Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There’s an interesting and authoritative new [commenters pointed out it’s from 2012, I can’t find any newer research] study on the lifespan of those ugly bird-and-bat-choppers yclept “wind turbines”. It’s called “The Performance of Wind Turbines in the United Kingdom and Denmark“.
Here’s the Executive Summary, all emphasis is mine:
Executive Summary
1. Onshore wind turbines represent a relatively mature technology, which ought to have achieved a satisfactory level of reliability in operation as plants age. Unfortunately, detailed analysis of the relationship between age and performance gives a rather different picture for both the United Kingdom and Denmark with a significant decline in the average load factor of onshore wind farms adjusted for wind availability as they get older. An even more dramatic decline is observed for offshore wind farms in Denmark, but this may be a reflection of the immaturity of the technology.
2. The study has used data on the monthly output of wind farms in the UK and Denmark reported under regulatory arrangements and schemes for subsidising renewable energy. Normalised age-performance curves have been estimated using standard statistical techniques which allow for differences between sites and over time in wind resources and other factors.
3. The normalised load factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. The decline in the normalised load factor for Danish onshore wind farms is slower but still significant with a fall from a peak of 22% to 18% at age 15. On the other hand for offshore wind farms in Denmark the normalised load factor falls from 39% at age 0 to 15% at age 10. The reasons for the observed declines in normalised load factors cannot be fully assessed using the data available but outages due to mechanical breakdowns appear to be a contributory factor.
4. Analysis of site-specific performance reveals that the average normalised load factor of new UK onshore wind farms at age 1 (the peak year of operation) declined significantly from 2000 to 2011. In addition, larger wind farms have systematically worse performance than smaller wind farms. Adjusted for age and wind availability the overall performance of wind farms in the UK has deteriorated markedly since the beginning of the century.
5. These findings have important implications for policy towards wind generation in the UK. First, they suggest that the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time. Second, meeting the UK Government’s targets for wind generation will require a much higher level of wind capacity – and, thus, capital investment – than current projections imply. Third, the structure of contracts offered to wind generators under the proposed reform of the electricity market should be modified since few wind farms will operate for more than 12–15 years.
Not much more that I can say after that most devastating indictment of wind turbines. In a mere ten years, the UK wind farms are producing less than half of what they produced when they were new.
So … why do people still want to build wind farms in the UK? The simple answer is … subsidies. The UK populace is getting royally screwed by their government with its insane subsidies. Here’s an example, the subsidies for some of the largest solar plants in the UK:
I’m sure that you noticed the oddity … in each and every case, the government subsidy is more than the value of the energy produced … I gotta say, that’s dumber than cubical ball bearings.
Now, the UK government did get smart and end onshore wind subsidies … so of course, there are lots of people screaming and pressuring the government to lift the ban on the subsidies. From the Guardian:
The wind industry said if a bar on onshore windfarm subsidies was lifted it would allow the construction of 794 projects which have won consent through the planning system and are ready to build.
Yeah, I bet it would allow construction. Throwing big piles of money at construction projects tends to do that. The most significant point is this:
Without subsidies, nobody is building windfarms in the UK …
The total cost of UK subsidies for renewables is stunning. Renewable subsidies in the UK in 2016, the most recent data I could find, is just under £5 billion with a “b” UK pounds (US$ 6,000,000,000). And since the start of the subsidies in 2003 up until 2016, the total spent is £23 billion with a “b” pounds (US$28,000,000,000).
And what did they get for that £23 billion? From 2003 to 2016, UK renewables generated about 242 terawatt-hours of electricity. This means that the renewable subsidies have been 9.7 UK pence per kilowatt-hour (kWhr) (11.6 US cents per kWhr).
Here is the truly tragic part. The UK subsidy of 11.6 US cents per kWhr is about 10% more than the current US retail electricity price of about 10.7 cents per kWhr … so the UK consumer is paying more in renewable subsidies than the US consumer pays retail for its electricity.
Now the US is not without fault in this matter. However, our renewable subsidies are much smaller, only 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour … bad, but not outrageous.
TL;DR version?
Solar and wind power are worse than useless. Useless would be bad enough, but they are also horrendously expensive, and subsidies make it worse. The UK population pays more in renewable electricity subsidies per kilowatt-hour than the US pays retail for electricity. And to add insult to injury … the windmills are failing faster than anyone but work-hardened cynics like myself would have imagined.
Best to all from our home on the hillside, where from my window I see the cat out hunting in the evening summer grass and the sea wind is bringing us tantalizing hints of its oceanic home …
w.
DATA: UK Renewable Subsidies
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I didn’t find anything directly relevant at NREL, but these are informative
maintenance costs:
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-cost-om-dg.html
useful life:
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/tech-footprint.html
Solar Panels life of 25-40 years, in what world?
Oh bugger-
https://notrickszone.com/2019/08/07/german-agency-for-disaster-preparedness-calls-on-citizens-to-be-ready-for-widespread-blackouts/
“Renewable energy is a blackout risk, warns National Grid after chaos during biggest outage in a decade”
caveat on my useful life comment (in moderation?):
These numbers are useful since they provide conventional thinking of experts in each field; it is important to understand that they do not include lifetime statistical data of actual projects.
So any Brexit deal should include offloading of all wind farm projects and finance in the UK to the EU as a gift toward their climate goals.
This also explains why solar projects in the UK have no time for dealing with low cost, best of breed solar providers. It’s more about who you know and how fast you can get the subsidy going than anything dealing with thoughtful cost competitiveness.
Picture the scene:-
A Green entrepreneur goes to see his bank manager to discuss his latest Green energy idea.
“Ah, Mr Green do come in, take a seat, what can I do for you?”
“Well Mr Banks I want to start a solar energy farm, about 100 acres” (40 hectares for our metric readers) That will provide enough area for about 20 MW output.
“Very interesting Mr Green and how much will you need for the project”?
“Well UK agricultural acres are roughly £10,000 each so £1 million for the land, then the solar farm equipment will cost around £1,000/kW installed so say £20 million for the panels. Assemble and installation cost plus grid connections say £5 million. I think £30 million should cover it, yes say £30 million”
“Ah I can see you have done your costings, Mr Green, what is the revenue going to be, and will the farm run all year round?”
“Yes, sort off, well, it will max out at 20 MW but of course it will not produce that much on days between October and February”. It will gradually build to 20 MW as the sun rises during the day and slowly decline as the sun sets.
“Will it produce 24/7 during the rest of the year?”
“Well no, but it will produce 12/7, sometimes”
“I’m sorry, did I hear you correctly? It will produce 12/7 sometime!”
“Well yes, it doesn’t work at night. Then sometimes during the day the sun is obscured, clouds, rain on the panels, fog. mists, snow, ice, hail damage that sort of thing, typical UK weather really. The efficiency then drops to single digit % output and of course the equipment will be idle for half of the day, well, all night actually”
“And what efficiency will the farm operate at when the sun shines”?
“Well, we estimate 10% conversion during the summer period initially, of course as the years go by the cleaning and decay of the panels will take its toll, after 15 years, the inverters/panels will need to be replaced.”
“So, let me summarise what you are asking for.
You want £30 million to operate a farm that only runs 12 hours/day in the summer…sometimes, it will average 10% energy conversion efficiency and will need constant cleaning and total replacement in 15 years’ time, have I understood you correctly?”
“Yes that is about it”….
“Very well, let us consider both sides of the business, income and expenditure
“So, £30 million borrowed over 15 years is £2 million Capital repayment/yr.
Interest at 8% will be on a reducing balance at £1.2million/yr. averaged over 15 years.
Insurance, staff and security of the site will amount to £500,000/yr.
Maintenance and management at the site will require round the clock on site technicians, employing highly qualified staff and will cost another £500,000/yr. electrical engineers are not cheap.
That is the broad brush outgoings without getting too detailed.
The income
Sale of energy generated at £100/MWh x 6hr (i.e. bell curve light gain and decline) x 20 = £12,000/day x say 200 days/yr. = £2.4 million/yr. revenue.
My conclusion Mr Green.
Outgoings will be £4.2 million/yr and income will be £2.4 million/yr
Have I missed anything?”
“Well we might be able to generate for 300 days/yr. but there will be decommissioning costs of course”
“Very good, so an income of £3.6 million/yr. and cost of £4.2 million/yr. plus decommissioning costs”
Anything else Mr Green?”
“Well the business rates on the site have yet to be decided, but we may be able to register as a charity”
“Ah yes, a charity, you have my full support. Here is one pound for your charity box, come back and see me when you have secured the rest of the money from other generous donors”.
“Is there anything else Mr Green?”
“Did I mention my ideas for a wind farm, roughly 1000 acres….?
“Good day Mr Green”.
However, in practice Mr. Green then explains to Mr. Banker that it will all be subsidized so they can’t lose. “There will be a guaranteed return on the investment perhaps several times over.”
They will both make out like bandits. So will the local concrete company. And the local road builders. The local sheep ranchers will be able to retire in style. When the systems wear out they will just walk away.
There won’t be much scrutiny from the local politicians of any party. It is a local politician’s dream. They will get their cut, from a revenue stream that stretches all the way to China and back. Funding for buying votes in perpetuity. Plus they will get on the evening news as saving the planet, guaranteeing reelection, and basking in the glow of virtue signaling.
When the local working stiffs see their power bills sky rocket, the faceless evil energy companies will take the blame, but nothing can be done. The inevitable blackouts will just bring more calls for more.
Add on-
“Energy consumption in wind facilities
Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other electricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference between the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readily determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and is completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines — for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon — do not include electricity consumption in the specifications they provide.
Among the wind turbine functions that use electricity are the following:†
yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) — the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine
blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)
lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.
heating the blades — this may require 10%-20% of the turbine’s nominal (rated) power
heating and dehumidifying the nacelle — according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, “power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds”
oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox
hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)
thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) — 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost
magnetizing the stator — the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a “large” amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous “cage rotor” that encloses the generator shaft; at the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine’s rated capacity, in slower winds possibly much more
using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not,‡ particularly during important site tours or noise testing (keeping the blades feathered, ie, quiet)) — it seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning, along with the gears that increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind§
Could it be that at times each turbine consumes more than 50% of its rated capacity in its own operation?! If so, the plant as a whole — which may produce only 25% of its rated capacity annually — would be using (for free!) twice as much electricity as it produces and sells. An unlikely situation perhaps, but the industry doesn’t publicize any data that proves otherwise; incoming power is apparently not normally recorded.”
OT breaking news: Walmart announces it is suing Tesla over solar panels that have caused fires at seven different stores:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/20/walmart-sues-tesla-over-solar-panel-fires-at-seven-stores.html
The best part of Willis’s intelligent musings is that he does not really get personally worried about all the dumb things happening in our world today re policies on climate change. To him it is all just an amusing intellectual pastime. It is really far more important that he has had a great day, that the sun is shining, that he has had enough to eat, that he still has a roof over his head, that his health, mental and physical, is still good enough, that he feels good about what he is doing in life. True existentialism.
Hughes has published a number of articles critical of UK wind power, via the GWPF. See http://tinyurl.com/y5e42yr4
No, not clueless. Coining it. That’s why they are rich and we are poor.
JF
This is from POWER Magazine, 05/01/19.
Onshore main-shaft bearing failure rates have been shown to reach 10% and higher as some equipment approaches just six years in service, below expected performance (Figure 1). Many wind turbine owners are increasing the expected time they plan to operate a turbine from 20 to 25 or 30 years. However, some under-performing sites require a main shaft and gearbox rebuild every 7 to 10 years. If each main shaft and gearbox repair, including crane costs, is assumed to cost about $300,000, operators could spend up to $1.2 million per turbine over the course of a typical turbine lifecycle.
Turbines are airfoils. Which even if made of cast forged extraterrestrial high tech titanium endure, alike all related elements, what nature, physics and material science has in stock.
The entire contraption is in the maintenance realm of a “stationary airframe”. Which in the free market proves quite a costly endeavor.
No wonder subside greedy green mafias actually hate the idea of anything freedom related, market inclusive.
I’ve talked to various people who express the view that wind power cost is completely irrelevant; wind and solar are the only worthwhile approach. Their reasons vary considerably however.
One friend follows the Democratic part line on climate strictly. He is quite capable of coming to logical conclusions from reasoned considerations, even regarding some favorites such as gun control, but seems to believe that anything not strictly complying with alarmists climate propaganda has to be incorrect.
Another says she always believed the alarmists climate claims were just some kind of government attempt at mind control, probably actually originating with the republicans. However, oil companies are so evil that anything that might possible reduce their profit and power is the thing to do, no matter how expensive.
Another hates oil companies but most especially oil and gas pipelines. Anything to get rid of all pipeline is worthwhile. It would not bother him in the least if most people had to stop running around in automobiles so much. Besides, man made climate change is certainly real and besides, a wind turbine completely pays for itself in nine months and produces completely free electricity after that. That wind turbines are the source of any damage or grid problems is just propaganda. His business, his likelihood is dependent on running around over several states in a large van full of equipment but electric vehicles are going to be so much better someday soon.
The point of all this that I see is rational objections to wind turbines and other “renewables” makes no impression on many people.
Many have long noted that facts and logic are completely useless to people who operate at the level of emotions and irrationality.
I include unearned trust in the honesty of someone else under the subheading of “irrationality”.
I tried to sell some well characterized technology to wind turbine oems and operators that would have helped lifespan and time before overhaul. No takers. No one cared about anything that happened after the performance bond was met.
Jean Parisot,
My understanding is that wind turbines became better designed, more reliable and longer lasting until about 1990. The costs associated with these improvements were found to be unjustified because the buyers were only interested in a turbine that lasted 10 years..until the accelerated depreciation and tax credit expired. Just good business…in the make believe world created by virtue signaling regulators and willfully uninformed voters.
There’s a perverse logic to all this: the economy runs mostly on fossil fuel, renewable energy depends on subsides taken from the economy and, therefore, renewables mostly run on fossil fuel.
JS – It is actually more frightening when you consider the required taxes to pay for the subsidies. Governments are not very efficient and as such a US dollar/GBP collected in taxes will not pay for a US dollar\GBP of subsidies.
And what replaces the tax revenue from fossil fuels if we stop using them?
And what replaces the tax revenue from fossil fuels if we stop using them? Nothing. It’s simple. Like when you buy an electric car. You don’t pay the road tax that’s included in the cost of gasoline. That’s the magic of the green new world.
Electric cars are heavier and damage the roads more, but there is no road tax on the electricity. The road tax revenue from gasoline sales goes down, so they raise the tax on gasoline to pay for the electric car freeloaders. Nice system.
And battery cars don’t pay the London congestion charge because….they somehow don’t cause congestion? Although they deny it – but then when has government not lied – road charging is what they have in mind so that you pay per mile with no doubt peak rates etc.
The powerful interests that ignore facts for hype and foggy ideas will not be deterred. I can see the future and it is full of windmills generating solid gold electricity.
Whoda thunk that Moored Helicopters would be as prone to maintenance expense and ‘serviceability interuption”as their untethered cousins?
Willis
Check out the performance of wind energy convertors here
https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/index.php?order=InstalledkW&dir=desc&start=0
The document from 2012 was questioned by Prof Mackay
on the same website is the documentation
https://www.ref.org.uk/publications/303-response-to-professor-mackays-comments-on-wind-farm-economic-lifetime-research
Those numbers are truly dreadful, now how much worse would they be if wing had to pay for its own spinning reserve back up?
When I lived in So Cal, I often had occasion to drive the I-10 to points east – anywhere from Palm Springs to Las Cruces, New Mexico. Going through the San Gorgonio Pass, I had to endure the spectacle of some 2,000 wind turbines spoiling the view for miles and miles.
The wind was always blowing hard, hard enough to buffet even my dual cab Tundra pickup. Whether anyone was riding with me or not, I’d always crack the joke that the wind wouldn’t be so bad here if they’d just shut all those damn fans off (of course, 10-20% of them weren’t turning at any given time).
Which brings me to my solution: increase the availability by having the upwind half of every wind farm run in reverse, i.e. as a fan. That way, you’d start off with a windfarm not at 24% (onshore) or 39% (offshore), but a full 100% of nameplate capacity all the time!. Then the loss of 10 or 15% of output with age wouldn’t make as big a difference.
Where do you get the energy to run the fans? Why, from the wind farm, of course. Silly…
Maybe they could put turbines on sail boats.
While it is windy, it stores energy and drives a propeller, plus it blows on the sail.
Then, they use everything in reverse when the wind stops: Ocean currents and the forward motion of the boat transmit power from the propellers to the wind turbine, plus the stored battery power, to use the turbine to blow on the sail some more.
And vice versa.
Probably need some warmista engineers to work out the technical details, what with it costing more than it saves and it does not actually save anything, plus you need a backup generator of course.
I am sure it can be solved with subsidies and whatever other mojo they use for the wind farms.
feverdreamoff/
So basically the output graphs for a cohort of wind farms will just get lower over time?
https://anero.id/energy/wind-energy/2019/april
Personally I think it’s a second order problem but it’s good to have the odd diversionary input like this occasionally to prevent getting obsessed and paranoid with a one track mind as the State sponsored dumping juggernaut rolls on.
Some 2017 yearly figures from Hepburn wind farm in Australia in A$:
Nameplate rating: 4.1 MW
Actual Output: 1.2 MW
Electricity sales: $618,000
Income from subsidies: $625,000
Operating costs: $518,000
Profit after tax: $634,000
You can clearly see from the above figures that without the subsidies paid for by long- suffering taxpayers, the wind farm would be barely making any profit.
AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) doesn’t look at any data such as this !!!