By Wallace Manheimer
Who can develop reliable, cheap, clean power? In the parlance of baseball, the U.S. led early with a leadoff home run. It invented, developed and perfected the first ultra-super critical (USC) coal-powered plant.
Coming online in 2012, the 600-megawatt (MW) John W. Turk Jr. Coal Plant in Arkansas employed new technology, most notably, an advance in metallurgy that allowed pipes and boilers to operate for extended periods at extremely elevated temperature and pressure.
This higher temperature allows efficiency of 40%, instead of the more usual 33%. Also, Turk had the best pollution controls, its emissions being mostly carbon dioxide and water vapor. Power Magazine was so impressed that it gave the plant its highest honor in 2013.
It looked like the U.S. was set to win the game, until it took its eye off the ball and made numerous errors. Instead of exploiting its remarkable technological achievement, U.S. policymakers decided to abandon coal and promote wind and solar.
Powerful environmental groups fought to end coal; Michael Bloomberg bragged that he contributed $500 million to the effort. Companies in the coal industry suffered, some went out of business, and domestic consumption of the country’s most abundant fuel declined. Turk is still the only USC plant in the U.S.
Solar and wind do not provide reliable power, as they fluctuate with the weather and time of day.
Also, they are not cheap. Germans, whose electric system relies heavily on solar, pay more than twice as much for electricity as the nuclear-dominant French and nearly triple the amount paid by U.S. consumers.
Furthermore, solar and wind technologies, contrary to popular belief, are not clean; not where their materials are mined, nor where they are used, nor at the end of life.
First, the mining: These technologies use many exotic and rare earth materials like praseodymium, terbium, cadmium, indium and dysprosium. Such materials are available mostly in Western China and Africa, under who-knows-what environmental and working conditions.
Secondly, where they are used, solar and wind take up tremendous amounts of land – many times the acreage of a coal plant. The average solar power reaching Earth is about 200 MW per square kilometer. Hence, with a perfectly efficient conversion to electricity, a 1,000 MW solar farm would require 5 square kilometers. But maximum solar efficiency is only 20%, boosting the land requirement to 25 square kilometers, space that could not be used for anything else. Even the maximum theoretical efficiency is only 30%.
The numbers for wind are worse: A 1,000 MW wind farm would require a whopping 500 square kilometers – equal to about 27,000 big league baseball fields. This land could be used for crops and grazing animals, but not much else.
Finally, disposal of the huge amount of material used in the fabrication of solar and wind facilities, whose life spans are mere fractions of traditional generating plants, must be disposed of. Many of these exotic materials are not suitable for standard landfills, as their compounds are harmful to humans and are water soluble. Frequently, the solar or wind company has just walked away and left the relics in place for others to worry about.
Solar and wind are more of an environmental disaster than an environmental savior.
With the U.S. relegated to the locker room, China came to bat and staged a tremendous scoring rally. Out of the top 100 Chinese coal plants, 90 are ultra-supercritical units.
Having improved on USC technology, Chinese plant efficiency is around 44%. The new 1,350 MW Pingshan Phase II plant achieves 49% efficiency! The best Chinese coal plant is now cleaner and 22 % more efficient than its American counterpart.
Since 2010, India has constructed more than 90 super critical and ultra-super critical coal plants.
Has the U.S. played its last coal-fired season?
Perhaps – unless America’s free enterprise system were brought fully into the game, with the private sector mostly doing the engineering and the federal government sponsoring long-range scientific research.
However, U.S. policymakers must abandon their obsession with solar and wind as answers for a climatic “existential threat.” Otherwise, sensible people play a fool’s game in a fantasy league that demonizes a gas sustaining all life — carbon dioxide – as others compete in the majors.
Such absurdity is no match for the technical leadership displayed in China and India.
This commentary was first published at RealClearEnergy on September 30, 2024.
Dr. Wallace Manheimer is a life fellow of the American Physical Society, the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers and is a member of the CO2 Coalition. He is the author of more than 150 refereed papers.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It’s our race to lose, which our current leadership seems intent to do.
________________________________________________________________________________
And I just found out that George Soros and his son are on the fast track to get FCC approval to take control of over 200 radio stations around the country. LINK
Talking about pollution, what about socialist propaganda polluting the airwaves?
nobody should own more than one- same for newspapers, magazines, TV stations
It used to be the law that no one person or corporation could own more than one media outlet in any market.
Bill Clinton ended that protection with the 1996 Telecommunications Act. Big corporations quickly bought up everything and now dominate everything people hear and see.
That law should be rescinded and the status quo ante restored.
That would throw a monkey wrench into Soros’s plans.
“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.”
― Winston Churchill
********
The problem is, when it comes to energy issues, I don’t think that the U.S. hasn’t exhausted all other possibilities yet.
has exhausted all other possibilities.
China has coal but not natural gas. US has both.
Per the article, Turk is about 40% efficient. CCGT is 61%. When you run the numbers on Powder River basin Steam coal (cheapest low sulfur in US) compared to natgas, at any natgas price less than about $8/mmbtu CCGT is cheaper than USC coal. That is why only USC Turk was built in the US. It was built when natgas was $5 and predicted to go to $8. Then shale gas fracking happened.
Yes, “Follow the money” is advice that’s applicable to just about every human enterprise.
Imagine the synergies of taking the waste heat and enhanced CO2 enriched atmosphere and using them for greenhouse growing.
The numbers for wind are worse: A 1,000 MW wind farm would require a whopping 500 square kilometers – equal to about 27,000 big league baseball fields. This land could be used for crops and grazing animals, but not much else.
NOW, when figures are used without citation i always gave my freshman students Fs
https://sciencing.com/much-land-needed-wind-turbines-12304634.html
To find out what’s happening in the real world, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, NREL, surveyed 172 large-scale wind power projects to see how much land they’re really using. The direct land use is a measure of the area of such things as the concrete tower pad, the power substations and new access roads. In the United States, the direct land use for wind turbines comes in at three-quarters of an acre per megawatt of rated capacity. That is, a 2-megawatt wind turbine would require 1.5 acres of land.
but thats just the direct area… roughly 3 sq km fo a gigawatt.
the indirect area is much larger
Direct impact area: This includes the land directly occupied by turbines, foundations, and access roads.
It can range from 0.06 to 2.4 hectares per MW, with most projects falling below 0.4 hectares per MW. For a 1 GW (1000 MW) project, this translates to 60 to 2400 hectares (0.60 to 24.00 sq km)
Total area: This includes the entire wind farm area, including the space between turbines. This can be much larger than the direct impact area, but most of it remains available for other uses. A common rule of thumb is 2 to 40 acres per MW, which would be 8.09 to 161.87 sq km for a 1 GW
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf
so 500 sq km, for 1000 MW??? no way
200 MAX
thats like 200 golf courses or 133,333 bowling alleys or 3,260,437 cricket pitches
27,407 football fields, 79 Arlington Cemeteries, . 077 chernobles, 10 North Antelope Rochelle coal Mines (Wyoming, USA)
“2 to 40 acres per MW, which would be 8.09 to 161.87 sq km for a 1 GW”
Why does NREL mix up its imperial / metric units like this?
If you’re going to start picking nits, let’s add back in the area required for the backup power station to step in when the wind dies, or blows too hard.
Then, if you REALLY want to pick nits, let’s point out that the backup power station, since you have to build it anyway, could actually be the primary power station and you could then use 0 hectares for windmills.
Many acres will be needed for spare parts for the wind machines- and facilities for the maintenance crews- and acres for when the turbines are dismantled- for burial.
Just to see reality rather than moosh-pat,
… I chose a random wind farm in the USA, Arbor Hill, capacity 250MW
Measured area on Google Earth, as about 140 km²
times 4 = 560km² for 1000MW.
Looks like Wallace Manheimer is pretty much spot on. !!
Moosh is putting forward a disgusting attempt at misinformation., neglecting the separation needed between wind turbines in a wind industrial estate..
Mark P Mills calculated that replacing the energy output from a single 100MW gas plant would require 20 turbines occupying 10sq miles of land. using 30,000 tons of iron ore, 50,000 tons of concrete, and 900 tons of plastic for the blades.The turbines would also require 1000 tons of metals and minerals.
The gas plant would be the size of a fairly large house, require 300 tons of iron ore and 2000 tons of concrete.
A 100MW solar plant would require only a third as much land as the wind farm but the aggregate tonnage of cement, steel and glass would be c. 150% higher.
https://issues.org/environmental-economic-costs-minerals-solar-wind-batteries-mills/
I chose a random wind farm in the USA, Arbor Hill, capacity 250MW
no you didnt. Let me explain.
there is a survey of 172 wind farms that say youre wrong
typical skeptic respose lets look at a SMALLR dataset,
skeptics ALWAYS do this. Except anthony, when he looked at stations he insisted on looking ar more!!!
but ow you claim you picked 1 at random.
no you didnt.
prove you did.
you didnt.
and ONE datapoint cannot contradict an avrage of 172 junior!
youre fired
Why is it that I don’t have to read your comment and know it’s full of nonsense?
why? cofirmation bias. Why is it you can read the whole aticle and see that 500 sq km is a load of crap. are you an art history major?
never heard of google
https://www.landmarkdividend.com/wind-turbine-lease-rates-2/#:~:text=Quantity%20of%20Land%20Available,turbines%20and%20other%20supporting%20infrastructure.
wait wait.
i know. you read somethig that Confirmed your bias and you forgot to be skptical!!!!
sheeple
Sheeple?
So you read my comments. Now tell me what it means to average colors? I have no idea what that means.
Magnificent Dr Manheimer.
Let the Chinese and Indians burn coal, if they must, but NA benefits from natural gas, which when using a combined cycle gas turbine power plant results in a less problematic method for power production, as there is no issue with what to do with the fly ash and its heavy metals and other unwanted chemicals.
Can the heavy metals and/or “unwanted” chemicals be extracted?
There might be a market for them.
Some of the chemicals we used for water treatment were waste products from other industries. (Sometimes classed as “hazardous waste”.)
The primary heavy metals in fly aSH are arsenic and lead. Arsenic is much more cheaply obtained as a minor byproduct of smelting copper/gold sufide ores. And lead is more cheaply obtained by mining and smelting galena (lead sulfide).
The only real commercial use of fly ash is as a concrete additive, and there because of size (fly ash is fine) crushed slag is usually preferred.
Thanks.
I knew it was used in concrete.
I didn’t know if it might be worth extracting the chemicals.
(More research needed. Make the checks out to … 😎
Fly ash is a significant component of many building products.. eg plasterboard, light-weight bricks, ceramic tiles, , cement and many concrete products,
Embankment and soil stabilisation.. road surfaces and sub roadbeds..
Fly Ash – Uses, Properties, Classification and Advantages – Civil Wale
Could also probably be used as land fill topping for wind turbine blade dumps.
ps.. I read somewhere that a fly-ash filler based polymer is being trialled as a wood substitute in India, being suitable for many wood based building construction materials, including floors, panels etc etc… (but can’t find a link at the moment)
Utility-scale PV solar in southern California typically requires 8 acres/MW (name plate) and operate at about 27% capacity factor, so ~30 acres/MW produced. In metric units this would be ~120 km2/GW produced or 32 km2/GW name plate, which is quite a bit more than the 5km2/GW estimated by the author. That’s in a location where the average solar insolation is greater than 5.75 kWh/m/day. In the northern latitudes (NY or UK), insolation is less than 4 kWh/m/day.
What’s worse is the variation from summer to winter. While northern latitudes might receive 4.5 kWh/m/day in June, they may only receive 0.5 kWh/m/day in December. Of course solar panels don’t produce any power at night.
its amazing this author hasnt confronted the renewable enegy footprint myth.
https://rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2011-07_RenewableEnergysFootprintMyth.pdf
OK.
The birds weren’t stepped on. They were swatted or air fried.
RMI is a baseless PROPAGANDA outfit. Nothing more…
Very much the low level of the climate sewer… ie down there with Moosh..
As shown above, a random USA wind industrial estate occupies 140km² for 250MW installed capacity
Which is 560km² for 1000MW installed capacity.
at say 20% capacity (I’m being generous) , that makes 2800km² for 1000MW of supply
Tell us Moosh,
What area of solar panels is required to produce a constant 1000MW?
What land area of wind turbines is required to produce a constant 1000MW ?
Mr. Mosher, can you tell us why colors can and can’t be averaged? Whatever that means.
I wish Mr. Mosher would respond to questions of his drive-by comments.
Question: what is the clearance between the ground and a blade tip on the average?
Thank you Obama you son of a bee.
The numbers for wind are worse: A 1,000 MW wind farm would require a whopping 500 square kilometers
This is not a like for like comparison. A 1GW wind farm will supply an average of 100MW in a high penetration scenario.
To get to 30% penetration of wind, you do not need much overbuild. To get to 60% you need around 2X overbuild and to get to 80% at least 3X overbuild. This level of overbuild means that the turbines have some portion of potential output curtailed most of the time. The resulting CF is around 10%. It still needs full gas back up because guaranteed output remains ZERO.
So the land area needed to replace a 1GW coal plant is closer to 5,000sq.km.
Take a stroll through Germany. It has a land area of 350,000sq.m. You do not need to look hard to find wind turbines. There was 61GW of onshore wind installed by end of 2023. Now onshore wind averaged 13GW so average CF was just 21%. Onshore only provided 18% of the average demand. It is not a linear relationship because you can have infinite capacity but the output is still zero when there is no wind. Getting to 30% is expensive compared with the natural fuel saving but increasing penetrations comes with diminishing return on installed capacity.
Grazing and cropping can be carried on on the same land but wind farms and forests are incompatible.
.
Wind turbine vibration badly affect soil critters such as worms, which are absolutely essential for soil fertility.
Vibrational noise from wind energy‐turbines negatively impacts earthworm abundance – Velilla – 2021 – Oikos – Wiley Online Library
There are also many reports of wind turbine pulsing causing major disease and disruptive issues with livestock.
causing major disease and disruptive issues with livestock.
And Humans. This is not limited to wind turbines but was well observed from other industrial sources of infrasound long before widespread building of wind power facilities.
Controlled laboratory tests were consistently able to produce the tissue damage in lab animals that leads to the “disease and disruption” but this seems to be a forbidden topic of conversation.
Do you know if any work has been done looking at the + and – pulses from say 2 or 3 close-by wind turbines going at slightly different rotational speed.?
Must be a nightmare.
On a P-3, our props were synchronized so the blades of adjacent engines wouldn’t pass in front of the leading edge of the wing at the same time–it caused much vibration if it did.
Glad someone knew what I was referring to 🙂
My old squadron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP-10
When it was in Brunswick, Maine.
I was in VP-50 while on active duty and VP-69 while in the reserves. Unfortunately, after the midair of two P-3s in the SoCal area, they disestablished VP-50 afterwards.
“Wind turbine vibration badly affect soil critters . . . .”
Not to mention raptors–such as eagles.
You know, if you do anything to an eagle, you’re in trouble. If you even pick up a feather from a bald eagle, that’s a crime. However, killing bald eagles with a windmill is okay.
Modern coal power plants are incredibly clean and efficient, but coal use declined mostly because natural gas had become cheap. Wind and solar contributed a little to the decline of coal but not much.
Unfortunately our thick headed governing elites are subsidizing the pollution of the landscape with wind turbines and solar panels in pursuit of a fantasy which ignores economics, energy security, reliability, and common sense.
Dr. Wallace Manheimer, life fellow of the American Physical Society, ought to go and kick some climate change backside on Mark Elsesser, APS director of Public Affairs, and Young-Kee Kim, APS president.
APS advocates climate alarm, and its officers (Elsesser) are casually dismissive of any corrective information.