminded of libel laws in the introduction.It seemed to be a poor way to begin a persuasive essay.
I am not against wind turbines per se, but the following points still seem pertinent:
1.Taxpayer subsidies that are very large on a per unit of power produced basis.
2. Wind is often exempted from providing for its share of grid stability in order to encourage it. It’s another form of subsidy.
3. In the mountain west where I live wind farms truly interfere with the beauty of the landscape. Perhaps they add interest to viewing the Great Plains region, but big really large wind farms will be an eyesore no matter that the land can be used for grazing or farming. They use a rather large fraction of view per unit of power.
4. Replacing tax revenue from mineral production with wind extraction is an issue to resolve and will probably be a big fight in many places. I fear it will involve an unfair shift of tax burden from one entity to another.
5. When the foundations are placed on hard rock infrasound becomes an issue.
6. Comparing bird losses from turbines to those from cats is a dodge. One could see this clearly if people complained about bird losses due to wild predators, or try to use it as a argument to exempt oil and gas operations from killing raptors.
7. They use a disprportionate amount of other resources–steel, concrete, and so forth, on a per unit of production basis
8. Replacing 20%or so of power production with wind does not seem unreasonable, but the more wild-eyed environmentalists, and wind promoters like Mr. Gore speak in term of replacing all power production with wind or solar, which probably means predominately with wind, and seemed inclined to force it through elections.
Also the added infrastructure, roads, transmission lines for massively added generation seems to be glossed over by deflection by using existing infrastructure for rebuilding of existing wind.
K.kilty
“Very thorough article, but I do resent being reminded of libel laws in the introduction.It seemed to be a poor way to begin a persuasive essay.”
In other words, [snip] or I’ll sue you for libel, over an anonymous forum.
You will of course note that the blog has become incredibly polite, until Griff sticks his beak in of course. But Griffs not a lawyer, so well above the disdain of the rest of the human race for that particular profession.
And quite why anyone would announce themselves as a lawyer in their preamble to an article defeats me. The hiding to nothing begins right there.
Ad Hom perhaps, but true nonetheless. I have dealt with lawyers all my life and have only met one that is trustworthy. He happens to be an ambulance chaser, he represents genuine cases of injustice, never charges his clients a brass farthing and negotiates his fees with the insurance companies. He’s also a human being first and a lawyer second, which is probably the real difference.
My prospective son in law hasn’t qualified yet, but he will be in no doubt as to my opinion of his profession when he does.
Lawyers exist to be instructed by their clients, a fact they frequently forget.
As so often in the discussions on wind energy the problem of intermittency is neglected or thought to be easily solvable with electricity storage (which until now does not exist at a realistic scale and cost). I strongly recommend the German report titled “Windenergie in Deutschland und Europa” published in the VBG Powertech Journal in June 2017 (link: https://www.vgb.org/vgbmultimedia/PT201706LINNEMANN.pdf).
This report shows that the German extraordinary high increase in wind turbine installations between 2010 and 2016 did not decrease the need for backup capacity, and reduced the overall contribution of traditional power stations only by a miniscule 100MW. Also, and not expected, the power delivered at minimum wind did not increase between 2010 and 2016. As a consequence in 2016 the German specific CO2 emissions were 425 gCO2/kWh, to be compared to 35 gCO2/kWh for (still) nuclear friendly France.
I wonder about Figure 6 – The wind rose. I thought that wind mills could rotate to take winds from different directions. Why a wind rose?
I wonder about the prediction of demise of coal. Hillary is not a US president. Coal is not inherently unclean.
Roger wrote a nice piece about advantages of a new and unproven technology. We should not deploy a new technology on a large scale with a plenty of government subsidies, hoping that on an even larger scale subsidies might not be needed. He might argue equally well that subsidies should be directed to new nuclear technologies. BTW, I am old enough to remember the initial enthusiasm for nuclear.
George, thank you. I think
The wind rose is simply a graph of wind speed and direction over various decades. The wind turbine does indeed rotate into the wind. What the wind rose shows is where the wind comes from, most of the time.
It is also instructive to view the “blue part,” where the turbine will be at idle due to low wind speed. At that location, the idling time is less than 3 percent of the entire year.
The technology for offshore, floating spar wind turbines is not new. It is proven after 5 years in a similar location. The subsidies are to further demonstrate the technology at 30 MW.
Regarding coal, it can be made clean-burning to meet the pollution laws. That costs a lot of money, that coal companies are unwilling to spend. Also, cheap coal means there is only a 20 – 30 year supply left in the US. No utility will build a coal-fired power plant that needs coal for 40 years when only a 20 year supply exists.
If you will notice, Trump is not saying the US coal miners will sell coal to US coal-fired power plants. His statement said we will export US coal to overseas buyers. He mentioned Ukraine specifically.
I stand my assertions on coal plants shutting down in the US. The next decade will provide the necessary data.
Investors will probably continue to make decisions based on the previous decade, rather than the next one.
Roger Sowell
“I stand my assertions on coal plants shutting down in the US. The next decade will provide the necessary data.”
And you insane greens have been standing your ground on your insane predictions for the last 40 years, none of which have manifested themselves. Why should we believe this latest insane prediction by you, because you stand by it?
You maintain that 30 years is the minimum timeframe over which climate conditions can be judged. OK, we sceptics have waited almost 20 years, watching the hiatus and been gagged from producing it as evidence to refute your fantasies.
Meanwhile, you have had 40 years to produce credible, empirical studies that demonstrate CO2 causes the earth’s atmosphere to heat up.
Isn’t it about time you mob put up or shut up?
Start with the basics instead of jumping to the conclusion mate. Then you might have our attention.
“I stand my assertions on coal plants shutting down in the US”
Certainly coal plants have continued to announce closures since Trump took office – and I am unable to find any definite plan to build a single new coal plant in the US.
Thanks, nice read.
We had the technology to build nuclear plants in 6 years back in 1970. We have plenty of time to replace our nuclear capacity assuming the obstructionist factions don’t pointlessly delay every step of the process.
Rebecca, they tried. Tried hard, too. Obama’s administration even gave federal loan guarantees to the four nuclear reactors that are such a disaster, financially, in South Carolina and in Georgia.
These are the best, most modern, AP-1000 Westinghouse designs, using the most advanced construction techniques and modern methods of modularized construction.
And, they failed at all four reactor projects. All those guys from the 1970s are dead and gone.
There was zero obstructionism with the Four Fiascos, as I like to call them. Instead, they were given every possible government assistance. No lawsuits were allowed during construction. (only for serious, demonstrable cause are lawsuits allowed.) Government -backed loans were provided. Interest on construction loans were avoided in South Carolina when the S.C state government passed a law that allowed the utility to bill existing customers for a share of the construction costs. That was a first.
Unless you, or anybody else, can show how it can be done, we are finished in the US with building nuclear plants.
Nobody is willing to risk the money now. Not after the Four Fiascos.
Planning Engineer and I took a careful look at the LCOE of onshore wind compared to CCGT and USC coal, illustrating then fixing a number of not so subtle EIA biases in the ‘official’ numbers. We used Texas Ercot grid to estimate intermittency backup costs and extra transmission. The wind penetration on Ercot is ~10%. The result: CCGT $56/MWh, onshore wind $146/MWh. Guest post True Cost of Wind at Climate Etc. This offshore wind post does not address the fundamental economics. EIA estimates that offshore wind is 1.5-2x onshore. So Statoil’s project may be technically but not economically feasible without massive subsidies. According to the FT, Hywind received a massive ‘enhanced renewable’ subsidybunder a scheme that ended March 2017.
Separately, the average age of the existing US coal generating base is 42 years, and the average age at economic retirement is 48 years. About 1/3 of the installed coal base (in MW) will be economically retired by ~2025. It will be replaced mainly by CCGT because of the economics, so long as natural gas remains below ~$5/mbtu, which is likely even with ramped LNG exports.
Separately, the aging nuclear fleet will be forced off by two factors. Uneconomic to make needed repairs for stuff like neutron embrittlement or steam generator replacement (Zion, San Onofre). Again, CCGT is the likely replacement, not intermittent expensive wind.
Levelized cost of electricity (LCOE)
Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT)
In a purely rational economic world they will be replaced by CCGT. But this isn’t the best of all possible worlds, Doctor. Sadly.
The main point of the article, something that most people apparently missed, is that wind turbine generators decrease the demand for natural gas. That, as Ristvan must know as an economist, helps drive down the price of natural gas.
Lower natural gas prices are a great benefit across a broad spectrum in the economy. I listed just a few in the article, home heating bills, electricity prices from gas-burning power plants, and ammonia-based fertilizers and the crops they produce. There are several other benefits of lower natural gas prices.
For that reason, CCGT will not be the sole source of new electric capacity. Wind turbines have now reached an economic status where they can, and will be installed along with CCGT.
“Lower natural gas prices are a great benefit across a broad spectrum in the economy. I listed just a few in the article, home heating bills, electricity prices from gas-burning power plants, and ammonia-based fertilizers and the crops they produce. There are several other benefits of lower natural gas prices. ”
This is a meaningless statement without quantification. We could lower natural gas prices by moving all electrical power generation to nuclear or coal as well. By definition wind will require some amount of reserve which will be more costly because that energy cannot be sold.
Ah but there is a budding movement to replace inexpensive gas home heating with expensive electricity. Who is behind this movement. Up here in BC there is 65 billion in contracts to Independent Power Producers, example run of river and wind. There a lot of money and connections behind these money making projects. The last Premier of BC was going to investigate these projects but then went silent, interesting.
Oh for some reason the generation output by different sources is a secret.
“That, as Ristvan must know as an economist, helps drive down the price of natural gas.”
Unbelievable!
Drive down the price of natural gas, with taxpayer subsidised windfarms until the private gas business give up and go home. Then we’re left with unreliable windfarms and solar power.
Seriously, what planet are you from Roger?
Look at recent British history for an example of what you are driving the US towards. Thanks to 2 world wars, we were laughed at as the poor man of Europe. Our industries were nationalised, in no small part to answer the threat, collectively, of dealing with threats from abroad.
In the 70’s Thatcher fought that self destructive stranglehold the US was heading towards under the Democrats of late and thankfully Trump has seemingly put the brakes on.
Socialism is the most destructive political force known to man. In the 20th Century it’s worst excesses were manifest in the USSR, China, Cuba, Italy, N. Korea and, of course, socialist Germany amongst others.
In case you hadn’t read the memo, Christina Figueres announced to the world that climate change was a cover for global wealth distribution, in other words, communism, and that the UN would be taking over international governance.
I don’t know where you stand on communism, but that’s a pretty stark announcement to me, and one which I will contest to my dying day.
Yet the western state of California, almost the birthplace of free America, individual rights, freedom of speech, freedom to trade, freedom to bear arms, amongst all the other freedoms enshrined in your constitution, is being held ransom by stifling socialist doctrines.
As a Brit,I’m staggered, amazed, even gobsmacked that the US is selling it’s heart and soul of individual rights down the river for the con job that is socialism under cover of CO2.
Individually, there is no better friend I would have than a cousin American. Collectively though, you mob are a complete nightmare.
Goodness knows how Hywind can ever be economical. The specific capital cost for this project is £6,67m/MW. Assuming the usual life of 25 years, and a capacity factor set at a generous 45 %, the LCOE is £227/MWh. Add in system integration costs, transmission, etc, and the system integrated cost rises to £270/MWh. This is not competitive with nuclear – or anything else for that matter.
Where does the author get the idea that CCGT’s can mitigate the intermittency of wind? CCGT’s do not like operating at part loads; it has a large impact on maintenance costs.
Capell,
let me call your attention to a 940 MW, CCGT specifically designed to serve as wind-turbine backup, here in the US in Ohio. The project is under construction. The project is Lordstown. From my blog article on SLB, 5 May 2016:
“”Siemens will deliver a complete power plant solution for the (Lordstown) facility, which will feature the record-breaking H-class (gas turbine) technology designed for fast, flexible operation to support renewable integration. The scope of supply includes two gas turbines, one steam turbine and three generators. Slated for operation in summer 2018…”
A bit of math shows that the plant’s capital cost is approximately $900 per kW, which is less than one-tenth that of a new nuclear power plant (those costing upwards of $10,000 per kW). The construction time is also a bit more than two years, which compares more than favorably to a nuclear power plant that typically requires ten years or more. This power plant is essentially the same size as a new nuclear power plant, with 940 MWe compared to a Westinghouse AP-1000 of 1100 MWe.
And importantly, the CCGT plant will achieve a bit more than 60 percent thermal efficiency. The heat rate (LHV) is 5690 Btu/kWh.
Also, the plant will have design and control system features to provide load-following so that renewable energy systems can be more easily integrated into the grid. In the Ohio-Pennsylvania region, the renewable energy is mostly wind-turbines.
The plant is located between Cleveland, Ohio and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania near the states’ border. The local grid is the PJM, a major grid on the US East Coast. PJM has wind-turbine resources that can produce in excess of 5,000 MW.
This is exactly as predicted on SLB. This is the future of Midwest and East Coast generation, as coal power plants are retired, nuclear power plants are retired, and CCGT with wind-turbines are installed.”
So basically two different sources of power is required to supply the same load instead of just one source, interesting. Double the generation required. Therefore proving wind generation is unreliable, inefficient, non dispatchable, and expensive.
Wind and CCGT fit together nicely. A parable:
This man wants a new suit, and he goes to a tailor. The tailor puts him up on the platform surrounded by all those mirrors, takes his measurements, and says “OK, come beck in a veek, I’ll heve de suit ready.”
In a week the man returns to the tailor shop. “Here’s your suit,” says the tailor.
“Well, I’d like to try it on,” says the customer. So he goes in the dressing room, takes his clothes off, and starts putting on the suit. It’s all but impossible to get into the thing! Finally, he has it on, comes out, and gets up on the platform again.
He looks at himself, frowns, and says to the tailor, “This suit is terrible! Look at this! The jacket sleeves are so long they’re flopping! But the shoulders are so narrow I can’t even breathe! The pants legs are baggy! But at the same time, the pants squeeze my hips!” On and on he complains.
“Vait a minute,” says the tailor, interrupting him. “Here’s vut you’ll do. You’ll go like dis…” And the tailor shows him how to hold in his sleeves, hunch up his shoulders, tuck in the baggy pants with one hand, all at the same time, to “make it fit”.
A few minutes later the man emerges from the shop onto the street. He’s hobbling down the sidewalk, trying to walk while still holding his sleeve, hunching his shoulders, tucking the pants, etc, etc.
Two old ladies waiting for a bus across the street notice him as he struggles along.
“Oy!” says one of the ladies, shaking her head in pity. “Look at that poor man!”
“Yes,” says her companion, also shaking her head. “But doesn’t his suit fit nice!”
I’ll give you my 2 cents. Nice description of the narrative of why wind power is great. But step back and look at what you are saying. Wind + nat gas = win. Lets say for grid that at one time wind power can be only 100% and you have a 35% capacity factor. Wind can only be 35% of the grid. There would still need 100% natural gas backup which you promote, to be financially feasible unsubsidized wind would need to be cheaper than the fuel burned to make it valuable to turn off the natural gas generators. Wind also makes for more expensive lower efficiency peaker plants that have to ramp up very quickly increasing cost. The obvious question is why not just 100% natural gas?
Now to your other assumptions.
Nuclear is going to die? Why? Too expensive? Examples of Westinghouse is more of a tale of selling someone something that wasn’t the bill of goods that they were told. It was a pump and dump, sell the idea of a ready made drop in nuclear power station that would cut costs, then sold the “revolution” to make fat stacks. Kind of like AI and automated driving, hype it and sell your company for Billions – looking at you MobileEye. So what are nuclear plants around the world made for in competitive bidding? Koreans can do it for $2.5 Billion a GW, Chinese can do it for $2.5 Billion. Russians can do it for just a little more. What Westinghouse needed to do was make sure their design was good then implement but the purpose wasn’t to make nuclear power generators. Chinese hope to sell a Chinese design worldwide for $2 Billion a GW after all the bugs are worked out.
Now coal. LNG is the future? But you have to compress it? It takes about 30% of the energy to compress it, it transfers the carbon energy intensity away from the end user to the seller. Why not just use coal it’s already compressed, no special boats and is much cheaper per GJ than LNG. It’s why Japan is building coal plants. EIA has coal back ahead of NG in generation as NG went to over $3 a GJ. Your projections on the availability of coal in the future is silly, yes it will cost more but more is there, right now we are using the cheapest stuff, just like NG. US has many hundreds of years of coal if required.
Personally I think nuclear with natural gas and some renewables with some storage (when it becomes cheap enough) is the win for low carbon and price. Wind/solar would be less than 10% in this scenario, less than the 35% that you forecast but I think would be much cheaper and use much less CO2.
So, as our power plants exceed their useful lives and are shut down, we will have no choice but to build windmills, which last forever.
If this stuff were as good as they say, they would just do it. Period.
Note how fracking in the USA just took off on its own, despite govt opposition.
Note how fracking has been impeded in other countries by governmental opposition.
I am tired of “projections” and govt subsidy (read corruption). Just do it. If it works, the whole world will be eager to copy it.
Agree fully. Note also the argument about it being very expensive to make coal-fired plants burn clean sidesteps the issue of “clean to what standard”. We can easily make a technology non-economic by applying excessive standards.
The argument that wind tower surface leases help spread some of the wealth of energy production around applies as well to fossil fuels, and the lease payments at present go to land holders who are among the wealthiest; whereas, mineral estate leases and royalties go to whomever owns the mineral estate which is much more widely owned in the U.S.
Unless I am mistaken global warming theory posits reduced winds. Don’t know if this applies to both natural as well as AGW and also don’t know if it is quantifiable. There is a beautiful video
At the Mercy of the Wind
Roger, this is the best essay on windpower that I have seen. Thank you. I note David Middleton, whom I respect highly, also had positive remarks.
I have been strongly negative on wind and solar presented as a justified cost for fighting CO2 emissions to save the planet. Even so, I have commented that eventually we are going to have little choice on supply – price grounds but to go electric on transportation. I have seen a niche for clusters of wind turbines in remote seas for charging purposes and even solar where its sensible (unlike in Scotland or Germany).
I’m also an engineer (and geologist) so I expect that tech does increase, in time, in reliability and cost and your analysis, if it is truly all in looks reasonable, although I would note that escalating costs you note for nuclear and coal are also a risk for renewable projects. Your well known trashing of nuclear I believe to be flawed. If windmills were just taking off the 17th century Dutch technology, they too would be fraught with problems. Our nuclear has been frustrated in development by activists and we have not had much freedom to develop a fifty year old miracle tech.
Activists are also responsible for major unjustified redundancy costs that were designed to kill this tech off. With fewer than 100 people killed by the tech and most of these by one lousy soviet built plant (nuclear France only had one death – this in a spent fuel rod plant that could have been a forklift accident).
Just as I am sure electrics are perforce where we will go in future, I see no long term future likely for power than mainly from the atom. I would ask you to red team yourself and try to think some positive things about the atom and what types of developments would be conducive to elevating it from its negatives. You’ve given me some positive thoughts about wind turbines. Oh and Im pleased that you and many activists are speaking more kindly about hydro. It is nature’s most compelling renewable – the beautiful (engineeringwise) hydrological cycle. I believe you have pointed the way to productive engagement on energy issues. Thank you.
For Gary Pearse, thank you. I’ll try to respond to your comments.
“Roger, this is the best essay on windpower that I have seen. Thank you. I note David Middleton, whom I respect highly, also had positive remarks.”
Thank you again. David Middleton did make some nice statements And, I thanked him too.
“I have been strongly negative on wind and solar presented as a justified cost for fighting CO2 emissions to save the planet.”
Me, too. Although, I don’t mind standing quietly while those guys help boost wind and solar. They are doing the right thing, even if for the wrong reasons.
” Even so, I have commented that eventually we are going to have little choice on supply – price grounds but to go electric on transportation. I have seen a niche for clusters of wind turbines in remote seas for charging purposes and even solar where its sensible (unlike in Scotland or Germany).”
I agree that EVs for cars will be the future. For heavy trucks, I’m not convinced the batteries will ever get there. Those will remain a diesel consumer.
“I’m also an engineer (and geologist) so I expect that tech does increase, in time, in reliability and cost and your analysis, if it is truly all in looks reasonable, although I would note that escalating costs you note for nuclear and coal are also a risk for renewable projects. Your well known trashing of nuclear I believe to be flawed. If windmills were just taking off the 17th century Dutch technology, they too would be fraught with problems. Our nuclear has been frustrated in development by activists and we have not had much freedom to develop a fifty year old miracle tech.”
This is where I respectfully disagree. I have watched for 45 years or more, how nuclear engineers have tried and tried to devise a better, more efficient, more economic nuclear power plant. I wrote on this at length on my blog in the Truth About Nuclear Power. In particular, I addressed the history, present status, and likely future of large pressurized water reactors, small modular reactors, thorium molten salt reactors, high-temperature pebble bed gas reactors, and two types of fusion reactors. Those are the magnetic pinch bottle Tokomak, and laser inertial fusion energy LIFE at the national lab. I did another article on the boiling water reactor technology. All of these research and development efforts were done with government encouragement, too, and funding. After 50 years of effort by the best the industry could hire, they have developed exactly zero.
Much of the trouble is related to materials of construction. The recent Four Fiascos of Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors in South Carolina and Georgia are prime examples of the most modern technology as a total failure economically. Those are not alone, either, as Finland and France cannot build the French’s best design, the EPR 1600.
I simply look at the available, actual data and see that nuclear power has not made any progress in 50 years, despite billions in government research and thousands of talented people giving it their best. As I sometimes say, nuclear needs a genius solution. Us regular guys cannot figure out an economic, safe design.
“Activists are also responsible for major unjustified redundancy costs that were designed to kill this tech off. With fewer than 100 people killed by the tech and most of these by one lousy soviet built plant (nuclear France only had one death – this in a spent fuel rod plant that could have been a forklift accident).”
I disagree. The NRC has many regulations for backup and redundancy in nuclear plants, but those are entirely justified. I wrote on this, too. There are three basic layers of containment, because nuclear fuel makes dangerous byproducts in an overheating situation. Those were widely demonstrated in both the Three Mile Island melt-down, and the triple meltdowns at Fukushima. Back up cooling systems are entirely justified, again because nuclear fuel must be kept cool. Fukushima again demonstrated what happens when the backup cooling is not provided. Meltdowns and hydrogen explosions.
The deaths are not the only issue, either. It is now well-established that operating nuclear power plants cause unusually high incidents of cancers in children living nearby.
“Just as I am sure electrics are perforce where we will go in future, I see no long term future likely for power than mainly from the atom. I would ask you to red team yourself and try to think some positive things about the atom and what types of developments would be conducive to elevating it from its negatives.”
Oh, my climate-science red-team of chemical engineers here in SoCal, for the most part, disagree with me over nuclear power. We have long and spirited discussions about this. Most of the time, I find that their basis for their arguments is simply out of date. Or, they lack more information that shows why they are not correct. They have slowly come around to my viewpoint. That is itself an amazing thing. 40-year chemical engineers do not change their minds much about anything.
Re the future of splitting the atom, I wonder if you have read the article by Derek Abbot, a professor that looked into the long-term viability of atomic power? He concludes that the world can never, ever, be powered by nuclear energy, and lists more than one dozen good reasons. “Is Nuclear Power Globally Scalable?” Abbot, D., Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 99, No. 10, pp. 1611–1617, 2011.
Re positives of atomic energy: I see only a few. It works, except when it doesn’t. It employs approximately 1000 people per reactor in the US.
It requires full backup for 30 days or more every 18 months due to offline refueling. The reactors shut down in the US on average, every 3 weeks with unplanned, emergency shutdowns. That’s just with 100 reactors. Worldwide, with 4.5 times that many reactors, we can expect that more than one per week occur. That is playing with some awfully dangerous fire, there. It is very expensive, and risky, to have nuclear power follow the load. The French company EDF agrees, and has written papers on this.
“You’ve given me some positive thoughts about wind turbines. Oh and Im pleased that you and many activists are speaking more kindly about hydro. It is nature’s most compelling renewable – the beautiful (engineeringwise) hydrological cycle. I believe you have pointed the way to productive engagement on energy issues. Thank you.”
Thank you, too. I am data-driven in my views. If nuclear power can ever, ever, be demonstrated as safe, cheap, reliable, can follow the load, and affordable, I will be all for it. To date, nuclear power as we presently have it can not do all five. It can, at times, follow the load, but as I wrote above, the French hate doing that due to the higher cost and high risk. In the US, the reactors cannot do that due to their design. It would cost much more to achieve that capability. Also, the load-following plants would lose even more money than they do today, because their huge fixed costs would be allocated over a smaller quantity of kWh sold.
“If nuclear power can ever, ever, be demonstrated as safe, cheap, reliable, can follow the load, and affordable, I will be all for it. To date, nuclear power as we presently have it can not do all five.”
And how many of the five can wind or solar do? Do you not realize how much of a hypocrite this makes you? Or do you simply not care?
Wind is not cheap, not reliable, and cannot follow the load. Three strikes your out! LOL,
Roger
“I simply look at the available, actual data and see that nuclear power has not made any progress in 50 years, despite billions in government research and thousands of talented people giving it their best. As I sometimes say, nuclear needs a genius solution. Us regular guys cannot figure out an economic, safe design.”
Meanwhile, you look at the theoretical, unproven future of wind turbines, the theoretical unproven future of EV’s, and propose them as a solution.
At the very least, nuclear energy production is a proven, relativity cheap technology, and you would abandon it wholesale for an unproven future based on renewables reliant on subsidies to become competitive.
And whilst all new technology needs subsidy, to rush headlong into global windfarm and solar generation is a nice idea, it is utter folly to abandon reliability and evolution for forced revolution.
Please address something you glossed over. In order to replace petrol as a fuel for transportation with EV’s we will require quite a substantial increase in power generation. For an example, let’s say 3 times the current generation capacity. If replacing current power generation will require an area the size of Iowa. We are now talking about an area 4 times the size of Iowa. Where is all this land going to come from where there is sufficient wind?
” It is now well-established that operating nuclear power plants cause unusually high incidents of cancers in children living nearby.”
That is a very bold assertion. You’ll have to provide some real evidence of that. And while the increased cost for containment systems is essential for your narrative, passively safe designs, particularly those operating at atmospheric pressure, simply do not require the same massive structures as older LWR designs. The rest of your claims have been dealt with repeatedly in the past.
I almost missed this part:
“Also, the load-following plants would lose even more money than they do today, because their huge fixed costs would be allocated over a smaller quantity of kWh sold.”
And yet you think spreading the capital costs of CCGT over a smaller quantity of kWh sold works… Amazing.
I’ll just leave this here along with a bit from the abstract:
(emphasis mine)
For Jim Gorman, re August 5, 2017 at 6:28 pm
“Please address something you glossed over. In order to replace petrol as a fuel for transportation with EV’s we will require quite a substantial increase in power generation. For an example, let’s say 3 times the current generation capacity. If replacing current power generation will require an area the size of Iowa. We are now talking about an area 4 times the size of Iowa. Where is all this land going to come from where there is sufficient wind?
Good question. Great question, actually.
I, too, was puzzled about all the hype surrounding EVs and recharging so I took a good, long engineer’s look into it.
It turns out, we won’t need much, if any, new power generating capacity for a long while. For example, if ten percent of the gas guzzlers are traded in for EVs. It turns out that most of the electrical generating capacity in any country sits idle or loafs along, most of the time. In the US, for example, we have a little more than 1,000 GW of installed generating capacity of all types. But, on average, we use only about 45 to 47 percent of that. We only bring the marginal generating plants to life during the extreme peak loads, such as late Summer here in the US West Coast. And, that is the key. We already have more than adequate generating assets built and sitting there. We just need to use them in a smart manner.
The numbers I ran recently for 10 percent EV, 90 percent gas guzzlers, and slow charging at night with 8 hours for each recharge, gives the national need at 33 GW more than the usual load at night. To put that in perspective, the US uses approximately 10 times that each night, or 310 GW. That would be less in balmy Spring and Autumn nights, perhaps 200 GW. Still, increasing that by 33 GW is not much of a problem. The plants are already there, the fixed costs are there, and all we need do is run more fuel through the plants.
Recharging the EV batteries at night is the basis for the above example. Or, utilities could make the rule that especially on hot summer days, charging EV batteries must be done at night or pay a very high price for the charging. On the other 360 days each year, no one will care much when the EV batteries are charged.
The situation changes quite a bit, as you suggest, as the EV market grows to say 50 percent or 80 percent of all cars. It also matters very much how long the charging process requires. We could very well end up needing to add approximately 50 percent or more to the generating capacity in some states that have high EV penetration, if I may use that term, and fast charging for most of them.
An interesting question of a fair market price for charging the EVs arises, though. Since the EV charging at night requires no new generating assets, only more fuel, the cost per kWh should be just the incremental cost of running the plants at a higher rate. The utilities won’t do that, of course, as they see this as an opportunity to make a lot of profit. However, if the incremental fuel price were to be the EV charging price, that would be roughly 4 cents per kWh. Or, much lower if the wind is blowing strong.
On the topic of land area for wind turbines, however, the area the size of Iowa is not what I said about replacing all the present capacity.
I said that would be the incremental area, theoretically, for the added wind farms to take us from 7 percent of US generation to 33 percent, over 20 years. That is a much different thing than replacing current generating capacity.
“Roger Sowell August 5, 2017 at 12:35 pm
The deaths are not the only issue, either. It is now well-established that operating nuclear power plants cause unusually high incidents of cancers in children living nearby.”
Bogus claim. As far as I know there are no nuclear plants in Cornwall, south west England, yet high levels of radon gas exposure and cancer.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/96142.stm
Your comments about fusion are out of date. The laser inertial confinement program is being shut down and the massive tokamak project has been delayed into the 2030s… these are all beiult on antiquated and failed designs.
The current generation of designs are far more promising, notable the micro firm LPPFusion.
lppfusion.com
I mentally stopped at where you have to deploy the same capacity twice – once for gas and once for wind.
WTF? If we have infinite money supply then sure, whatever suits your fancy. I have all sorts of interesting hobbies I could do if I had infinite money supply.
Why not just deploy the gas capacity ONCE and be done with it? There’s no ‘foriegn’ dependencies, USA is exporting the stuff.
Peter
Forrest Gardener
Say what you want mate, it’s an anonymous forum, unless he has the inside track on data protection, he can’t do anything.
Typical lawyer threat to stop anyone from dissent.
Forrest Gardener
With the greatest of respect to your legal qualifications, an anonymous individual named Roger, enters an ‘anonymous’ blog renowned for it’s combative nature, issues a veiled threat that anyone in the world daring to libel him will suffer the consequences, then under cover of that, makes his pronouncement on a subject.
And in your opinion, a court anywhere in the world would consider that a just reason to prosecute because someone called him a wanker?
Seriously, you’re telling me that courts will waste their time on that?
it’s a very stupid idea. But I”m very grateful to the author for bringing it out in the open for all to see the stupidity. Of course, the side effect if put into practice is to cause people on the margins to starve to death, so it’s not just stupid, it’s a horrifically inhumane idea.
See, no libel there. I called an idea stupid, not a person.
I see a lot of bias in this post that makes assumptions and glosses over reality. Much too long to comment on.
Nothing about changing energy sources is new. There is constant adaptation of the grid, or of energy delivery systems in general. For example before 1973 quite a lot of U.S. energy generation came from oil-fired plants, and the recognition that foreign entities could impose large costs on electric generation unexpectedly, combined with resistance to nuclear, is what pushed utilities toward coal. Even further back we supplied town gas, made from coal or wood, to homes which natural gas replaced. This adaptation is always toward methods and sources that are better in some way–more economic, more secure, safer. The market is very capable of doing such things on its own. If wind energy is better in real ways, then the market will begin to employ it on its own. If forced through subsidies, election mandates, or prohibitions, then one deals with the opportunity costs of stranded assets, premature technology and so forth.
Back in the mid-2000s, with lots of time on his hands, Al Gore pushed for 100% renewables in a decade. Nothing of the sort was possible at that time, is not possible now, and may not be for the forseeable future. What in the world does 20-30 years supply of “cheap coal” mean? It can only mean cheap with respect to other, essentially equal in all regards, sources. From the first projections of oil supply until very recently there was always a 20 to 30 year supply of cheap oil too. The market finds new supplies, or finds substitutes.
One can argue about the benefits of wind energy, and try to dispel myths about it as much as one would like. In the end we should allow markets to make the choices, rather than have it imposed by what a large voting block in California want.
Did I understand this correctly?
Hydro-electricity is NOT renewable energy?
Ditto for the key assumptions, coal and nuclear are going away.. due to current political obstruction.
This of course assumes political winds do not shift, as shaky an assumption as ethical government.
Other than the obvious a fine sale pitch for Wind, both sucks Subsidies and blows unreliable power.
Is there any city on earth currently getting its BASE Load from wind generation?
Currently wind power is a fad, of the mass hysteria kind.
When reason returns to our political parasites wind will blow away, leaving rusting relics and huge concrete obstacles littering once beautiful highlands.
And historically reason is usually returned to our parasitic class by starvation,decimation and terror of their fellow humans. Could be because when times are really tough nobody needs a bunch of useless eaters.
Whales you forgot about the whales, a big developing issue.
I wonder if the day will come when Paul Watson will show up and start blowing up off shore wind generation?
Birds dead in an oil patch settling pone my god the evil of it. Bird deaths especially raptors by wind generation nothing to see here. If I kill an eagle I can expect to be vilified, heavily fined even jailed. Hey wind generation can get a permit to kill, and greenies, well death for the common good.
Thank you Roger. Great post.
I hate all the wind farms dotting and despoiling southern Alberta and northern Montana destroying the view and crisscrossing the land with power lines and substations. Like someone else said, they are engineering marvels. But what an eyesore! I no longer have the same clear memory of looking across the foothills at the Rocky Mountains.
On the other hand, some of those ranchers love the income from having the wind turbines on their land.
Nevertheless, you wrote a very good article, well worth reading and saving for another read down the road.
Thanks
Thank you, Wayne Delbeke.
Well we know that a lawyer wrote this:
– He threatens us with libel actions before he even starts.
– He answers questions no one here has asked and
– uses as many words as possible to do it.
If, like me, you think that man-made CO2 has a trivial effect on climate and is on balance beneficial, then discussing at great length infeasible, hyper-expensive and environmentally damaging technologies such as wind turbines, whether on sea or on land, is an irrelevance.
Given the amount of gas in the ground in the US all the fading reactor power can be replaced by gas and coal power stations: known, mature technology, known costs, cheap and quick to build, CONSTANT power output on demand.
fos
thank you, very concise.
No comment.
Roger
Nice article.
I am not against renewable energy per se, just that each country selects the appropriate technology for their circumstances and that in due course it can supply cheap reliable energy.
For some reason! at our high latitude, successive British govts have thought it a good idea to install masses of solar panels. The obvious downsides of little or no production at night and periods of low intensity light are obvious without going into our very limited hours of sunshine(1700 hours pa on the sunny south coast where I live)
We have I believe some of the largest offshore wind farms in the world situated in the Thames estuary and south north sea. I don’t like on shore ones as they get progressively taller and due to practicalities are often situated in some of our finest upland landscapes.. No, sorry I do not see their beauty.
In theory therefore I should support off shore wind farms. They have two problems they are very expensive to produce/install and very expensive to maintain, so consequently the energy they produce is likely to be expensive and sporadic as the uk covers a relatively small area and it is quite likely that windless conditions in one part of the country will be repeated elsewhere.
So I need convincing that they are cost effective in uk circumstances.
As for the Hywind project I understand this exists as a trial project that has as yet not been commissioned. I am extremely dubious that the type of sea bed mooring envisaged. Can possibly survive the extremely high winds and mountainous waves of the area the hywind project is located in. several experimental wave energy projects broke in half in the high winds and swell several years ago.
So the jury is out as to whether the devices will work, let alone that it will be cost effective.
Of course in US conditions things might be different
Tonyb
For climatereason, aka Tonyb. I will try to respond.
“Nice article.” Thank you!
“I am not against renewable energy per se, just that each country selects the appropriate technology for their circumstances and that in due course it can supply cheap reliable energy.”
Absolutely agree with that. Each country, and state or province within it, has or lacks certain resources. What cannot be provided locally is then imported. I write on this on my blog under “The Grand Game”
“For some reason! at our high latitude, successive British govts have thought it a good idea to install masses of solar panels. The obvious downsides of little or no production at night and periods of low intensity light are obvious without going into our very limited hours of sunshine(1700 hours pa on the sunny south coast where I live)”
I have seen some of this. Without denigrating the British electeds, it may be that the promise of some technologies were oversold. Here in sunny Southern California, however, solar power via PV is certainly working out quite well. It is indeed a blessing to find a parking lot covered over with solar panels as shade for the cars. We have lots of cars,,,
“We have I believe some of the largest offshore wind farms in the world situated in the Thames estuary and south north sea. I don’t like on shore ones as they get progressively taller and due to practicalities are often situated in some of our finest upland landscapes.. No, sorry I do not see their beauty.”
I see things, I suppose, with an engineer’s and economist’s eyes. And a sense of the history that led to the particular design decisions and tradeoffs visible in the turbine farm in front of me. But, that’s just me. I also look at the local farm, because here it’s almost always a farm with the wind turbine. And see the crops and know that the fertilizer the farmer had to pay for with precious cash is a little bit less costly to him because the wind turbine started that chain of events I’ve written about. Less natural gas was burned in a power plant because the wind made some of the electricity, less natural gas sold, lower price for the natural gas, an ammonia plant somewhere paid less for the raw material (natural gas) and was able to sell the ammonia fertilizer to the farmer at a lower price. Then the city citizens bought the farmer’s produce, after of course a number of steps in the chain of commerce, so the kids are eating their cornflakes and Mom says here, eat two bowls! instead of having to scrimp and serve her kids only a tiny single bowl of cereal.
“In theory therefore I should support off shore wind farms. They have two problems they are very expensive to produce/install and very expensive to maintain, so consequently the energy they produce is likely to be expensive and sporadic as the uk covers a relatively small area and it is quite likely that windless conditions in one part of the country will be repeated elsewhere.”
You are right, and I agree that at the moment they are expensive to install and maintain. I did not list all the many, many technical innovations that the wind designers have yet to implement, as the post was getting a bit too long. Too long, even for my standards. I’ve been know to wax a bit prolix at times. I’ll find a link to that reference and post it.
My main point is that offshore wind has better and better economics, year over year. As long as the government keeps the subsidies going for a few more years, as the US did, the offshore wind systems will soon reach the self-sufficient point. As others have noted, and I did in the article, Germany has an offshore wind farm now that was bid with zero subsidies. The investors are confident they can make their profit in the market, with zero assistance from government. That is a most encouraging event.
“So I need convincing that they are cost effective in uk circumstances.”
One hopes that the German offshore wind farm will share what they did with the world, to allow others to farm the wind without government assistance. And, they will. Share, that is.
” As for the Hywind project I understand this exists as a trial project that has as yet not been commissioned. I am extremely dubious that the type of sea bed mooring envisaged. Can possibly survive the extremely high winds and mountainous waves of the area the hywind project is located in. several experimental wave energy projects broke in half in the high winds and swell several years ago.”
Actually, this is the second step along the path. There was a single-turbine project that proved the mooring system is robust. Per Statoil’s Environmental Statement, the trial project also withstood winds of 40 m/s (88 mph) and waves of 20 meters. The beauty of the floating spar support that is moored to the seabed with three cables, is the thing can rock a bit in the highest winds and strongest waves. It doesn’t break, it gives. It may not be generating power at the time, but it survives the harsh conditions.
” So the jury is out as to whether the devices will work, let alone that it will be cost effective.
Of course in US conditions things might be different.”
I believe, based on the above, that the jury came in with a Good-to-Go verdict at Hywind Scotland.
We have, believe it or not, even more wicked offshore conditions in Northern California and Southern Oregon. The wind generating potential there is truly spectacular, but the water is fairly deep. This Statoil spar technology may be just the design we need over here. The waves are usually monstrous, and the winds are gale or stronger much of the time. And, then of course we have the mild conditions offshore Galveston, Texas. Except in a hurricane, the wind is mild and the waves are small.
I will locate that wind technology innovations link and post it.
Thanks for the comment, Tonyb. All the best.
Roger
Thanks for this, look forward to seeing your link.
The uk is a small country and in winter we have periods of static high pressure which means the entire country can be windless and sunless. If the US renewable utilities were widespread throughout your large country it would obviate this potential problem
However, as far as renewable horses for courses go, Britain is an island with nowhere further than 70 miles from the coast. Tidal and wave power is therefore probably the way we should go( but completely impractical for a country such as Switzerland. :). Renewable horses for courses….
Tonyb
Roger
“As others have noted, and I did in the article, Germany has an offshore wind farm now that was bid with zero subsidies. The investors are confident they can make their profit in the market, with zero assistance from government. That is a most encouraging event.”
You’re as mad as Griff.
The tenders were submitted in the knowledge that with current government legislation, the windfarms couldn’t possibly fail to turn a profit as the electricity prices would be so high, it’s a no brainer.
How on earth do you imagine tenders operate?
They are not guesswork, or creative accounting, they are based on future legislation, insider information and government support.
What a crock, to sell the concept of tenders as support for current wild expenditure on windfarms and evidence of their efficiency now, or in the future, is simply irresponsible and dishonest.
Tonyb, here is the link to the types of wind turbine generator improvements the US NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) published. This has a long list, with descriptions for rotor blades, generator systems, support towers, electronics, and more. This is from 2006. There are other improvements that we now know about.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41036.pdf