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.
With 523 comments in less than 48 hours, this is a good place for me to stop.
If anyone wants to contact me further, simply leave a comment on my blog at
https://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/
Thank you to all who had positive comments, and thoughtful, polite comments. Those are very much appreciated.
And, special thanks to Charles the Moderator, ctm, and to Anthony for agreeing to post my pro-renewable viewpoint.
Roger Sowell
Running for the door, tail between his legs, we see the rapidly diminishing form of the eminent lawyer, Roger Sowell, Esq.
And he never answered a single one of my comments … go figure.
Thanks to all for holding his palpable nonsense up for inspection.
w.
Willis
what exactly are your favored processes for electricity?
You want to go back to mining coal and uranium ore and the elaborate processes involved in transporting that stuff and getting it ignited?
Maybe you are getting old.
Wind is good. Hydro is good. Wind + hydro is better then just wind. [use wind to pump water up in a raised reservoir].
Gas is best. Easy to transport, Easy to ignite. Just open the valve and push the button.
Willis
I favor whatever is economically cheapest WITHOUT SUBSIDIES because expensive energy shafts the poor. In this regard, neither wind nor solar come anywhere near being competitive.
Wind is expensive and not dispatchable, so no, wind is not good. Wind is how rich greens shaft the poor.
Pumped storage is only economically competitive where there is a good wind site near an existing reservoir. In addition, the greens won’t let you even pump seawater, because it might harm the tiny beasties residing therein. This means that there are very very few good sites …
w.
henryp August 6, 2017 at 11:31 pm
And you want to shaft the poor with expensive uncompetitive subsidized electricity?
Maybe you are not old enough to understand what that does to the poor …
w.
Hi Willis
I don’t want to repeat myself.\
please read my replies to Dodgy
starting here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/05/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils-hywind-scotland-a-positive-viewpoint/#comment-2573726
henryp August 7, 2017 at 9:10 am
Been there, read that, learned nothing. What is your point?
w.
you asked that question already and I answered
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/05/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils-hywind-scotland-a-positive-viewpoint/comment-page-1/#comment-2573945
Thanks Roger for this article with some useful facts and figures.
However overall it is a little too much like a sales pitch, with problems glossed over and future claims made glibly without evidence.
Rather like the many posts by Griff which are mostly copied and pasted from websites with a commercial interest in renewable energy. In fact it’s rather clear that Griff himself has a commercial interest in or even employment with the renewable industry.
The overarching problem of wind (and solar) -that of intermittency and weather and night-day dependence, was almost ignored in your article, which detracts catastrophically from its seriousness. This is analogous to a post in nuclear power ignoring the question of radioactive waste disposal.
It is very cute of you to address the issue of wind intermittency by calling it an advantage because it stimulates research into battery solutions. This I believe was the only thing you had to say on the subject or intermittency. That is hilarious 😂 – just like saying that nuclear power’s issue of high level waste disposal is an advantage because it stimulates research into geological waste disposal solutions and health physics in general. All the world’s problems suddenly disappear, reappearing as research solutions.
Just like the scientific case for global warming alarmism, the obstacles faced by the nuclear industry are 100% artificial. They are arbitrarily imposed by anti-nuclear activism in government and regulatory bodies. The confusing of cause and effect is the classical strategy of deceitful political propaganda. The politically mandated destruction of the nuclear industry is a far bigger disaster for humanity than global warming ever will be.
Study carefully the assessment by the German power industry themselves of the outcome of their Energiewende, before making sweeping future claims for renewable energy based on wishful thinking. The expansion of renewables in Germany between 2004 and 2016 had done nothing – absolutely nothing – to address the fundamental problems of intermittency and reliance on fossil fuel backup which characterise renewables. If anything thus expansion has only magnified these problems.
This post by fmassen would be a good place to start:
fmassen on August 5, 2017 at 9:23 am
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.
We keep getting told all the wind and solar stuff is so much cheaper then why has UK electricity just jumped 12.5%?
Surely the price should be dropping, if what everyone says about how cheap wind and solar are true?
I’ve left a comment on his blog page, as requested. All comments there are moderated. There are no comments visible yet.
On the assumption that my comment will not survive, I reproduce it here:
Wind power sounds very good.
So why isn’t it just allowed to compete fairly in the market place? There will never be any advance in solving the problems of intermittency unless there is pressure to do so. So long as profit can be made by using taxpayers money, that is what will happen.
Wind needs to SHOW that it is good, rather than simply write good sales pitches. It needs to show this to the companies responsible for providing power, on a level playing field. And then there will be no need for these sales pieces.
Since you are still providing them, I’m guessing that this hasn’t happened yet…
Dodgy
Nobody is buying anymore into nuclear and coal for the exact reason you mention. It is too expensive to build a safe and sound plant. And because the fuel is too filthy to handle. I would not even touch the stuff. You do?
What else is left?
Henryp August 7, 2017 at 6:05 am
Nobody? Well, I guess if you count the billions of people in India and China as “nobody” … gotta say, Henry, you are curiously out of touch with the real world.
And “too filthy to handle”? My, aren’t we getting prissy … I hope you never expose your ignorance to a coal miner with that kind of talk. They likely won’t be impressed by your green credentials …
w.
yes, Willis
and we know the Chinese have always been dodgy on keeping to western standards, especially when it comes to intl. labor – and air pollution rules of factories. I know of some deviations. In fact, they are downright hypocritical assuming a position of leadership in the Paris accord whilst building new coal plants all over Asia…
but in Europe and USA they stopped building coal power plants for the exact reasons that I mentioned:
we don’t want to sit in the stink and the smog that they apparently want to sit in….
I assume you would rather want to enjoy the clean air that you are currently enjoying [I am guessing in California]
You say “nobody is buying anymore into nuclear and coal”.
I say how is the huge population of India and China “nobody”?
You say they don’t count because they are “dodgy” and “hypocritical” …
Gotta say, amigo, it’s clear that you think your excrement don’t stank like everyone else’s … please spare me your patriarchal pontifications on what you think is good for the Chinese and the Indians. Unlike you, they don’t have the money to stick their nose up and refuse to pick up a lump of coal.
w.
I would use it in an instant – coal is very cheap now, and the exhaust gasses from a modern power station are cleaner than the air coming in.
Dodgy
for new coal plants governments have become stricter on SO/SO2/SO3, CO and NO /NO2 emissions. I think rightly so. You must be able to live in the area where the plant is erected without suffering. Either way, you have to take care of the problems, either buying or getting very clean coal and/or putting up big filters / units to remove these poisons from the exhaust. The process to mine and transport the coal is elaborate, often it gets wet on the way, wind blows the dust around: a nuisance for anyone in the transport zone. etc. Mine dust is also a killer. (siliconosis)
I don’t like my hands dirty, so I say that I would not even touch the stuff that you think is so great.
Why would anyone right in his mind still want coal?
Gas is so easy to transport. Open the valve. Push the button. We have ignition.
henryp August 7, 2017 at 6:55 am Edit
Do we really have to explain basic economics to you? I guess so. India and China are building something like a coal plant per week each, and you are so foolish as to think that they are not “right in the mind”?
Dude … you need to get out more. Places use coal because it provides cheap electricity. And despite you sticking your nose in the air and sniffing that you’re far too good and noble to even touch coal, it will continue to be used until it is no longer economically competitive. Better get used to it, because economics roolz …
Sheesh …
w.
Willis
you said that I said that ‘they’\ i.e. India and China, do not count.
It is not what I said.
I said that they are not keeping to our stringent laws and what ppm of poison is allowed in the exhaust.
of THEIR FACTORIES.
If you don’t believe me, go check out the quality of the air there yourself. OR listen to the complaints I heard from people who actually live there.we were in Hiderabad and the air was very dirty…Have not yet been in China but from what I hear on normal news TV, the air pollution in the big cities is very bad…
henryp August 7, 2017 at 10:52 am
Thanks, Henry. You said that “nobody” uses coal … and since half the world uses coal, you must be counting them as “nobody”. In other words, you are saying that they don’t count.
Since I said nothing about the air quality in China or their environmental laws, this has nothing to do with me.
Regards,
w.
willis/
you are nit picking choosing to turn my words around
I said that nobody is building new plants anymore
you then said: look at China and India
I then said: OK, but look at their air quality
George
read my comments to willis and dodgy
I am done here
henryp August 7, 2017 at 11:46 am
Yes, and I said that was nonsense, that there are people building new coal plants around the world. Rather than admit you were wrong, you tried to change the subject by saying:
Air quality? What on earth does that have to do with your foolish claim that nobody was building coal plants?
If you had simply admitted that your claim that nobody was building new coal plants was 110% wrong, you’d have earned my respect. Instead, you want to wiggle and tap dance away to some totally unrelated subject …
I love it when people announce that they’re outta here, expecting that people will care, when instead people are cheering and laughing as they slink out the door …
w.
Willis
I told you and all that coal and nuclear is rather filthy business from start to finish.
Unfortunately there will always be people who actually like or love sitting in their own filth.
Sorry that we have to disagree on this.
Cheers.
Henryp August 7, 2017 at 1:38 pm
So coal miners and everyone who uses coal-sourced electricity (about a third of the US) “like or love sitting in their own filth”??? … dude, the only filth in view is the endless insults of people coming from your mouth.
All mining is a dirty, unpleasant business … so when you use personally use steel or aluminum, is it because you “actually like or love sitting in your own filth”?
Noooo … “filth” is only for people who don’t hold your holy Green views …
In any case, I knew you were telling porkies when you said
w.
Yes. Good. We disagree. Clean energy is fine.
Henryp August 7, 2017 at 2:08 pm
Inexpensive energy is fine. Expensive energy is not fine. Clean is a bonus, but it’s not worth shafting the poor for expensive “clean” energy as you seem to think.
Also, given the horrendous conditions in the mines that supply the materials for solar panels and the serious cleanup and disposal issues they have, calling them “clean” is a sick joke.
w.
Willis
now you say
Inexpensive energy is fine. Expensive energy is not fine. Clean is a bonus, but it’s not worth shafting the poor for expensive “clean” energy as you seem to think.
Also, given the horrendous conditions in the mines that supply the materials for solar panels and the serious cleanup and disposal issues they have, calling them “clean” is a sick joke
Henry says
Nowhere did I say here on this blog that solar is fine. I tested it out on my own roof and find it to be a burden. The panels become dirty and have to be washed regularly. The batteries only last a few years, if you are lucky. If there are clouds for a few days in a row, the alarms go off, etc,,, I would not recommend it to anyone.
Germany is not building new nuclear and coal plants. They are closing down. From the graphs, you can see that the hole is filled with wind power. Energy price is a bit higher now but I think over the longer term the policy will pay off and the investment in wind power mightl be paying off.
Hydro is good, Wind is good. Wind + hydro combined is better. Gas is best.
Forget about nuclear and coal. Nothing to do with CO2. It is just filth and dust everywhere from start to finish. Don’t say you would be a miner when you really never will.
Gas is inexpensive, easy to transport, just open the valve, push the button, and there you go. Why would anyone want coal, when you have gas?
“given the horrendous conditions in the mines that supply the materials for solar panels”
…
Eschenbach is clueless. The three major materials in a solar panel are silicon, aluminum and glass. No “mine” needed for silicon, you can use beach sand. Ditto for glass, and bauxite mining isn’t difficult being that the ore is usually under a few meters of overburden.. Disposal of these items isn’t an issue either.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 2:50 pm Edit
Someone is clueless here, but it’s not me …
and
Finally, solar panels are considered “hazardous waste” by the State of California, and it’s not for your “silicon, aluminum, or glass”.
So your claim that they are made of “silicon, aluminum, and glass” overlooks a host of poisonous and hazardous materials.
w.
Yes it is you that is clueless. You confuse “mining” with “production.” You first post: “given the horrendous conditions in the mines that supply the materials for solar panels” then you post: ” Producing solar PV modules involves a witch’s brew….”
….
First of all please learn the difference between poly/mono-crystalline and thin film panels. For example cadmium is not used in crystalline panels. Secondly, learn that the the pollution from production is easily controllable. Thirdly, the thin film panels can be recycled, as FIrst Solar does.
Note that the chemicals used to process the materials used for panels don’t end up in the panels themselves.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 4:02 pm
Cadmium is indeed used in solar panels, contrary to your original claims and as you now admit. Are you truly claiming that conditions in cadmium mines are wonderful? And so what if the panels are recycled … you still have to mine the cadmium.
and
Now if the pollutants in solar panels are as benign as you claim, and if the “pollution from production is easily controllable … then how come the fish are dying?
And as I pointed out, that’s only one of the elements needed. How about the lead mines? Wonderful conditions?
w.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 4:08 pm
Thanks, Rob, but if that were true then the State of California wouldn’t classify solar panels as hazardous waste …
w.
Eschenbach says: “Cadmium is indeed used in solar panels”
…
Thanks for proving your cluelessness.
…
Cadmium is NOT used in mono crystalline panels Cadmium is NOT used in poly crystalline panels.
…
Let me repeat what I said, so you can re-read it: “For example cadmium is not used in crystalline panels”
For additional examples of Eschenbach’s cluelessness, Solar City’s thin film plant in Buffalo NY doesn’t pollute in the manufacture of panels, and their panels have cadmium in them. . China doesn’t have the same environmental regulations as we have here in the states, so I stand by my point that the pollution from the panels is easily controllable.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 5:16 pm
I don’t understand this comment of yours.
1) Cadmium is indeed used in thin-film solar panels, as I cited above and as you agreed.
2) Thin-film solar panels are indeed solar panels.
3) The state of California says, as I quoted above:
4) Therefore, cadmium is indeed used in solar panels.
Is cadmium used in crystalline solar panels? No … and I never said it was. I said
And that is 100% true.
So please … take your nonsensical allegations of “cluelessness” elsewhere. You wouldn’t recognize it if you saw it, it appears you’re blinded by the Kruger-Dunning effect.
w.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 5:22 pm said (emphasis mine)
Is the pollution from the panels “easily controllable”? Well, perhaps not “easily”, but it is controllable. However, that’s never been in dispute.
The curious part is, for a man who is rabidly and unpleasantly accusing me of being “clueless” for saying there is cadmium in solar panels … that’s a frickin’ hilarious example.
w.
Excellent Willis, we’ve gone from “calling them ‘clean” is a sick joke'” to “thin film solar panels are not clean.” Progress with you is slow, and gradual, taking only one small step at a time. Now if you are in California, and you have some thin film panels you want to dispose of, you can send them to Solar City to be recycled. No different than recycling the lead in the old fashioned lead-acid battery in many ICE vehicles.
Oh yeah, Willis, you do realize that controlling pollution is “easy” mostly because of all the experience we have with computer chip making factories. They use the same processes to make solar cells. Got any chip factories in California that pollute?
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 5:41 pm Edit
Rob, I do NOT allow people to put fake quotes in my mouth. I said NOTHING like what you claim, you are flat-out lying about that.
Where we have gotten is nowhere. You called me “clueless” for saying there is cadmium in solar panels. You have not acknowledged that you were both wrong and unpleasant in your bogus accusation. So yes, progress with you is slow when you simply will not admit that yes, I was right, there is indeed cadmium in solar panels.
Nor is it just thin film panels. READ THE CALIFORNIA INFORMATION AGAIN.
ALL solar panels can contain a number of different toxic materials.
I have not said one word about recycling until you brought it up, AS I POINTED OUT ABOVE, so I don’t know who you are talking to … but it damn sure ain’t me.
Yes, solar panels can be recycled … so what? That doesn’t make them “clean”, it just means we know how to get rid of some of the dirt.
Finally, solar panels contain lead, copper, cadmium, sulfur, trichloroethane, arsenic, and other toxic or hightly toxic chemicals. So I stand my statement that “calling them ‘clean’ is a sick joke”. They are classified by the State as HAZARDOUS WASTE … and calling hazardous waste “clean” is nonsense.
w.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
Well … um … yes.
Nice try, though. Google “pollution from chip factories” before you try that bogus claim again, it’ll make your hair stand on end.
w.
” calling them “clean” is a sick joke.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/05/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils-hywind-scotland-a-positive-viewpoint/comment-page-1/#comment-2574222
“Is cadmium used in crystalline solar panels? No”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/05/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils-hywind-scotland-a-positive-viewpoint/comment-page-1/#comment-2574429
Which means that crystalline panels aren’t “dirty !!!
You see the date on that thing you got from Google?
..
1999???
…
You crack me up.
One of the surest indicators that someone is clueless is when they start telling you to Google something.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 6:11 pm Edit
Nope, it just means they don’t contain cadmium. However, just like thin-film panels, crystalline panels are considered “hazardous waste” because although they don’t have cadmium, they have a host of other toxic chemicals in varying amounts depending on the process and the supplier.
Why is this so hard to wrap your head around?
w.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 6:17 pm
Gosh, you mean truth has an expiration date? Who knew? What is the cutoff? Last week? Last month? Let me know the exact age beyond which truth is meaningless, because I wouldn’t want to overstep the bounds …
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 6:33 pm
Rob, I was trying to prevent people from pointing and laughing at your cluelessness by advising you to DO YOUR HOMEWORK before exposing your lack of knowledge.
If you wish to ignore that advice it’s up to you … but I won’t apologize for trying to prevent your self-immolation.
w.
Read the post from 1999………“Three recent lawsuits”
…
Here’s the clue for the clueless……. It’s 2017 …. the lawsuits have been settled.
Good advice Willis, you should follow it yourself, and stop telling people to Google something, because if you had done YOUR homework, you’d provide links to real stuff instead of telling someone to google something. The fact that you had to resort to such a sophomoric suggestion is telling.
“they have a host of other toxic chemicals”
…
Yes, I pointed them out at the beginning of this discussion…..silicon, aluminum and glass.
Another funny thing about your 1999 post about lawsuits……did you see the words, “The suits allege” ? Your citation offers no PROOF of anything.
Lawsuits prove nothing but do prove that in America, people will sue you for passing gas in an elevator, or get sued for sexual harassment if you look at someone the wrong way.
Instead of lawsuits, how about administrative fines and/or judgements for intentional pollution by a chip manufacturing plant?
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 7:32 pm
OK. I’ve given a number of citations. This was perhaps the clearest:
Despite that and a number of other citations showing the same thing, you keep insisting over and over that there is nothing toxic there, only “silicon, aluminum and glass” …
I’m sorry, Rob, but that level of continued pretended ignorance is just trolling. I’m not interested in playing that game with you, so I’ll leave you to continue playing with yourself …
Sadly,
w.
For henryp,
Welcome to the quagmire, when one tries to have a comment-conversation with the W. E. person. It’s up to you, of course, but I found it best to just ignore everything he writes. Whether in a blog, or in a comment.
All the best. I agree with you. On China, especially. Been there, smelled that. Twice. Couldn’t see much due to the stinky haze, both times.
Henryp, I know that free advice is worth what you paid for it, but here’s mine.
To date you’ve avoided Roger’s cowardly method of ignoring people who ask inconvenient questions and who point out, link to, and support opposing facts.
He didn’t have the albondigas to answer me, but to your credit, you do. I’d advise you to ignore his advice, as it has led to great damage to his own reputation. There are lots of lurkers out there, and they notice people who are too afraid to answer simple questions or to defend their own position.
Best regards, and thanks for standing up for what you believe in, even though Roger won’t …
w.
Roger Sowell;
I found it best to just ignore everything he writes.
1. Posted the day after he said upthread that he was bowing out, then didn’t. I guess he made an exception just to try and insult WE?
2. Posted after his comment about never discussing legal matters in a blog, despite the article he just wrote containing not only a legal discussion, but also a threat. No response to at least two commenters pointing this out.
3. Posted after clear arguments to which his response was that he wouldn’t respond because of… past responses.
No further observations required.
“Wind power is a great jobs creator. Today, there are more than 100,000 good jobs in the US wind energy industry. ”
I find this a shallow and disingenuous argument. If the goal is to create jobs, why not have miners dig coal with spoons?
A contrarian might argue that the best thing for the country would be energy that cost nothing and therefore created no jobs. Imagine the productivity and cost effectiveness of our economic engine if energy costs were zero!
“Power from wind is power without pollution.”
I also find this also shallow and disingenuous. Wind turbines use neodymium magnets, the mining and refinement of this material is toxic to the environment. Wind turbines also use prodigious quantities of Copper, aluminum, steel and concrete. These materials have a huge cost in terms of CO2 generation.
wallensworth says: “Wind turbines use neodymium magnets”
…
This is not true if the turbine has a gearbox. Only direct drive turbines use permanent magnets, and even then, there alternatives to neodymium. For example they can use alinco for the permanent magnets.
Thanks, Rob. That’s true … but they aren’t generally using alinco, and most new turbines are direct drive …
So while you are correct that gearbox units use no neodymium, people just aren’t building those because of the complexity, efficiency, and maintenance needs for the gearboxes.
w.
Willis, almost all on-shore turbines have gearboxes, mostly because of the size of the rotors. They don’t spin fast enough due to use permanent magnet alternator/generators.
Well Alinco, would be Aluminium/Indium/Cobalt. Why not try instead Aluminium/Nickel Cobalt which IS a ferromagnetic material, called ” Alnico “.
Indium is used in LEDs, not in magnets.
G
Efficiency improvements eliminate jobs; not create jobs. NEW technologies can ceate new and better jobs, but something that ust creates more obs doing the same thing is not good for the economy. Or the environment.
G
wallensworth August 7, 2017 at 12:34 pm
I fear that Roger Sowell doesn’t know any other kind …
w.
henryp August 7, 2017 at 2:54 pm Edit
Henry, you said that clean is fine. If “clean” didn’t include solar, why not? And if “clean” includes wind, why?
Henry, that’s so bad it’s not even wrong.
I don’t know why I should have to say this, but DO YOUR HOMEWORK BEFORE UNCAPPING YOUR ELECTRONIC PEN!! I’m getting tired of batting away your nonsensical claims.
So is mining for iron to make steel, or coal to make steel … but I don’t see you curtailing your use of steel. This is a ludicrous argument when you apply it to two kinds of mining but you’re willing to use gold and copper and everything else that is mined.
Three days ago I was looking at a mine I was thinking about buying … you have NO CLUE what I will or won’t do. I’m outside of your experience.
Um … because in many places it’s still far cheaper than gas, and in many countries coal is all they have to burn?
w.
Rob Bradley August 7, 2017 at 5:25 pm
Thanks, Rob. As they say in Hollywood, “That was then … this is now”.
I agree that the offshore turbines got the technology first. But the advantages are such that more and more on-shore turbines are using direct drive. Enercon makes a range of direct-drive turbines for onshore use, for example.
Thanks for the information,
w.
This story just keeps getting better. I went over to Roger Sowell’s blog, because he said he’d answer questions there. However, that appears to be another lie. I posted my first question above, about the levelized cost of electricity … nothing. It still hasn’t appeared, seems like it must be in the bit box.
Dodgy Geezer gave it a try … here’s what happened:
Dodgy Geezer said…
Of course, Roger Sowell never answered DG’s simple question, “why isn’t it just allowed to compete fairly in the market place?” As usual, he responds to everything but the question.
August 7, 2017 at 5:03 AM
I had to stop there because I was laughing so hard. Wind power is not priced “the lowest in the market”. That’s so bad it’s not even wrong.
To the contrary, wind power typically receives what is called a “feed-in tariff”. This is an EXTRA AMOUNT paid to renewable energy providers because … well, because without the tariff they’d go broke. As Roger refuses to admit.
Anyhow, here’s the FIT for California, more states are covered here.
So here, wind power gets a staggering nine cents per kilowatt-hour MORE than the average market price for the power, whatever that may be.
Roger simply refuses to notice that he is sticking his grubby paws into our pockets to pay for his green fantasies, even when Dodgy asks the question. Obviously, the extra nine cents per KWHr isn’t free, and the ratepayers have to take it in the shorts.
Anyhow, y’all ought to go over to Roger’s blog. There you can see him wiggle and squirm to avoid answering a simple question from the Dodgy Geezer … thanks for putting it on the line, Dodgy.
So … do you figure he’ll sue me? I doubt it, because in general, the truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel.
(Curiously, this is NOT true in the UK, where you can get sent up for libel for telling the truth … thank goodness for the American Revolution.)
w.
Mr. Eschenbach – I just reposted my comment from above to Mr. Sowell’s blog, which still shows only the comments from DG and Mr. Sowell’s responses.
My original comment is:
—————————————
Mr. Sowell – I wish you would explain to the Maryland Legislature that just passed a law requiring electricity suppliers in the state to provide at least 25 percent from renewable sources and the Public Service Commission that approved a subsidy for a large wind farm off the coast of Ocean City that the mandate and subsidy are not necessary because wind power is reliable and cheap. Then maybe consumers will not be bombarded with lies about how switching to completely renewable sources will save the planet from catastrophic climate change, although at a cost well above what we are currently paying, and Ocean City will not have to go to court to stop the sight pollution of the subsidized wind farm off their tourist flooded (now, but not necessarily later) beaches. Or maybe you are being too optimistic?
———————————————
Apparently enough Marylanders are not buying electricity from renewable sources (because they cost more) so we will now be forced to buy it and will also pay to subsidize its production. We get screwed on both ends.
Thanks, Independent. I doubt greatly if my comment will see the light of day. It has too many facts and too little wiggle room for a lawyer to allow into consideration. Yours might be luckier.
We’re in the same situation as your are here in California, where Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown keeps jacking the renewable requirements, and my power is now costing $0.20 per KWhr. Meanwhile, Dodgy Geezer simply asked, “why isn’t it [windpower] allowed to compete in the marketplace?” It’s an obvious question, no? If its as good as Roger claims, why not?
In response, he got a metric buttload of the patented Sowell bafflegab, an elaborate hand-waving disquisition that wandered through history and fantasy in a successful attempt to discuss anything but the issue at hand … so Dodgy never got a simple answer to a simple question.
Good luck with your comment, not holding my breath … thanks for keeping the heat on.
w.
Mr. Eschenbach – I just checked and Mr. Sowell’s response to my comment on his blog is:
“I don’t practice in Maryland. Your comment appears far too litigious for a serious response.”
He goes on to say that offshore wind farms need to be subsidized!!!! And that I should seek a local lawyer if I need one. ?????
South River Independent August 9, 2017 at 10:15 am Edit
Dang, does he miss the point much? Just like with Dodgy, he answers a question that wasn’t asked and ignores the question that was asked.
And of course wind farms need to be subsidized, otherwise, we’d have none and Roger wouldn’t have anyone to give legal advice to … except in Maryland, of course.
Of course, my question went into the trash, he doesn’t have the albondigas to answer real questions.
Hilarious.
w.
Barbara August 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
Barbara, thanks for a fascinating document. Inter alia it says:
Man, those guys know how to play the money game …
Regards,
w.
willis
to be fair, I think that in principle there is nothing wrong with the state allocating some support for something totally new, like building off shore wind mills. The tricky part is the part where you build it in the sea – i.e. out of sight – since nobody likes to have the mills in their own back yard.
Clean energy is much better than having the filth of coal and nuclear when you look at that from start to finish. We already been over that before.
I would regard such initial support for something new in the same light as going to the moon (who paid for that?). Or think of the past where Columbus got state money to search for India going west (a success) and Willem Barentz going north to find the north west passage (a disaster).
I do agree that the support must be limited up to a point to where the new technique has been proved to be successful
— or not —.
you cannot keep on subsidizing a lost cause [like I think solar voltaic will be].
People in South Africa were given an initial subsidy to put up a solar geyser and that has proven to be successful. (solar geysers work like an inverted radiator). It caused a massive big saving in electricity
bw
Henry
Thanks, Henry. While I agree with you in principle, two points:
1. The government has a HORRIBLE record with respect to picking energy companies to support. From Solyndra to Abengoa and a dozen companies in between, Obama’s pals got rich, the taxpayer got screwed, and we poured billions down a rathole. BILLIONS! Heck, we’ve given Elon Musk around five BILLION dollars, and here’s what we got:
And that tiny red wedge is ALL electric and hybrid vehicles, Elon’s share is only a quarter of that. Sorry, not impressed … the Government is horrible at picking future technologies.
2. We made the transition from wood to coal without government interference or assistance. We made the transition from coal to oil without government interference or assistance. We are making a transition from coal and oil to gas not only without government assistance but with active government opposition. Remember Obama saying we couldn’t drill our way to cheaper oil? He was as wrong about that as he was about most things. He did everything he could to kill the fossil fuels industry.
My point is that the market is the best system that we’ve ever found for picking winners. There is no need for the government to force their chosen energy solution on the market. All that does is wildly distort the market and drive up prices … see my electricity bill here in California for confirmation.
As soon as one of the many other options is CHEAPER than existing alternatives, people will flock to it. Until then, I’ll thank you to keep your hands out of my wallet. You want offshore wind?
Then YOU should pay for it, not me.
You also say:
NO. Expensive clean energy is much, much worse than cheap coal. You seem to not care a whit about the poor, or perhaps you just haven’t thought the question through to the end, which is where the poor are unable to pay for rising fuel costs. Here in California, Jerry Brown is now slapping a big tax on gas in addition to the “Crap and Trade” program already in operation. Jerry, and apparently you as well, don’t give a fig if the gas prices go up. Makes no difference in Jerry’s life.
But if you are a poor single mom forced to buy henryp’s wonderful clean energy at a 50% price hike, it means you have to cut somewhere … so your kids don’t go to the dentist, or you buy cheaper, less nutritious food. No bueno.
There’s a lovely (albeit disturbing) book by William Burroughs called “Naked Lunch”, where one of the images is a lunch where everyone knows what is on both ends of the spoon … I fear that in your drive for “clean” energy you are neglecting the poor people at the other end of your spoon.
Thanks for your thoughts,
w.
Willis
the sentiments that you express is that the user [especially big users] of electricity should be willing to invest in alternative energy by sponsoring off shore or just on shore mill projects. I had that idea many years ago.
If say an aluminium smelter would invest and put up a mill park and generate energy for the grid he should be rewarded with a reduction of his bill by the energy he generated, on his own bill. At some stage his investment in the mill park must start to work in favor for his company. I think a scheme like that could work if it can be shown profitable in the longer term for the smelter.
As far as electric cars is concerned: I don’t think this has been properly thought through yet. What if a large portion people want to ‘green’ and start using electric cars:
Is the grid going to handle that? Has anybody seen some calculations on that – I have no idea as to how much electric power these cars consume…
henryp August 8, 2017 at 2:39 pm
Say what? I NEVER said anything even remotely resembling that. I invite you to QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS that you are talking about, so we can all see where you drew the wrong conclusions.
Huh? Why would a smelter generate power “for the grid”? Why not just generate the power and use it themselves to smelt aluminum? I’m not understanding this at all.
Excellent question. Not only can sparky cars affect the grid, they already are … see here for further details.
Best to you,
w.
Willis
I am just messing with you, just going around a bit,
Obviously you cannot build a private mill park in an industrial or residential area. It has to be on shore or just off shore, where there is always wind.
The grid itself must become sort of like common property, What you put in is yours for free. For everything else you must pay, at a higher rate/ That is why you must make the investment. If you think wind is no good, then invest in something else. Either way, the consumer, especially the big ones, must do his bit to put power into the system. Why cannot that work?.
Thanks for the link but it does not seem to work?
henryp August 8, 2017 at 3:18 pm
“Just messing with me” by trying to stuff false ideas into my mouth? That’s troll-level slimy. I invite you again to either QUOTE MY WORDS where you think I said something about companies generating their own electricity, or to apologize for your underhanded attempt to put words in my mouth. I will not stand idly by and have my words “twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools”, as the poet said. On my planet, people who take joy in “just messing” with people are scum.
I said NOTHING about this. What are you babbling about?
It won’t work for a number of reasons. The main one is that if what you put in is “yours for free”, then you are screwing all the other ratepayers who are paying for the grid. You are putting in energy at wholesale and taking out electricity at retail. The transmission of electricity costs money, as does the maintenance and support of the grid. You seem to think that should be free … bad news. It’s not.
Another reason is that the grid has zero storage. If you have hundreds of businesses randomly tossing their power into the grid for a while and then shutting their generators down, grid instability becomes a huge problem.
Anyhow, despite your ideas, TANSTAAFL …
Thanks, fixed.
Seriously, amigo, if you want to claim I’ve taken some position or other, QUOTE MY EXACT WORDS. This whole rant of yours has nothing to do with me or anything I said.
w.
Willis
if you don’t want government subsidy for new projects then you would want /support consumer sponsoring?
that is a logical conclusion I could make from your argument.
anyway, that storage problem was indeed the one I heard before when I looked at this a bit for my employer who used a lot of electricity.
pity
the link works, thanks.
There are not many cars yet. I fear disaster is lurking for us if one car uses as much a 3 residential homes electricity.
the horse is not going to pull all those new electric cars..
henryp August 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm
BZZZZT! henryp, you’re not following me. Here’s what I said before:
You seem to think I’m not serious. Unlike you, I don’t “mess people around”. This discussion has hit the pause button for the time being. Where it goes from here is up to you.
w.
Roger. I think that you try to make sober arguments for wind in general and this project in particular and that one should not dismiss them out of hand, however your macro conception that essentially large industrial generation is all over sounds remarkably in the vein of ‘peak oil’ – which is not to say it is 100% wrong or that there aren’t pieces of scientific evidence that can give some generalized support to your conception, but like peak oil it is all a question of timing.
In Rhode Island we do not have aging industrial plants that nobody cares about. The Brayton point coal plant invested heavily in modern scrubbers and less than a decade ago completted half a billion dollars in cooling towers because of alleged biological effect of warming to adjacent bay waters. But the Obama war on coal combined with having regional policies equally hostile to coal resulted in this important plant closing and electric rates for most customers went up 50% (power price that is) as an almost direct result even though we are so ‘fortunate’ to have the leaches at Deepwater Wind (which you reference) providing us power at 5 times the prices that the coal plant did (average over the contract for deepwater is 35¢ per kwh) whenever the wind happens to blow. changes like this undermined our forward capacity market (along with opposition to more bricks and mortar in gas – go figure, people here don’t like the source of power that has saved more CO2 than all the friggin wind turbines in the world.
You will have to go miles further to convince me that now is a sensible time to put bricks and mortar into expensive boutique energy. 25 years maybe. but not because people postulate it but because coal is actually getting expensive and wind is actually competitive. when that starts to happen, people will put up offshore windmills but doing it before that is a complete waste of money and resource.
They have put up onshore wind farms in areas where the pricing can be kept in the single digits although even those would not be competitive without subsidy but they are closer. You are trying to make a numbers based technical case and i don’t think it is there at this time. It is a good exposition for futurists but there is simply zero upside to adopting it now. if you’re right, it will be adopted on its own when it is competitive.
yes, there is a minor tug of the status quo against change, but that hasn’t stopped people from shopping on amazon and it won’t stop windpower where it is actually competitive and not a question of govenrment subsidy.
For Brian bishop,
Thank you for an excellent comment, and I will respond in more detail around 12:30 pm today PDT. Or after 5 pm.
Large generation, which you seem to mean as coal and nuclear, are having great problems these days, as I described. Nobody will build and replace the 98 nuclear plants within 20 years. As coal is also declining, for costs related to environmental reasons, that too must be included in the planning.
That is not a peak oil argument. That is an economics and regulatory argument. Coal could be imported, if the price were right, for the next 40 to 50 years. The coal industry must find some way to increase coal prices to be profitable at mining after that.
The basic concept that you seem to miss, as have many others on this article and comments, is that wind energy economics have steadily improved with the assistance of government subsidies over a few decades. The land-based, large, modern systems have reached grid parity in many areas. They can now compete against anything at 4.3 cents per kWh sales price. That does not include, by the way, externalities of less fresh water consumed for cooling, less toxic pollution in the form of sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter (PM). It does include a tiny amount for grid integration, typically no more than 1.5 $/MWh.
The same economic improvement is now underway in the US with offshore wind, and has been in other countries for a couple of decades. Offshore will certainly benefit from experience, as larger and more efficient systems are installed. The economic price for offshore is approximately 5 times that of onshore wind at the present, but will very likely decline over a few decades to parity, or perhaps 1.5 times parity.
Others may disagree, but that is how I see it.
As for subsidies being all bad, I would caution anyone with that viewpoint to consider the tremendous subsidies that nuclear power has had over 60 years. The US government puts the amount at $91 billion (2010 dollars, cumulative). The amount dwarfs the amount spent for wind subsidy. Also, much of the nuclear research funding has never produced a workable system, such as for fusion. The wind funding produced viable, working systems that now produce about half the annual electricity of what nuclear power does, on an annual basis in the US. (8 percent vs 18 percent, with wind increasing and nuclear decreasing)
The energy policy of the US is complex. Wind energy, onshore and offshore, has a place in the mix.
For those who disagree, your congressman and senator are always waiting to hear from the voters.
A discussion of energy subsidies over the decades in the US can be found here:
http://www.misi-net.com/publications/NEI-1011.pdf
“60 Years of Energy Incentives; Analysis of Federal Expenditures for Energy Development
October 2011, By Management Information Services, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Prepared for The Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, D.C.”
The comment above is for brian bishop, today’s comment just above.
Roger, thanks for your post and the subsequent comments you made including this last one. I am sure a few of us here are beginning to see things in a different light – or should I say a different wind instead of different light…….
Roger, you are thoughtful to respond to comments although I do think you have a view that is analogous to peak all. you talk about us running out of commercially viable reserves of coal. you’re right that nuclear is more complicated as has had subsidies. This is in part because futurists told us nuclear was the way of the future and once they got it right it would be free. Sounds remarkably like wind power, in terms of the promises.
You are right that onshore windpower is more competitive albeit it will face headwinds, sorry, in finding convenient areas to locate large farms that are proximate enough to highly developed electricity markets and transmission to raise great additional capacity and without immense capacity and transmission spread intra and inter region cannot be considered competitive because of the idle reserve that must be maintained for its intermittent nature. You elide this in presenting numbers.
Of course those looking for a redux of coal will face increased prices if there is increased utilization. but of course that increases fiscally accessible reserves. When i say it is a matter of timing I mean that paying 35¢ a kwh for power from deepwater wind is a useless subsidy. We know how to stand up windmills in the water and run powerlines to shore. its been done regularly in europe. If simply pioneering the technology were all that was needed to then bring manufacturing to scale and make it affordable there is no excuse for that kind of expenditure for a plant with an expected life of 20 years. You are telling me maybe in 10 years offshore wind will be cheaper. And deepwater in essence defends this gross excess by saying that its larger farms will bring us energy in the teens! Where is your 4.3¢ wind. IT IS NOT HERE.
As long as they are able to play this game they are no better than those schilling sports stadiums. People like to have a baseball team so the public has to pay for it. And people like ‘green’ power so the public has to pay for it.
the energy cost portion of the ‘standard rate’ offered to RI consumers will spike 50% (6.22 to 9.8¢) because of the closing of Brayton Point. None or that is related to the kwh pricing of energy, it is all related to the forward capacity market. We can buy a lot of ‘expensive’ coal at that rate. where is your 4.3¢ wind energy and how can it allay the capacity market. (to be fair, this increase reflects a tripling in our constrained intra-region capacity market which was roiled by the closure of Brayton Point as well as other impending closures. The subsequent capacity auction that will affect pricing in a year subsided to ‘only’ double rather than triple the status quo).
Again, I say this is about timing and when perfectly good, well maintained, and reasonably cost efficient coal capacity like Brayton Point is shuttered when we know we face these capacity hurdles, that is not the market talking but rather a reaction to this dogged determination to force penetration for wind and solar at any cost, (see deepwater at 35¢). Even if the market is telling us we need Brayton Point the regulators and policymakes are so convinced we should have wind instead that the owners see no future in operating it. The true cost of wind and spinning reserves is simply not reflected in the energy auctions in which Brayton Pint participates because the legislators carefully conceal that cost on the utilty side of the bill (which by the way, in RI is noticeably larger than the energy cost and would only be about equivalent to the energy cost in the wake of this coming increase).
There is zero chance of significant wind capacity offsetting these closures and in any event it would require spinning reserves which you don’t allow for in its costs (as JD observes somewhat higher in the comments thread). There is an attempt to build gas plants – not as peaking companions for wind which has modest penetration in our market – but because of the obama era regulatory vice on coal and the efficiency hurdles nuclear faces for renewal or replacment of existing capacity (as well as a realization that we shouldn’t put our finger so heavily on the subsidy scale – here the green lobby is fractured whether to support nuclear as having zero CO2 output). This is frustrated by opposition to new pipeline capacity and liquification and storage of gas. Because wind energy is not required to sort out who its intermittency will be balanced there is zero political will to construct gas capacity needed to match bringing any more wind online – which is largely stalled at this point by a lack of affordability with an incredible pile of subsidies already heaped on it.
The bottom line is, after much talking about why the economics of legacy industrial generation do not look good for its renewal at a scale matching retirement and that wind is getting cheaper (with zero attention to the complications of grid management with resources that cannot be commited) you continue to elide timing. wind is not cheaper here but the policies that favor wind and solar and disfavor coal and nuclear — and even gas — are raising energy prices in our region that are already the most expensive in the united states. So you telling me that legacy generation is gone in 10 years is no excuse for what is happening right now. To return to my previous post and the part of it you didn’t respond to:
“You are trying to make a numbers based technical case and i don’t think it is there at this time. It is a good exposition for futurists but there is simply zero upside to adopting it now. if you’re right, it will be adopted on its own when it is competitive.”
I have seen nothing you have written that can defend the subsidies being heaped on wind generation – simply having to pay for commitments to spinning reserve is a subsidy in itself from ratepayers nevermind all the individual subsides. And your response to that is “Nuclear gets a lot of subsidy”. Fine throw them all out. But you insist (as did the folks who have sold us the nuclear subsidies) that essentially they are ‘necessary’ for the a free future. Right. Look, i got a couple of bridges for ya up here. A real deal.
i’m not sure what the point of signing in is if you can’t correct the ways in which spell check screws up your post. of course i meant “peak oil” and not “peak all” but i imagine that can be filled in with context. and this is still Brian, I signed in the same way but the earlier post has my name and second my pseudonym taken from the deniro character in Brazil. But I don’t mean to troll here. computers don’t do the same thing from one day to the next – just like wind energy.
I think peak “all” is the way they say it in Texas.
The final floating wind turbine for the Hywind Scotland project has been towed to the site and installed at its designated location off Peterhead, Scotland, according to BBC.
http://m.offshorewind.biz/#newsitem-157893
Congratulations!