 | Drumbeat: February 3, 2010 | The Oil Drum | Does it Make Sense to Move to a New Location because of Peak Oil? |  |
| What difference would Nord Stream mean to European energy supply? | The Oil Drum: Europe | Industry Taskforce on Peak Oil and Energy Security | |
Offshore Wind taking off - some background on installation issues
Posted by Jerome a Paris on February 3, 2010 - 10:53am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Recent statistics have been published showing that Europe has now installed over 2,000MW of offshore wind capacity, with more than a quarter installed in the past year, and lots more to come in the next few years. I discussed these numbers in more detail here, but wanted to give you here some insights on what these numbers mean on the ground.
Left: Offshore wind installations. Source: EWEA - The European offshore wind industry
key trends and statistics 2009 (PDF) )
Right: Transition pieces for the Belwind offshore wind farm, Zeebrugge harbor, 22 January 2010
I recently visited the port site in Zeebrugge, Belgium, where the foundations for the Belwind offshore wind farm (the financing of which I worked on) were stored before their installation. This is a good opportunity to give you a glimpse of the kind of logistics involved, and what kind of problems can happen (and how they are solved), on offshore wind installations.
Follow me below for a tour of a small bit of Europe's fastest growing heavy industry.
Part of the windpower series.
As a quick reminder, there are 3 main types of foundations for offshore turbines: monopiles, gravity-based, and jackets/tripods.
Source: www.offshorewind.net
Here are gravity-based foundations and tripods (you can see more pictures here: The unexpected weight of hope)
Monopiles have typically been used for smaller turbines and lowers depths, as their size (diameter and thickness) needs to increase with the load to be carried and their cost can become an issue. The price of steel will heavily influence the choice between the technologies when several are possible. In this case, with 3MW turbines in 20m depth, monopiles were the most logical choice.
Foundations include two main parts, the foundation itself (the part that's driven into the subsoil) and the transition piece (the part that's affixed on top of the foundation and carries the turbine tower).
two foundations on the ground
with several transition pieces in the background
The transition piece usually includes the boat landing, access platform and j-tubes (the steel tube that protects the electrical cable going to other turbines and/or the transformer station, it is curved near the ground to allow the cable to go from its underground trench to the turbine, thus its name).
On the left, you can see the bottom part of the j-tube,
while the right picture has the more complex set of j-tubes for the transformer station,
which has several cables going to several "strings" of turbines.
Note the anti-corrosion protection on the j-tubes.
It also plays a vital role in that it corrects any flaws in the verticality of the foundation: turbines require the towers to be within one half degree of perfect verticality in order not to have to bear inappropriate loads, and it is not so easy to hammer 50m long steel columns in the sea ground to such precision; the transition piece is designed to be adjusted to provide the perfect position required for the turbine over the water.
Another aspect which requires a lot of precision is the roundness of the foundation and the transition piece. The two of them must fit together (more on this in a second), and the transition piece needs to be in the exact size for the first part of the turbine tower to be bolted on top of it - tolerances are below a centimeter (the bolts are big ones - a couple centimeters thick, but they need to fit in over the whole diameter of the two parts...) for equipment measured in tens of meters.
The foundations here have a smaller diameter in their top part, in order for the transition piece to be lowered on top of them and around them. The two parts are then grouted together (a special concrete is injected between the two pieces, this is done on site, naturally, and under water).
the narrower top part of the foundation is quite visible on this picture.
Note the steel tubes alongside the transition piece in the foreground;
the j-tubes will be attached to these alongside the foundation part under water.
Some offshore windfarms use a different connection between foundation and transition piece, with the trnasition piece snuggling inside the foundation. One European windfarm has quality issues on the grouting in that configuration, and there are worries that the turbines could slip lower into the foundations (which is not that important) and lose their horizontality (which is a big problem...). with the design here this is less of an issue as the wider diameter below acts as a stop should the grouting fail.
"Ovality" is also an issue for foundations as the transition pieces need to fit on top of them, and it needs to be checked carefully.
oops - ovality
As you can see, the above foundation has a serious problem: it's really not round. In that case, it is not a manufacturing problem: that foundation sank during the transport to site and hit the seabed... The project company, together with the insurance companies, is investigating the best way to deal with this problem: replace it completely, try to improve its roundness by squeezing it back into shape (the giant steel "pinch" for that was being prepared on site when we visited) or, quite possibly, use it as it is (by luck, it is the bottom part which was damaged, ie the part that goes in the sand, so ovality is less of an issue there as long as the vertical penetration in the soil can still be controlled).
The reason the foundation sank is that it was transported to site by floating it - plugs were installed on each end and the foundation could simply be pulled on the water.
the two plugs used to float a foundation,
installed on the next one about to go to site.
One of these is filled with foam, as it needs to be taken off underwater,
when the foundation has been raised vertically,
and the foam makes it float back to the surface to be recovered.
But the design of a plug was found (after a number of trips) to be slightly faulty and water seeped in, leading to the incident. The foundation was recovered, and the design flaw was identified and has now been corrected. Transport of the foundations to the site was of course interrupted during the investigation, but by luck the weather was poor at that time so no work could have been done in that period... The pictures above show the new improved plug system, which includes a more comprehensive set of sensors to warn of any risk of infiltrations...
This is a fairly typical offshore construction incident, in that it was unexpected, hitting a system that had worked fine previously and had not altogether minor consequences. It was a technical problem, to which a technical solution could be found reasonably easily. It had an impact on the schedule, which could be absorbed by the buffers put in place (and indeed in this case did not require more buffers than were required because of bad weather anyway). In terms of financial impact for the project, it will be fairly minor as this can be largely minimized by repairs or covered by insurance. It goes to confirm that the goal cannot be to expect a flawless project, but to have teams which are able to deal with problems as they appear, because they _inevitably_ will appear at some point, and to have a budget and scheduled which include contingencies and are able to withstand such incidents. Resiliency is the key word here...
this is the special piece of equipment used to "grab" foundations
and bring them from their horizontal transport position to the vertical on site.
It was temporarily on site for some repairs/maintenance.
The project is expected to finish installing the foundations and transition pieces in the short future, and move on to the installation of the turbines. These are going to be soon delivered to a harbour site nearby (so, no pictures this time), with completion in the course of this year. The turbines will be erected on their towers on the site inland, and transported as a whole to the site - the erection is expected to attract quite a bit of attention in the area as it will be highly visible.
Editorial Note:
This post was originally published on TOD:Europe on 24 January with a slightly different title.
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (2)
- April 2010 (8)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (6)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (8)
- October 2009 (12)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (11)
- June 2009 (8)
- May 2009 (16)
- April 2009 (10)
- March 2009 (7)
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (9)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (10)
- July 2008 (14)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (16)
- April 2008 (12)
- March 2008 (16)
- February 2008 (9)
- January 2008 (13)
- December 2007 (13)
- November 2007 (16)
- October 2007 (22)
- September 2007 (8)
- August 2007 (9)
- July 2007 (16)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (7)
- April 2007 (7)
- March 2007 (10)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (12)
- December 2006 (9)
- November 2006 (15)
- October 2006 (4)
- September 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (5)
- July 2006 (9)
- June 2006 (5)
- May 2006 (10)
- April 2006 (9)
- March 2006 (13)
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
If these wind farms where placed in a location with waves the columns could also be used as a base/support for a floating wave-driven energy device...
One thing to note is how energy intensive this stuff must be to make -masses of steel, concrete, diesel to move the tons of stuff around. In other words its economics is founded on the fossil fuel economy...
Nick.
We don't know yet what works for wave-driven energy devices; prototypes have not been very successful so far. But I dn't think the infrastructure for one technology is going to be very useful for the other, except possibly for joint use of offshore transformer stations and grid connections.
As to your second point, the energy consumption in the construction of a windfarm, even offshore, is actually rather small compared to its ongoing output. In other words, the EROI is rather good - simply because wind turbines will be producing energy for 20+ years with very little additional input.
Hi Jerome,
This article seems to refer to the foundations you're talking about, but which kind are we building?
http://www.obantimes.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/9396/Kintyre_wind_towe...
And, maybe a bit snarky, but isn't it a bit wishful to assume that nothing will interfere with the smooth operation of this unbuilt technology for twenty years or more, in order to reach a "rather good" EROI?
In other words, have you got an EROI breakeven point on a timeline? And where is it in relation to the financial b/e?
Thanks again for the quality of your information.
1) the article refers to turbine towers, ie the bit that will go on top of the yellow transition pieces.
2) what would interfere? These are steel towers many kilometers from anything - you already need some major equipment to get there and climb up the towers, let alone damage them... but with EROI in the 15-25 range, you probably need at most a year and a half to reach the energy breakeven point.
Thanks Jerome.
Another question, if I may.
The Scottish government is now talking about building a capacity of 8GW of on and offshore wind.
At the moment we have 2 pumped storage facilities, at Foyers(300MW)and Cruachan(400MW).
Cruachan's reservoir has a capacity 10 million m3, to give 22 hours at 400MW, and is designed to restart the national grid in emergencies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Cruachan
There is a proposal to build two new pumped storage schemes in the Great Glen to link in to the new Beauly-Denny 400kV transmission line,
at Balmacaan above Loch Ness, and Coire Glas above Loch Lochy. These are the preliminary plans.
http://www.businesse3.co.uk/SSEInternet/uploadedFiles/Media_Centre/Proje...
http://www.businesse3.co.uk/SSEInternet/uploadedFiles/Media_Centre/Proje...
These reservoirs will upset the people that are going to be upset, surely they should be bigger?
How much storage do you think we should be building? And should any of the costs be allocated to the wind generators, since it will multiply the value of their product?
This is Scotland and Europe's most recent hydro project/disaster.
http://www.tunneltalk.com/Glendoe-Oct09-Rockfall-larger-than-anticipated...
It could never happen at sea.
According to BWEA, Scotland has 2 GW of installed on shore wind with 0.5 GW in construction and 2.5 GW consented. If all this is built, the total is 5 GW.
http://www.bwea.com/statistics/
Again, according to the BWEA, there is a further 3.8 GW of on shore projects in planning in Scotland.
If a fraction of this is built, Scotland could easily have 6 GW of on shore wind alone.
The off shore projects recently announced in the Firths of Forth and Moray will have a capacity of 4.7 GW if constructed.
That takes us up to over 10 GW.
If I remember correctly, Scottish consumption is about 5 GW. So, on a windy day, Scotland could be exporting considerable amounts of renewable electricity.
And while Scotland has 25% of the European wind energy resource it also has 25% of the European marine energy resource.
Generating electricity from the marine resource in Scotland is at a much earlier stage, but there are local Scottish companies like Pelamis and Aquamarine Power who are already generating energy from the seas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8493940.stm
I am guessing but it seems likely that on nice windy days the pipelines used to import ng , or to distribute it, could be used to fill reserve storage facilities, thereby possbly reducing the amount of piping and pumping investment needed to take care of seasonal demand.
And if Scotland can shut down most of the ng fired generation for a day now and then, except the part needed as the so called spinning or instant reserve, the savings in gas must come to quite a bit.
If gas is cheaper, they can even divert from coal to gas and possibly shur down some coal generation too, when the weather forecast is favorable for a day or two.
Hurricanes, typhoons, underwater earthquake - any unexpected/unanticiapted weather event of significance could cause serious damange to the rigs. Realistically, the likelihood of any such happening before the break-even point is microscopically low. However, there is the possiblity of such happening. And, the cost in fossil fuel economics to repair the damage when it does occur will set the clock back. There are times when damage done to an existing platform can cause the cost of repair to exceed that of the original installation.
There are never any guarantees. The best is a hope for a solid break-even point to occur early enough to make the project worth the expenditure. And, to get it solid enough and cost efficient enough to make it worthwhile to maintain, repair and expand.
There is no getting around the fact that any step away from fossil fuel economics is going to be built on the back of that exact thing. The world's infrastructure is too hardwired into it to just break free radically without using it as a stepping stone. The drive needs to be to make it as efficient, timely and cost effective as possible to bring us to the point of minimal reliance on fossil fuels.
That's going to require more than just building bigger and better wind/solar generators...it's going to require a radical breakthrough in technology. And, then building that technology up to the point that it can support itself with minimal reliance on fossil fuels...using fossil fuels to do it.
That requires a timeline I just don't see currently viable.
um, this stuff is not so experimental anymore. Offshore wind now has a bit of history - the very first, Vindeby of Denmark, will be 20 years old next year. The sheer number of these things mean you get big hours of experience up very quickly.
Fossil fuelers need to remember that RE plant is very much more capital intensive than fossil fuel plant, meaning bankers and bankers engineers play a very big part in the risk assessment of a windfarm. However, once installed and bank loans paid off, they are very cheap to run.
Offshore wind compared to onshore is simply bigger; bigger winds, bigger costs, bigger risks, bigger potential. The Germans have had massive plans for years but only now are starting to get plant installed. The delays however, mean developers now have a choice of at least 4 manufacturers with commercially available 5MW machines. The Brits with plenty of shallow water nearer shore are off and running with round 1 almost wholely built, and round 2 well underway.
Interestingly, the number for the cost of the round 3 projects - at 70 billion Pounds Stirling (looking at 32GW by 2020 and around 70,000 jobs) it is in the order of those estimates from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority a few years ago to decommission Britain's aging nuclear power plants.
Firstly, hurricanes, typhoons, and underwater earthquakes aren't exactly common in the North Sea. Secondly, we already have a significant amount of experience in constructing and maintaining this sort of off-shore infrastructure from the oil industry. Your concerns would apply equally to all the existing off-shore oil infrastructure, and they seem to have managed OK - even though they had a great deal less experience to start with. There's plenty of equally (if not more) vulnerable infrastructure in the GoM already, and they do get hurricanes. If they can cope, so can we.
Wind power will never be a big part of the solution. For one thing, wind power lacks the economies of scale associated with hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel plants.
Wind power is an extreme space hog and highly capital intensive. Consider how little power you get for each dollar spent.
Someone calculated that it would require covering the entire state of Connecticut with wind mills to power New York City.
My challenge to Jerome and any wind power advocates is to tally up the cost in money and space to provide any major developed country 20% of its current power consumption. I expect that such a figure will be alarming and politically dead on the spot.
China is building a 100 nuclear power plants. I suspect the Chinese did the math ...
Wht matters is the cost per kWh, and wind is certainly competitive. It has reached more than 20% in Denmark for a long time (they stopped for political reasons, not for technical reasons). It occupies very little space in practice as the land around a wind turbine can still be farmed or otherwise used.
Jerome, you are comparing apples and oranges. Wind is an intermittent source of energy that delivers electricity when the wind blows, not when it is needed. Wind and Solar only muscled their way into the market through political intrigue, by having laws voted that force electricity distributors to buy electricity at a price they wouldn't pay in an arm's length transaction (even including climate externalities). If wind generating companies had to sell this intermittent electricity in size (I.e. 20% of consumed electricity) in the market, they would have much more trouble to be competitive. There may be a few spots where it is competitive (like Aruba), but I don't think there are many.
To compare the cost of wind power with Nuclear or Fossil Fuel + CSS solution, you have to factor in the cost of the extra transmission infrastructure (wind doesn't necessarily blow where people live) and the cost of the storage infrastructure. It is the latter that hurts the most in the economic analysis : if one has to keep an hydroelectric dam or a gas-powered plant idle 50 to 80% of the time as wind power back-up, fixed costs (even if they are lower for that source of energy) become important, and the price of the kWh for this "reserve" power becomes much higher. Cheap electricity storage is a technology that remains to be invented.
IMO, we are dramatically misallocating financial and natural resources by tampering so much with market mechanisms.
if one has to keep an hydroelectric dam or a gas-powered plant idle 50 to 80% of the time as wind power back-up
Besides the fact that these plants don't idle and can be started up within minutes, when electricity demand rises, luckily Spain has wind power to back up hydro when there's a drought:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSL1579694720080415
To compare the cost of wind power with Nuclear or Fossil Fuel + CSS solution, you have to factor in the cost of the extra transmission infrastructure (wind doesn't necessarily blow where people live) and the cost of the storage infrastructure.
Exactly and actually besides the fact that Denmark exports over 90% with a profit and eventhough Denmark has no nuclear power and exports over 20% of its electricity, it generates 20% less CO2/per capita than Belgium and has 27% lower industrial electricity prices than Belgium, it has a 41% higher GDP per capita than Belgium:
Belgium (55.1 % nuclear power):
and 13.66 t of CO2/capita
and $47,617 GDP/capita
Denmark (0% nuclear power and 20% wind power):
and 10.94 t of CO2/capita
and $67,387 GDP/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/BE-npsh.html
Industrial electricity prices before tax (2007):
Denmark (20% wind power): 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWh
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DK-07-001/EN/KS-DK-...
Yes, and France generates 80% of its power from nuclear and exports power.
And French per capita CO2 emissions are way below Denmark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissio...
Denmark is ideally suited for wind power because it is a penisula.
Show me success stories outside of Denmark.
The wind turbines in Spain provided 20.1% of the entire Spanish power demand last November (while their nuclear power plants only provided 17.4%):
http://www.lavanguardia.es/ciudadanos/noticias/20100102/53859888780/la-p...
And the US has far more wind resources per capita than Spain and Denmark.
http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind_maps.asp
The world installed 37.5 GW of wind power last year (31% growth), while nuclear power continued to lose market share:
http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=247&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1196e940a0
Keep in mind: Mass produced modern wind turbines in the MW-range have only been around for just over a decade.
Anyone,
The big Texas wind project sponsored by oilman Boone Pickens collapsed because the cost of tranmission was too high. The dramatic fall in natural prices played a role.
The only way large scale wind power projects will be viable in the States is if the US government subsidizes a massive upgrade of the Grid.
The wind power areas are areas in Western Texas and the Dakotas. Those particular areas do not have transmission capacity today.
Those wind projects are only viable if they are subsidized. They cannot pay for the transmission links and still generate competitively priced power.
The reason that Spain gets more power from wind than nuclear is because there has been no investment in nuclear in the last 15 years.
There is strong public opposition in Spain.
The big Texas wind project sponsored by oilman Boone Pickens collapsed because the cost of tranmission was too high.
And yet Texas installed 2292 MW of wind power last year during the recession and despite your transmission worries:
http://awea.org/publications/reports/4Q09.pdf
There is strong public opposition in Spain.
Ah I see. You believe the reason why China has a 2% nuclear power share and France has a 78% nuclear power share is because Greenpeace in China is far more powerful than in France and has nothing to do with costs...
Anyone,
A couple comments. First of all, 3K MW is capacity. Not energy produced. You would only produce 3K under ideal conditions that don't occur even in Texas (during the summer, wind speeds tend to decline due to the heat).
Moreover, do you really think that 3K MW capacity (capacity, not power) is a big deal? It's not. The 2,292 MW is a drop in the bucket. It is not going to make a substantial difference.
Even with your 3K MW wind power today generates 1.2% of US power.
In the case of Texas, there is a total installed nameplate capacity of 9,410 MW. Texas produces the most wind power of any U.S. state, followed by Iowa with 3,053 MW.
Frankly, that is not enormous growth given the small size of the base.
By the way, several forces are working to the advantage of wind power in Texas: the wind resource in many areas of the state is very large, large projects are relatively easy to site, and the market price for electricity is relatively high because it is set by natural gas prices (with natural gas prices very low now, this will change).
Texas is the ideal case for American wind power. So if Texas is only addding capacity equivalent to 3K MW, how bright is the wind power's future in the world's largest energy consumer?
My New York apartment is powered by wind power produced in upstate New York and fed into Con Edison's grid. I elected to go green.
But the tariffs are higher and that is going to discourage the bulk of people from taking electing to take wind power.
My guess is that the US will eventually 5% to 10% of its power.
You keeping figures out of a hat, but you provide no context.
3K MW is a drop in the bucket.
Someone is going to have to subsidize the transmission infrastructure.
In the case of Texas, there is a total installed nameplate capacity of 9,410 MW.
With a capacity factor of 30% that already leads to 25 TWh or 7% of the electricity consumption in Texas:
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/states/electricity.cfm/state=TX#total
The 2,292 MW is a drop in the bucket.
Given the fact that this growth happened in one single year with a double digit growth, this is going to make a substantial difference in 30 years and this is what matters.
Someone is going to have to subsidize the transmission infrastructure.
Actually, transmission costs for free-fuel wind are around $160 to $200 per kW and still orders of magnitudes below the costs of highly subsidized nuclear power plants:
http://www.grist.org/article/study-shows-transmission-costs-for-big-wind...
http://www.grist.org/article/study-shows-transmission-costs-for-big-wind...
New, highly subsidized nuclear which depends on uranium imports and has high decommissioning costs is around $8000 per kW:
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/665644
And the German feed-in tariffs for wind are lower than the wholesale electricity price reduction thanks to German wind power:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/art271,2147183
And this is besides the fact that Germany exports over 83% of its wind turbines with a profit:
http://www.wind-energie.de/en/news/article/wind-energy-made-in-germany-i...
And this is besides the fact that Texas wind energy reduces electricity bills of electricity consumers in Texas:
http://www.awea.org/blog/Index.php?mode=viewlist&pageno=5&limit=5
And this is besides the fact that the Canadian Government revenues from wind farms more than offset federal financial incentive:
http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=30&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=246&tx_ttnews[backPid]=4&cHash=1090536904
I agree completely with you. This is extremely capital intensive way of generating power. These project are being subsidized in several different ways: tax subsidies, tariff subsidies, and transmissions subsidies (electric utilities are required to extend their transmission networks to the wind power stations.
Wind power will never be a big part of the solution. For one thing, wind power lacks the economies of scale associated with hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel plants.
Wind power is an extreme space hog and highly capital intensive.
Besides the fact that the world installed well over 30 GW of wind power last year, nuclear power is even more capital intensive, requires more time to build, requires fuel imports, ultimate storage depositories and has high decommissioning costs:
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/665644
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
http://businessneweurope.eu/story1500
http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=55119
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilitie...
Then how does nuclear power produce a rate of return than wind power?
:)
3 Bits at least..
The temporary beneficence of an age of cheap, plentiful oil to support its bulky fuel cycle and construction and maintenance needs, a high degree of '$ympathy' from central governments who identify with and admire this sparkly model of centralized power (clean enough from the outside, if you don't use special glasses), and a concession by all in charge to leave the question of Tailings and Fission Wastes for someone else to deal with down the road.
Nuclear power is a proven success. France is the classic example.
And France produces 50% less in per capita emissions than Denmark, which is the poster boy for the wind power gang.
By the way, you're wrong about the nuclear waste. The French recycle their nuclear waste and store the residual.
The sad thing about a lot of the 'greenies' is that they have no business experience or ability to to financial or economic analysis.
Your wind power is being heavily subsidized by grants from the European Union, transmission subsidies (the wind power do not pay for the tranmission lines to their sites) and above market tariffs).
In the US the Big Texas wind power project died due to the cost of extending power tranmission lines to the targeted sites.
Actually, despite the fact that nuclear as opposed to renewables has received far more subsidies for decades, nuclear is still producing less energy than the renewables do.
http://www.ren21.net/pdf/RE_GSR_2009_Update.pdf
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2001/fig-htm/frasf6-h.htm
Austria has 995 MW of free fuel wind power but no kWh producing nuclear power plant and yet its taxpayers pay 40 Million Euros every year on Euratom while only paying 24 Million Euros on its kWh producing free fuel wind farms:
http://www.igwindkraft.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1009697
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2008/aug/27/nuclear_surge_needs_waste...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4859980.stm
$24 billion for 2 new nuclear reactors and consumers have to foot the bill in advance:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89169837
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aC7VY11v6aMw
And as opposed to wind, nuclear power requires expensive taxpayer dependent organizations such as EURATOM and IAEA to promote nuclear power.
And yet despite all this tax-payer support nuclear power keeps on losing market share, while wind has added 37.5 GW of new capacity last year.
Anyone,
Nuclear power will be one of the fastest growing segments of the power industry during the next ten years.
Chinese has several major projects despite being a poor country on a per capita basis (France made the move to nuclear at a higher level of economic development), the Germans are realizing that they cannot live without their aging nuclear plants, and US construction will ramp up.
I believe that the mix of power sources ideally differs from country to country. France has little oil or natural gas. And it is not a big hydro producer. Only one third of France is sunny enought to support solar power.
So the dominant role played by nuclear reflects France's unique circumstances.
Other countries such as Denmark or maybe Britain will rely more on wind and tidal power, but it is not a panacea.
And many countries will be blocked by aesthetic concerns. Many Irish and American communities are trying to block this projects. Probably that problem goes away once we move pass Peak Oil to the declining phase.
Nuclear power will be one of the fastest growing segments of the power industry during the next ten years.
Even if there was enough future uranium production to fulfill your nuclear dreams and besides the fact, that in 2008 and 2009 the net-world nuclear power capacity was actually reduced. In order for this to be the case, the world would need to have at the very least over a 100 new nuclear power under construction on top of the new nuclear power plants needed to replace the old nuclear power plants.
And this is obviously not the case:
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.main.htm
And besides the fact that France imports 100% of its uranium needs. France is not the world. It only has 1% of the world population.
Wind power will never be a big part of the solution. For one thing, wind power lacks the economies of scale associated with hydro, nuclear or fossil fuel plants.
Wind power is an extreme space hog and highly capital intensive. Consider how little power you get for each dollar spent.
Someone calculated that it would require covering the entire state of Connecticut with wind mills to power New York City.
My challenge to Jerome and any wind power advocates is to tally up the cost in money and space to provide any major developed country 20% of its current power consumption. I expect that such a figure will be alarming and politically dead on the spot.
China is building a 100 nuclear power plants. I suspect the Chinese did the math ...
Someone calculated that it would require covering the entire state of Connecticut with wind mills to power New York City.
Actually a wind turbine only requires the space of its tower and has thus a higher power density than a nuclear power plant even if you ignore the space needed for Uranium mining.
China is building a 100 nuclear power plants. I suspect the Chinese did the math ...
Actually China is currently building more wind than nuclear:
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2243334/china-double-wi...
My challenge to Jerome and any wind power advocates is to tally up the cost in money and space to provide any major developed country 20% of its current power consumption.
So you're saying that you are just a bored troll who joined a couple of hours ago?
Actually the wind turbines in Spain provided 20.1% of the entire Spanish power demand last November (while their nuclear power plants only provided 17.4%):
http://www.lavanguardia.es/ciudadanos/noticias/20100102/53859888780/la-p...
Actually, you should read the sources you cite
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2243334/china-double-wi...
This article does not compare Chinese capex on nuclear with wind power.
By the way, disagreeing with you does not make one a troll.
However, your characterization does reflect on your intellectual rigor. :)
Did you sign on as 'Cells' a couple days back?
No, I am an American living in Budapest. And that is my real name ...
By the way, Cells seems to believe the UK has a great model. I do not.
I spent a great deal of time in France the last several years and I believe they have a better model. France has much lower per capita CO2 emissions than Denmark.
And by the way, wind power is very popular in the abstract, but not when someone puts a wind mill in their neighborhood.
Besides the fact, that France has thanks to its mountain ranges also over 20 GW of flexible hydro and Denmark doesn't. Insofar Denmark is comparable with Belgium but not with France.
France also depends on 100% uranium imports and the uranium mines cannot cover demand and this will troubling as soon as uranium sourced from nuclear weapons run out:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.0627v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.3075v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.1421v1.pdf
Anyone,
You need to do better than that. France gets 78% to 82% of its electricity from nuclear. It's get 10% to 12% from hydro.
Please do some real research next time.
Hydro does not explain the difference between Denmark and France.
Hydro does not explain the difference between Denmark and France.
Who said that?
But besides the fact that French hydro does indeed reduce the CO2-emissions in France:
Luckily, since France doesn't have any uranium mines it also does not need to take into account the carbon emissions due to uranium mining...
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/sovacool_nuclear_ghg.pdf
Anyone,
Hydro does not play the dominant role in reducing French CO2 emissions. The French has three great strengths: their public transport, their high gasoline taxes, and nuclear energy as the primary source of electricity.
Your defense of wind power strikes me as less due to hard analysis than due to 'green mania'.
In particular, you selectively pull data out of wind power industry publications and act as though they are self-evidently true.
I consider the analysis of wind power organizations to be no more reliable than Saudi oil reserve estimates.
Self interest dominates in each case.
In particular, you selectively pull data out of wind power industry publications and act as though they are self-evidently true.
I consider the analysis of wind power organizations to be no more reliable than Saudi oil reserve estimates.
Actually, besides the fact that the Department of Energy is not part of any industry and the number of wind turbines can easily be checked as opposed to your Saudi oil reserves as one can actually see them (in case you've never noticed this simple fact).
I also consider the data from the Department of Energy to be more trustworthy than the data from a corrupt Saudi oil sheik, who can increase the oil pump rate depending on the stated oil reserves (according to their agreements with OPEC).
Anyone,
A lot of your links are to wind power organizations.
Don't try to obfuscate.
Actually, you deliver no references.
A lot of people disagree:
http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=60&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1441&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=8c4bf8b777
http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=60&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1784&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=3abdb42e1e
Ghung,
Debates are not settled by polls. Wind power today plays an insignificant role in EU countries. The growth has not been driven by the market, but by European governments providing capital injections, tranmission subsidies, and above market tariff rates.
The growth rates are not surprising given how small the base.
You are going to get some growth, but I suspect that countries will have to turn to nuclear and natural gas generation to handle global warming and peak oil.
Debates are not settled by polls.
No, with facts, which you fail to deliver.
Wind power today plays an insignificant role in EU countries.
Actually here are some facts for you. Europe has already almost 75 GW of wind power installed:
http://www.ewea.org/index.php?id=60&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=1792&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=7f871ffd27
Jerome -
Another informative and well-done article on wind power.
Regarding the energy expenditure associated with wind farm construction, I think that when a lot of people see the enormous size of the foundation, tower, and other components., they automatically assume that it takes an enormous amount of energy to transport and erect these things. As you and I well know, it does not.
What a lot of people don't appreciate is that chemical energy in the form of fossil fuel is highly concentrated and is thus equivalent to a surprising amount of mechanical energy. In other words, a gallon of gasoline or diesel fuel can do an awful lot of work.
I think the best graphic example of this was a popular magazine ad circa mid-1950s by a major US oil company. It showed an illustration of an ocean liner being suspended from some sort of fictitious monster hoist, and next to the ocean liner, was a tiny barely visible gas can. The ad said that there is enough energy in one gallon of 'our' gasoline (I guess as opposed to someone else's) to lift this 45,000-ton ocean liner one foot off the ground. If you checks the numbers, you will see that it is indeed true: 118,000 BTU/gal x 778 ft-lbs/BTU x 0.0005tons/lb = 45,900 ft-tons. (Of course the ad people ignored engine efficiency and friction losses, but I suppose they were entitled to a little poetic license).
So, based on the above, it should be evident that the transport and erection of say a large wind turbine set-up that weighs perhaps 500 tons (?) is not going to consume a huge amount of fossil fuel. Most of the energy content of a wind power system is in the steel and concrete and other materials, and these get paid back relatively quickly.
This is a perfect example of how appearances can deceptive.
Bonjour Jerome,
The EROI is not the only criterion. You have to consider the payback period as well. My understanding is that payback periods can stretch as long 15 to 20 years for wind projects.
Investing in wind power as a source energy may be a poor investment relative to alternatives such as nuclear power where the French have excelled.
I would love the price tag to provide 20% of France's power by wind.
Nuclear power is not cheap. But it may be a far better than wind.
Err... if you're talking about payback periods, nuclear (which I tend to support, especially when done the French way, ie State owned, State financed and independently regulated) is just as sensitive as wind to the discount rate and the payback period. I discussed this here: Why wind needs feed-in tariffs (and why it is not the enemy of nuclear)
As I responded elsewhere to you wind is not expensive and is a sensible investment. I can agree that it is less vital a choice in France than in countries with lots of coal-fired plants, but it would still be a smart diversification to go for 10-20% of wind in France (and the French network operator has noticed that France, blessed with 3 uncorrelated wind regions, can easily absorb wind power into its system, and that it even helps make it more stable by providing voltage stabilisation and the like in isolated parts of the network...)
"You have to consider the payback period as well." I looking into that a couple of years ago and read several studies. All came to the same conclusion. The payback period for on shore wind is 3 to 8 months (depending on how good the wind resource is). I haven't seen a study on offshore wind but when you consider that the capacity factor is higher, the cost to install is only double onshore wind, and that labor is the biggest cost in installing a wind farm, the payback period for offshore wind is probably less than 2 years.
Furthermore one of the first large wind farms in the world was built in California around 1985 (I see it a couple of times a year). the turbins were built with a 25 year life. However they are not being scrapped. They are being move to a different area of the wind farm, where the wind is not quite as good, and a new larger turbins are being assembled in there place. The old turbins are paid for, and reliable. The 30 life quoted by many people for wind turbins is a joke.
Steven,
I have to say I think that is a ridiculous claim. Payback is going to be 10 to 15 years. Figaro had an article on wind power about two years ago detailing how it was a relatively safe, but low rate of return investment. It's safe because the state guarantees access to the transmission grid (a huge subsidy in itself) and guarantees a return by mandating that power utilities buy the power and buy it at a very high price relative to the market.
There are three major European subsidies for wind power. If you look at Jerome's article, he provides a link where European funding for wind power is detailed. Add the transmission subsidy and the above market tariffs.
I have to say I think that is a ridiculous claim. Payback is going to be 10 to 15 years.
Actually, according to this study the payback time of offshore turbines is 0.39 years:
http://sites.google.com/site/lcaofwind/onshore-vs-offshore-wind
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/wind_ad.html
"Wind power must compete with conventional generation sources on a cost basis. Depending on how energetic a wind site is, the wind farm may or may not be cost competitive. Even though the cost of wind power has decreased dramatically in the past 10 years, the technology requires a higher initial investment than fossil-fueled generators.
The major challenge to using wind as a source of power is that the wind is intermittent and it does not always blow when electricity is needed. Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands.
Good wind sites are often located in remote locations, far from cities where the electricity is needed."
Wind energy cannot be stored (unless batteries are used); and not all winds can be harnessed to meet the timing of electricity demands.
So what?
Wind energy does reduce fossil fuel dependency in the electricity sector, so consumers are less affected by their price fluctuations.
The US has no shortage of power and has already 622 GW of flexible capacity installed:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat2p2.html
Thanks for another excellent article Jerome.
At what level of penetration do you see floating mounts being adopted in the offshore windfarm market?
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-09/deep-water-wind-statoilhyd...
Or would the answer to that be more suited to a future article?
Floating turbines are still at the R&D stage for now. The concept needs to be proven to be workable and economic, so I expect it's still going to be a few years (at best) before any large scale development.
Ok, so how many of these things do we need to replace oil/coal/gas/uranium?
I'm guessing a fair few. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea, and the engineering alone would make Mr I. K. Brunel drool, but wind will never give us the same energy hard-on as fossil fuels do.
If you look at the graph at the top, the cumulative installed megawatts for Europe for offshore wind is a little over 2000 megawatts of capacity. Even offshore, wind turbines don't produce electricity 24/7. Let's say they produce at 50% of capacity, or about 1000 megawatts on average. Isn't 1000 megawatts about the capacity of a typical coal-fired power plant? (Actually, coal-fired power plants may not run at 100% of capacity, but I believe some now have more than 1000 megawatts capacity.)
So it looks to me that combining all of the wind turbines installed offshore Europe in the last 10+ years, about one coal fired power plant has been replaced, or perhaps a bit more.
Off-shore wind development is relatively new, and the last 10 years were just optimization of the technology. On-shore wind grew last year in europe by almost 9GW. Off-shore grew by almost 600MW which is already an increase of 25% over the total available the year before. The plans for 2010 are around 1GW, but the industrial capacity is there to scale up to similar rates as on-shore (which is going to level out as the most favorable places are kind of taken). I advice you to take a look at the EWEA site
Gail, the first GW took 18 years, the second one took 2 years, the third one will take one year (2010) and after that several GW will be built per year. We're just at the stage where we're moving from pilot installations to industrial scale building.
I notice the forecasts from the EC and IEA are more modest than the EWEA's, judging from the graph on page 32 of the EWEA's Pure Power report from December. Why the discrepancy? I notice that the reports states that they are puzzled by the EC reduction, also they note the IEA's forecast has increased, but is still short of the EWEA's projection.
Will there be the funding/credit available to do this?
Nice post Jerome. I think what is being requested is some simple math. How many GigaWatts of electric power is currently being produced by how many FF power plants, or FF plus nuclear. How many GW wind farms are possible, given there are only so many prime spots? In other words, how much percentage replacement can we expect from wind power?
For the offshore sites, are engineers designing all electric boats for replacement/repairs? The only non-diesel ones I know of are nuclear powered. Sail might slowly get stuff out there, but the real work is lifting heavy loads. Will there be all electric cranes and heavy trucks to replace the diesel-powered ones currently in use?
Why should you have all-electric boats to do maintenance for offshore wind? If you start with the assumption that we will have no oil whatsoever, then, of course, no solution will ever make sense. If not, the needs for diesel are so small compared to the windfarm energy production that it's always going to be a useful use of even very expensive diesel. See joule's comment above in that respect.
I guess my point is oil will be BOTH expensive and scarce. It's true that oil has an amazing energy density, but the flip side is a lot is wasted in inefficient engines, even diesel ones. Another way to consider this is again, to do some simple math. How much diesel is consumed in the transport and erection, plus maintenance of an offshore (or onshore) wind turbine generator? I'll bet it's an impressive amount. Will this precious and soon-to-be rare fuel be made available for wind farm maintenance and replacements/expansions (cement could get very expensive, also), or will other priorities, like military use, make it unavailable? Another aspect to consider is whether the OCED will have currency or tradable products considered worthy of this precious oil in future.
Another way to consider this is again, to do some simple math.
So why don't you do simple math?
A 3 MW wind turbine with a capacity factor of 50% produces over 260 Million kWh within 20 years.
That's equivalent to 26 Million liters of diesel.
A 40 ton truck can run on 26 liters per 100 km. So this truck can run 100,000,000 km ...
Oh, btw you can also produce fuel with wind energy:
http://www.ammoniafuelnetwork.org/
"So why don't you do simple math?" Because (a) I'm busy and (b) I'm not the wind advocate.
"A 3 MW wind turbine with a capacity factor of 50% produces over 260 Million kWh within 20 years.
That's equivalent to 26 Million liters of diesel."
Actually, I like that statement, because it illustrates a point I'm trying to make. Namely, you can make all the electrical energy you want to, if you don't have the means to apply it in place of FF, mainly as diesel (a compact, high-energy-density, transportable fuel), you are out of luck. A corollary is it will take you 20 years to produce that seemingly large amount of diesel equivalent. We know we have the diesel to make and maintain these turbine farms presently, but what about 20+ years later, in the FF-scarce future?
These are strange objections.. the offshore turbines, for one thing, would generally have others nearby, so you could have a power source for electric work.. electricity could do any of the jobs oil can do, cranes, winches, welding, shaping, machining, etc etc.. already does. And you can get biodiesel, ammonia, natural gas, even direct windpower to take on the heavy lifting for any number of jobs.
Just because Oil made it, doesn't mean Oil has to maintain it. It might be more expensive at that poin, but what that says to me is that fewer things will be built and treated as 'cheap and throwaway' like they are today with cheap energy.
The Wind will still be here in abundance, which will make it much more impressive a source to keep our access to, in relation to the increasingly fickle and rare fossil fuels.
If electrical power sources could do such jobs as propelling boats and lifting and transporting heavy items, why aren't they doing so now? I know the argument that oil is economically superior at present and in the recent past, but is that really the answer? For boats, there is the battery storage problem, ask any submariner. In remote areas and at sea, long cables to power sources are impracticable, being both expensive and dangerous.
Liquid fuels made from electricity and abundant feed stocks such as the nitrogen in air and the hydrogen in water or natural gas are difficult to handle, explosive, and in the case of ammonia, highly toxic. Again, there's a reason that rocket scientists are usually the only ones qualified enough to use them, and even they have mishaps, being human. My point is these fuels will be very challenging to scale for public use. Biodiesel is the best of the lot you mention, but can it scale to needs?
I see nothing strange in questioning the long-term use of these alternatives, as some day soon they will no longer have the FF Platform (nod to Jim Kunstler) to back them, and we'd better have a sound plan or we will just be staring at corroding relics of a bygone age, or hopes and plans for the future crushed.
I know the argument that oil is economically superior at present and in the recent past, but is that really the answer?
Yes, because for maintaining a wind turbine $400 per barrel of oil is still inexpensive but not to commute a banker in a F-150 every day and powering his inefficient oil heater every day.
Again, there's a reason that rocket scientists are usually the only ones qualified enough to use them, and even they have mishaps, being human.
Actually, they are typically handled by farmers who release it directly:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xpBd1cI_6Y
http://community.webshots.com/photo/fullsize/1041142893036563360HdDMkL
I think what D3PO is alluding to is what might crudely be termed 'critical mass'.
That is, when will there be a wind turbine factory entirely powered by wind turbines? or a solar panel factory powered entirely by solar panels?
Well, wind turbine factories currently in existence are powered by the grid. The grid will certainly have more electricity supplied to it by wind in Europe than is used by any one turbine factory, so this will already be the case. Luckily we have the grid rather than having to power our factories locally these days.
As an example, some Wind Energy manufacturers have targets like using 90% of renewable electricity to run their company (buildings, factories, etc)
[see p.3].
(of course that just means buying electricity from the grid at a premium to stimulate renewables, but it shows that such considerations are taken into account). When GE Wind, Siemens Wind, Vestas, Suzlon, etc ... all use wind energy to run the company + coal for foundries + oil in more efficient trucks ... they will be headed in the right direction.
anyone, have you seriously considered the safety aspects of cars and trucks in traffic running on those liquid ammonia tanks you have shown us in the farm picture you posted? Do you have any idea what would happen if even one of those tanks ruptured on a crowded street? Petroleum fuels burn and are therefore dangerous, but the fumes are not all that toxic. Ammonia kills, hydrogen explodes.
Actually wind turbines are typically not placed in crowded streets and therefore don't need to be maintained there either.
Besides the fact that cars and trucks don't need big ammonia tanks as farmers do and that these smaller tanks can be built safely: Commuters in the future may simply use efficient cars, plug-in hybrids, public transport, bicycles instead of F-150s.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/hydrogen_storag...
I 'sort of' get your objections, but I think they're largely being misapplied.
Getting Maintenance Boats out to a wind farm.. well, we've always got sails to fall back on there.. while I don't expect that the next 200 years will see industrial ships without turbines or cylinders as their first power source.
Electricity for lifting and work in general: That is ALL already prevalent throughout the world. Our electric powered tools are ubiquitous. If you're out at a windfarm with 10 or 40 turbines within eyesight, it's not that hard to predict that we'd find a way to tap into these to get basic repairs or replacements done, if other fuels had failed us, so storage would seem to be someone else's problem.. not to mention the fact that this field has a grid connection, and may be able to help power field work with grid power, if all the mills are offline.
Look, the sinking tide of Fossil Fuel will surely hit EVERYTHING technological in our world.. but the periodic need for intense energies to support and perpetuate windpower will be a lot less onerous than those demanded by nuclear power, for instance. I think I'd like to see a measure that combines EROEI with Complexity, when it comes to that comparison, in fact.
At least a bunch of Low-Tech windmills could still provide useful power to work on a high-tech field. It's hard to see the same being true for all the high-energy materials required by some of our other systems.
jokuhl, I'm just trying to get you and Jerome, both advocates of wind and offshore wind power in particular, to think about how one will maintain these investments in the future. Of course, there is the very real possibility that our civilization will not endure the shock of petroleum loss, but even if it does, there will be constraints upon the energy that is left. My advice is do not ridicule nuclear or anything that produces net energy, as we'll need as much as we can get. Maintaining nuclear in a FF-scarce future will also be difficult. Also, tapping into an established wind power grid to make repairs will be tricky. This is beyond my expertise, but it sounds like it might be fraught with difficulty if not dangers. Such on site maneuvers need to be tested before the FF runs out.
D3PO;
If Nuclear is as robust as you believe it to be, then it will do fine against a little of my ridicule. But I suspect instead, that its supporting web of precious materials, economic relationships and specialized engineering staff will show it to be far too frail for the tough times coming at us.
Who knows what part of 'civilization' might survive this. Those terms are too broad to have much of a handle on. As much as sources that produce Net Energy (which includes wind), it is also useful to understand how many bottlenecks are out there ready to take a given source offline. One that requires just the wind to blow, and no daily attention from crew, no daily guzzling from the supply tanks, this would seem to be an enviable source to have on hand. It really seems that maintaining a reactor site is a lot more labor and materials intensive than wind. Even if the output is so much more magnificent, what good does it do you if nooone in your hemisphere can provide you with the necessary Platinum-tipped Doodads to keep the Thingy in line and cool-headed? It's a whole lot of power riding on a very precious set of conditions.. yet you think wind-towers will be tough to keep running.
Jokuhl, you are correct that nuclear will need specialized infrastructure, supplies and highly-trained personnel. I said it would be difficult to maintain. Nuclear power can be added to a list of many technological wonders that may not make it past a bottleneck. I guess, given the results of going through a bottleneck, large amounts of nuclear, wind and other power generation, even coal burning, will no longer be necessary. So one problem solves the need for solutions to previous problems.
A friend who is an instrument developer has related to me that the current recession has already impacted his company's ability to get needed parts from outside vendors in a timely manner for a new instrument release. It seems the vendors laid off too many employees and now cannot meet their production delivery dates. Perhaps the devolution has already commenced.
Wind being in abundance is not the decisive factor. Capacity utilization is key. On the coasts or off-shore you probably get good utilization.
But in many places in Europe will get very poor utilization. I have taken the train from Paris to nearby cities and seen lots of dead wind generators. Whole wind farms and not a single blade moving ...
Utilization will be very low in many areas and countries.
And why should the EU be throwing lots of money at very marginal sources of energy?
You would probably get a bigger bang for your buck emphasizing conservation and nuclear power. Maybe solar, but I don't know the economics of solar.
Jerome,
Just about how long are the typical offshore foundation structures expected to last?There are design lifetimes and then there are actual lifetimes to be considered-lots of heavy infrasturcture has lived long past it's design life, but metal and salt water don't mis well.
The foundations are typically built with a 50-year design life. They are very simple steel structures, and corrosion protection is rather well understood.
In the US a typical coal fired plant is 400 MW to 600 MW and they are sometimes combined to make larger plants on one site. They typically run at between an 85% to 90% capacity factor.
A point made by one of the east coast developers at the Offshore Wind Conference here in Philly is that while the offshore wind capacity factor may not be as high as a base load coal plant, the wind resource is strong during a signficiant portion of the on-peak period when the power is really needed. That really helps to overcome the lower CF since the power can be brought into the grid at a high value.
From the data I have seen, developers are seeing/expecting capacity factors for offshore wind somewhere around 37% to over 40% by comparison.
After sitting through the presentations yesterday, I am more optimistic about the future for offshore wind and the seriousness with which people, particularly the europeans, are approaching this energy resource. However, there also seems to be a bottleneck of logistics support such as cable laying vessles, etc. predicted as this technology scales up.
Jim,
You say you're optimistic, but of course it is easy to optimistic about European wind power when you consider all the subsidies they receive. Lots of these European farms are funded by European agencies. Then the utilitiy is required to pay to bring the tranmission lines to the wind farm. Then you the above market tariffs.
I can support some subsidies because wind power does not generate carbon emissions.
But the extend of the subsidies leads me to think (rightly or wrongly) that this a boondoggle that will make wind entrepreneurs very wealthy at minimal risk.
It depends whether the wind is blowing - if it isn't we still need the coal fired power as a backup!
Just so people realise how useless wind is for producing BAU steady power, take a look at the UK for yesterday, today and tomorrow:
(The UK has 1588 MW of metered nameplate wind supply available, but at around 11.00 today was only generating a totally pathetic 48MW.)
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
I'm not sure where your numbers come from, given that the UK has over 4GW installed already?
But wind is actually quite predictable and thus easy to deal with by the system, just like normal intraday demand variation:
The important thing to note about the need to have fossil-fuel backup (which would most likely be gas than coal, btw) is that having a gas-fired plant at hand which is only used occasionally is not a problem - it does not emit carbon when it's not used, and it costs very little to remain on standby. Peakers have a proven business model. So having lots of gas-fired plants for no-wind periods is a good thing - you get the emissions reduction and you keep the system stable - and the even better news is that this capacity already exists today, and does not need to be built (or what needs to be built for future back up of large scale wind would need to be built anyway)
And other dispatchable sources/storage can be used (or increased) as well to levelize the load, including hydro, geothermal, CAES, etc. Real-time pricing will also help to ameliorate load during times of reduced generation.
well then that makes the 48MW at 11am look even more pathetic.
I think it rather means that only a third of the UK wind capacity is metered.
And of course you can find periods where there is no wind blowing and very little is produced. So what?
So what? I would hope that this would be obvious! If BAU, and any effeciencies being eaten up by population growth if we are to base our energy policy on the whim of the wind we should all dance around in dunces hats, howling at the moon instead.
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't you involved in providing finance for these wind projects? I don't mean to be rude, but shouldn't you declare your bias up-front? If a fellow has a financial interest in something he, by definition, will not be impartial.
Please don't get me wrong. I love the idea of wind power. But not when it is man-handled, squished and squashed into Business As Usual. Something has to give.
I'd say Jerome's participation in this industry is common knowledge by now, but inserting boilerplate one line disclaimers into each story wouldn't be much of an imposition. It's pretty standard for stories at financial outlets like Seeking Alpha.
The disclosure is in the story above the fold. I noted that I financed the project.
What I mean is that we will of course have backup plants, mostly gas-fired. Just that they will not be used that much, which means that we won't have a lot of emissions from these plants, which is what matters.
As to my bias, I put a note and link in the second paragraph above the fold to remind people of my involvement. But I'm not biased, because I also finance the oil&gas industry, and in each case, we need to make sure that the projects make sense in the long run - not just that we have supportive regulation, but that the regulation makes actual sense and thus will not be threatened by future political authorities. In other words, a lot of my work is about political risk.
And let's also keep in mind that Scottish Power has over 550 MW in hydro and pumped storage (Galloway, Lanark, and Cruachan) that can be combined with gas turbines to levelize generation when needed.
And let's also keep in mind that fossil fuel heaters will also need to be replaced by electrically powered heat pumps and heat energy can be stored cheaply.
Right. The political risk is that the huge subsidies dry up. As I understand it, the public and utilities are paying to create tranmission links to these sites. The sites get above market tariffs and according to the link you posted, they get projects get injections of public money.
If I were still in investment banking, I would be doing the same thing you are doing.
But that doesn't mean it is good public policy.
Jerome,
I lived in France and used to watch the power wind mills during train trips. Half the time they were dead.
Wind power is extremely expensive, has no economies of scale, and consumes huge amounts of space.
This is a niche solution largely by generous subsidies in the form of above market tariffs.
In the next couple years you will see European countries scale their ambitious plans for wind power and focus on more scalable solutions such as nuclear. Germany will never hit 30%.
Wind power is not "extremely expensive." Here's where the IEA (hardly a pro-wind organisation) puts it:
Wind consumes very little space - onshore, it occupies a few square meters of land in fields that can remain used as they were before; offshore there is not even such a constraint. There will be economies of scale offshore, as installation and O&M processes get done in a fully organised way, with dedicated infrastructure and equipment and improved processes.
Wind requires specific price regulation, but not subsidies per se. As I note repeatedly, Spain, Denmark and Germany have proven that the net effect of feed-in tariffs for wind is to bring the price of electricity down because the merit order effect of wind in the system (bringing prices down when wind is blowing) is larger, on aggregate, than the difference between the spot price and the feed-in tariff (this is discussed in more detail here: The cost of wind, the price of wind, the value of wind
Denmark hit 20% long ago; I see no reason why Germany won't get there too and go to 30%.
Jerome,
Wind power is subsidized. It doesn't make any difference whether that takes the form of a government check or a higher than market tariff. It's a subsidy in either case.
Calling it 'price regulation' is frankly sophistical.
Denmark is obviously a special case because it is a penisula. It's surrrounded by water on three sides. Denmark is the ideal case.
Germany will have a much tougher time hitting 30% and at some point will have to ask the obvious question: What is the marginal productivity of a dollar in wind power versus alternative energies?
No one is exempt from the law of economics: everyone faces a budget constraints and tradeoffs in resource allocation.
No one is exempt from the law of economics:
Actually besides the fact that Denmark exports over 90% with a profit and eventhough Denmark has no nuclear power and exports over 20% of its electricity, it generates 20% less CO2/per capita than Belgium and has 27% lower industrial electricity prices than Belgium, it has a 41% higher GDP per capita than Belgium:
Belgium (55.1 % nuclear power):
and 13.66 t of CO2/capita
and $47,617 GDP/capita
Denmark (0% nuclear power and 20% wind power):
and 10.94 t of CO2/capita
and $67,387 GDP/capita
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/BE-npsh.html
Industrial electricity prices before tax (2007):
Denmark (20% wind power): 7.06 cents/kWh
Belgium (55% nuclear power): 9.69 cents/kWh
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DK-07-001/EN/KS-DK-...
And by the way Austria without nuclear power spends more on Euratom than on its own wind energy:
http://www.igwindkraft.at/index.php?mdoc_id=1009697
And Jerome, there is more supporting data from the US DOE website
.
Will,
I am willing to bet you this chart does not include the cost of tranmission capacity.
Add in the cost to the utilies to actually their tranmission networks and I suspect the graph will look a lot different
You're cherry picking. France produces 80% of its power from nuclear power and is a large power exporter as well (there is a power cable connecting France to the UK).
France has much lower per capita CO2 emissions than Denmark. The latest I figure was about 40% lower.
I guess you're a troll .... :)
You're cherry picking.
Actually, Belgium and Denmark are very much comparable European countries and despite the fact that Belgium has a 55% nuclear share it still produces more CO2 per capita than Denmark. This is fact.
78% nuclear share (France does in fact not have 80% http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/eedrb/data/FR-elpn.html ) for all countries in the world is a non-option since the uranium mines cannot even cover 70% of the 14% worldwide nuclear power share and this is besides the fact that nuclear power plants are far more expensive than wind turbines:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.0627v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.3075v1.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0909/0909.1421v1.pdf
France produces 80% of its power from nuclear power and is a large power exporter as well
Actually, since France has inflexible nuclear power plants it mostly exports excess nuclear electricity on weekends and nights for low prices and has to import electricity during peak demand for high prices. In addition, France imports electricity during winter months when electricity demand due to their resistance heaters rises (and with it electricity prices):
http://www.rte-france.com/uploads/media/pdf_zip/publications-annuelles/a...
At the same time Denmark exports electricity thanks to their wind farms:
http://www.ens.dk/en-US/Info/FactsAndFigures/Energy_statistics_and_indic...
Btw, France also imports electricity from the UK during heatwaves:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilitie...
Anyone,
Why are you so obsessed with trying to win at all costs? You are certainly not an analyst because you keep missing the essential points.
France has been a big net exporter of energy during most of the last thirty years. Right now I believe their net exports are fallen to plant maintenance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France
And France is a net exporter to Britain.
I can respect you if you make good points, but you're just throwing mud on a wall and hoping something sticks.
You are certainly not an analyst because you keep missing the essential points.
Actually, as opposed to you, I just deliver essential facts which obviously contradict your own assumptions.
New wind is cheaper than new nuclear and is thus also growing much faster. It also doesn't depend on uranium imports, cooling water, has low decommissioning costs and has no disposal problems.
These facts won't change if you blame the messenger.
Anyone,
You are always cherry picking data. France is a much larger power exporter than Denmark and France is 80% nuclear power and produces half the CO2 emissions of Denmark on a per capita basis.
Nuclear power is subsidized
Oil production is subsidized
Coal production is subsidized
Natural gas production is subsidized
Hydro power is subsidized
"Wind power subsidized"... Nothing new about that.
Gail -
A 2,000 MW power coal-fired power plant is not really 'typical', as it is at the upper end of the size range, at least in the US. Such a plant would usually consist of two separate units of 1,000 MW each.
The majority of power stations in the US are much smaller, particularly the older ones.
However, your point is well taken. Indeed, it takes a lot of wind turbines to provide an output equivalent to a large coal-fired power plant. Again, what we have here is low capital investment/high operating cost (coal plants) versus high capital investment/low operating cost (wind).
This is probably why utilities (in the US at least) are generally not all that enthused about wind power: they would prefer high fuel costs and low capital investment over zero fuel cost and high capital investment. One reason is the regulated rate structure which, in a variety of ways, allows them to pass on high fuel costs to the consumer. This is one of the reasons why gas-turbine power plants have gotten so popular. The other is that they lend themselves to being modularized, and thus capacity can be increased a little at a time, thus avoiding the need for mega expansion projects.
While on the subject of size, try this little exercise: calculate the total amount of coal consumed by a 2,000 MW power station over an operating life of say 40 years. And then put that coal into shallow conical shaped pile and see how big it is. Ditto the ash produced. This will reveal that the 'footprint' of a coal-fired power station is not quite as small as it might appear. Is this what we might call an 'externality'?
Joule:
Try this one on for size. Built back in the 70s and can run quite a bit more power than is listed on this wiki;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Generating_Station
It is made up of three 750MW plants.
Joule,
I think utilities avoid wind power because the paybacks are probably very long. My guess is that the capital investment per dollar of electricity generated is higher for wind than conventional power plants.
I guess you ARE guessing.. time to start researching.
This from an article by a republican in our state who shows he is not starry-eyed about windpower, but requires the numbers to add up..
http://www.maine.gov/legis/house_gop/opinion/fitts_offgrid.htm
Bob
That doesn't include tranmission costs.
Look at the failure of the big Texas wind power projects. That project failed because the cost of the building tranmission lines raised the project's costs too high to compete.
EU is subsidizing wind power in three ways: above market tariffs, tranmission subsidies, and direct injections of public cash.
That's sound a real solid busines model ...
:)
Actually, transmission costs for free-fuel wind are around $160 to $200 per kW:
http://www.grist.org/article/study-shows-transmission-costs-for-big-wind...
http://www.nrel.gov/wind/systemsintegration/pdfs/2010/ewits_final_report...
While new nuclear which depends on uranium imports and has high decommissioning costs is around $8000 per kW:
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/665644
And the German feed-in tariffs for wind are lower than the wholesale electricity price reduction thanks to German wind power:
http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/art271,2147183
And this is besides the fact that Germany exports over 83% of its wind turbines with a profit:
http://www.wind-energie.de/en/news/article/wind-energy-made-in-germany-i...
Anyone,
Please read the articles you cite. :)
The $160 to $200 per kilowate figure depends on the distance assumptions. :)
Suppose you backhauling the wind power from Texas to New York. :)
"Look at it this way. A new current generation single large wind generator will operate at about 35 percent on average of nameplate capacity. But, that single generator will occasionally reach full nameplate capacity, or at least come very close. In a wind farm with hundreds of turbines this may never happen. When diverse wind farms in different wind areas are connected together, total generation will never come close to matching combined nameplate capacity. Generation will peak at between 60 percent and 75 percent of nameplate capacity. At this point the real cost per peak MW is higher than the nominal cost per MW. But since kWh generated is the same, real capacity utilization is also higher than nominal capacity utilization. So the cost per kWh does not change, but the quality of the power produced is higher. Higher quality power can make better use of transmission capacity."
The article you cite indicates that capacity utilization is extremely low.
So high transmission cost and low capacity utilization makes a winning argument?
I don't think so ....
Generation will peak at between 60 percent and 75 percent of nameplate capacity.
Exactly and that's why your transmission line also only needs to transfer maybe 70% nameplate capacity max and its utilization capacity is thus also increased.
So high transmission cost and low capacity utilization makes a winning argument?
Actually, given the simple fact, that electricity consumption during day time is often 3 times higher than at night all, transmission lines have a low capacity utilization at night and on weekends.
The $160 to $200 per kilowate figure depends on the distance assumptions.
Actually, other studies come to a similar conclusion:
http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-1471e.pdf
Again, compare $200 /kW with $8000 /kW for a new nuclear power plant.
Higher quality power can make better use of transmission capacity.
Unfortunately, you cannot force consumers to consume the same amount of power on Sunday morning 3:00 am as on Wednesday noon. Transmission capacity can hardly ever be maxed out regardless of your power source.
Jokuhl,
I am afaid reseach is not your strong point. You are just throwing mud at a wall and hoping it sticks.
Do a real analysis. The ideal wind power sites (strong winds with lower standard deviations) are located in areas in the Dakotas, Plain States and Texas that currently do not have transmissiong facilities large enough to handle the flow.
I am all for education, but you are treating wind power like a sacred cow.
That's the point. You don't get a big bang for your buck. In fact, I don't see economies of scale in wind.
It looks as if that plant uses about eight million tons of coal a yera, Roderick.
Let it be known immediately that I don't know what they are paying for it , but my guess is that an industry wide average DELIVERED COST of coal is probably not much less than forty dollars per ton.
That would be around three hundred twenty million dollars per year.Eastern coal SELLS at the mines for that or more.
I'm a world class rolling stone, and have been employed in a surface mine(gravel).Every single one of those big yellow catepillars drinks around two hundred gallons of diesel every twenty four hours, and a coal train a couple of miles long contains a considerable amount of steel-probably on the order of ten thousand tons, back of the envelope.
The potential savings are astronomical over a period of years, given the fact that coal prices and natural gas prices have nowhere to go but up over the long term.That ONE coal fired plant consumes probably around a billion dollars worth of coal every three years.
Perhaps someone with a more detailed knowledge of wind can tell us roughly how much wind capacity can be brought on line with a three hundred million dollar annual subsidy.
Arguments about the ground space footprint of wind are nothing but a smokescreen-most remote hilltops and ridgelines are otherwise useless except as scenery and farmers continue to work thier land after windfarms are built on it in farm country.
Oldfarmer,
Economic decisions are influence by rate of return. My concern is the rate of return is poor on wind power due to a very long payback.
By the way, it is long payback periods that kept solar from major rollouts.
Operating costs are not the only factor - investor's are looking for competitive risk-adjusted returns.
If you want utilities to adopt renewable energy, it appears you have subsidize them because the paybacks are ugly.
I strongly suspect that this wind power project is probably heavily subsidized by above market tariffs and probably tax subsidies as well.
That doesn't mean you can justify the project. It may be that future oil price hikes will make wind power very attractive in the near future. Maybe when you include CO2 emission credits it makes sense.
But it is certainly a slam dunk.
http://www.withouthotair.com/
Detailed and easy to understand, by a very down to earth scientist.
RalphW,
I'm a long-standing fan of David MacKay's online (and hardcopy) book, with his no-bullshit focus on 'numbers, not adjectives'. Thanks for reminding me!
I liked in particular MacKay's tidbit on the worst windmills ever:
Sounds like an urban legend, though.
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cB/page_268.shtml
Enjoyed your presentation today on project finance at the offshore wind power conference. Tomorrow we will be hearing from Principle Power CEO, Alla Weinstein, about their Windfloat offshore power platforms for deep water which should be interesting. http://www.principlepowerinc.com/products/windfloat.html
If it works this might be a good solution for offshore wind in our deep bottom great lakes.
It looks like many of the parts are rusty? Am I seeing this correctly? What type of corrosion protection is used? What types of coatings are used? Is there any ongoing maintenance to prevent rust?
Thanks for the great article. I missed the prior ones so I will go back and read them.
Actually rb that's how such projects look while under construction. The pics are very similar to offshore oil/NG production platforms. In addition to protective coatings a variety of electrical systems are used to hinder corrosion and both are applied after the construction phase. Can't ever stop it completely. From a construction stand point the Gulf Coast is an obvious choice: in most aspects such WF's are no different than production platforms. We have all the yards, personnel and transport systems in place today.
Within the last two years the state of Texas awarded offshore wind farm leases to at least one private company. I haven't seen anything about their plans or time lines. As far as hurricane go: that's why we have insurance. Our offshore faculties have been getting knocked down since the very beginning over 50 years ago. At least with the WF's you talking only about dumping steel into the water and not oil.
When I worked as a saturation diver on oil rigs I'd say about 80% of our non diving work was related to corrosion mitigation in one form or another. That's just the nature of the beast out on the ocean.
FM -- I had always suspected you were a closet adrenaline junkie. I would much rather be on a drill floor with all that dumb iron bouncing around then going that deep. Hell...I don't even care that much for the deep end of the pool. Thanks for all the previous maintenance.
See the discussion on corrosion in this thread of the European Tribune version of this post.
Jerome,
Thanks for the nice article.
I am curious. What is the current thinking on the likelihood of turbines in hurricane prone areas (e.g., most of the US Atlantic coast) ? Are there good ideas are any designs being tested ?
Best wishes
Can someone tell me how much electrical energy is lost in transmission from off-shore wind farms?
As I see it, the nameplate figure of an off-shore wind turbine might be 3MW. It might have a load factor of 33% (which would, by all accounts be good). This means it is really only producing 1MW. Now, from the wind-farm to my toaster and hair dryer how much is lost?
The transmission losses are a couple percent at most.
We have a close to 40% capacity factor after transmission losses for most offshore wind farms in the North Sea.
Like to cheap to meter nuclear power, fusion, mass produced stirling cycle engines and EE Stor's supercapacitors I present an off shore wind turbine idea of Doug Selsam.
http://www.selsam.com/
Now if only there was the magic for the blade shafts.....because floating things on chains in the ocean is a known technology....
Are the transmission lines generally below the surface? From what I understand AC transmission through SALT water causes heavy losses, the way around that is to either use DC or to use towers, so the AC cables are not in the salt.
Is that a large cost in an offshore windfarm?
Rgds
WeekendPeak
transmission cables are typically DC dug under the subsoil (to 2-3m depth). The cost of that cable is a material part of the investment budget, yes (10-20% depending on the distance to shore)
AC power is not transmitted through salt water. The power is transmitted through aluminum or copper wire with multiple layers of waterproof and non conducting plastic with steal reinforcing. The aluminum or copper never touch the water. The cables are burried to protect them from ship anchors. Fiberoptic and computer cables may also be included in the main power cable to monitor the operation of the wind farm
Islands all along the atlantic and pasific costs are connect to the US grid. Additional power cables run under rivers and lakes. Power loss for the entire US grid is only about 6%. Power losses can be reduced by increasing the voltage and or switching to DC transmittion. Both are being done now throught the world. Power looses through one 10 mile long power cable are not significant.
I'd be delighted to see Offshore Wind really taking off - it would give our guys something to move onto once the UK's offshore oil & gas sector closes down!
Unfortunately, all the figures I've seen to date say that offshore wind is still twice the cost/kWh of onshore wind. Admittedly onshore wind is troubled by NIMBYs and planning restrictions, but these will be overridden once panic sets in - once the blackouts start.
Jerome, do you see the cost of offshore wind trending down to become competitive with onshore wind? I know this depends on various debatable parameters - e.g. what discount rate to assume, what financial benefit to allow for the typically higher capacity factor of an offshore turbine, and whether an offshore wind turbine can hope to achieve the same level of availability as an onshore turbine.
But if I say 8% discount rate, and assume the capacity factor benefit balances the availability shortfall, how do you see relative costs developing, allowing for improving technology?
Offshore wind is indeed more expensive per MWh today (10-15c/kWh vs 6-10c/MWh for onshore wind or nuclear), but I would expect it to trend down as the sector moves to full scale industrialisation (large scale projects will allow for dedicated vessels to be built, harbor facilities to be specialised, and installation procedures to be streamlined) and O&M processes improve.
I agree that anything that allows to lower the discount rate used will have a major impact to help that.
The UK uses 400 Twh of electricity with 35% coming from coal, 42% from natural gas, 16% from nuclear and 2% from renewables. 50 GW of wind at a 40% capacity factor
could produce as much electricity as the 168 Twh of natural gas used. Offshore wind costs about $4 per watt so 50GW would be about $200 billion dollars--my guess.
Europe +10 GW offshore now. Pay for it with a 2.5 cent per kwh over 20 years surcharge.
http://www.ewea.org/fileadmin/ewea_documents/documents/publications/repo...
Jerome-
Thanks for a great post. I think wind is a good choice to diversify power production.
Do you know how frequently there are failures in the gears & bearings? That seems to be the most likely ongoing maintenance cost.
Jim
Jerome - thanks for the article. Very interesting and certainly a power source we need to use and develop.
TOD can be such a meat-grinder but I think you have held your own here.
I think that arguments around wind here are very polarized. If we split discussions up between US, UK and Europe I think it would more balanced - each has different requirements, geography and resources. The 'one size fits all' model is not useful.
Many posts here are making the large leap between 'can wind supply all energy needs tomorrow as BAU' with 'Is it useful and worth doing anyway'. The answer to the first is obviously not, and to the later yes it is. It is almost like some people posting are disappointed that there are not MORE problems...
Those that have digested McKays book (quoted above) could easily see that, the UK for instance, at full tilt, would be stuck on a fraction of it's current power if this was the only option. However, this is infinitely more than nothing at all.
'Is it enough?' - that is a different question. Most people here can see that energy is a hard issue and will require hard solutions - not very BAU but not an overnight disaster either (whatever the Daily Mail reports). It is a shame that we are stuck oscillating between the two extreme viewpoints of BAU or disaster, when, to me a least, life is always somewhere in the middle.
Looking forward to more articles.
Those support structures for offshore wind would appear to be very expensive and energy-demanding, but I wonder how long a support tower that is designed for longevity can last. If you can get hundreds of years of life out of one of those, there's a huge amount of produced energy the initial cost can be spread over.
When it comes to things like turbine maintenance I suspect their economic significance is close to negligible.
Trying to come up with a devil's advocate case against wind. One reasonable argument might be, intermittency of wind means it might be economically attractive in conjunction with fossil fuel backup sources, but for the wind towers to be a mainstay of a renewable energy economy a mass storage technique, arguably something that does not currently exist, must be found.
But my personal opinion is that we have to come up with a mass energy storage system or else mankind is toast in a post fossil fuel world.
(Hydro can be used for peaking but that is very limited in geography and scale.)
"mass storage technique, arguably something that does not currently exist, must be found."
Energy can be pumped hydro system, Compressed air storage system, batteries, and flow batteries. All of these systems have been used to store power at small, medium, and large scales. Additionally energy can in stored by making amonia. Amonia can be used to power a turbin in a power plant (amonia burns)or burned in a internal combustion engine.
Whay are we not building them now? There is no nead for it. If a wind mill is generating power you simply shut off a fossil full power plant or sell the energy to another utility. Until we have significant amount of renewable power it doesn't make economic sense to build storage systems to store electricity. Right now a utility can save more money by shutting down a fossil fuel power plant than by storing excess energy.
That said Spain recently made the news when during one windy day wind turbins produced 50% of the power needed that day. What was not noticed by many people is that spain in the last few years has statted to build pumped hydro facilities to store energy. In Spain it now make sense to build energy storage system.
Just for the counter-argument - 1 day exceptions are pretty meaningless. Averages or medians are more informative.
It wasn't even a one-day exception; it was a few hours in the middle of the night, when demand was at its lowest.
I guess the counterargument to my contention that we absolutely need a mass energy storage technique in a post fossil fuel world is just build a bunch of nuclear plants. I'll leave it at that, I'm personally undecided whether that is wise or not.
Of course, neither of these (wind or nuclear) address the transportation fuel issue, only electric power generation.
Those are good issues to think about, and all of them get addressed here on a regular basis.
Electric Power generation could push a lot of trains, Lance. Get rid of a chunk of the trucks and fuel trains, and our oil demand is helped considerably.
Bob
A few responses from a Texan on a variety of issues brought up.
Damn, it's a good thing that Pickens project failed. One little 'ol single state would have installed half as much new wind power in 2009 as all of Europe combined, instead of a measly quarter. /end sarcasm.
Now that we're off on the right foot, a more serious approach:
Yes, there were some truly crappy wind projects installed (and a few still are, in the NE of the USA) for largely political or "demonstration" purposes. However, most of the new, big, modern projects are using 1.5MW or bigger turbines, and expect a capacity factor of 35% or better (even onshore.) The technology is good today, and is getting better and better.
We're putting in a couple GW of wind every year - eventually it'll add up to real energy. Can't seem to get nuke plants off the ground in any reasonable timeframe or at a reasonable cost (though we're trying) - and new coal plants are pretty much dead. They even killed the one over in Rockdale which was a replacement for 3 little ones build in the 50's - still with 50's pollution controls, of course - needed it to run the big aluminum plant out there. So, they shut down the aluminum plant. And we won't be getting that fly ash anymore - use it in making high-strength, ASR-resistant concrete.
Wind taking up huge areas of land? No more than an oil well "takes up" huge areas of land. Sure, they're spread out - but just like the oil well, 99+% of the ranch is still perfectly useful as ranch land. Mostly ranchers like the $5,000/year per turbine in leasing payments - and they're a lot less hassle. No big tank trucks crowding our roads. No contaminated water disposal. Sure, you see that windmill reaching 150, 200 feet up and think it's a lot of material and energy going into making it. Y'all don't think about the 5,000 or 10,000 feet of drill pipe going down for that oil or gas well.
Energy storage? Sure. We've got it zipping around in the form of those Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Ford Escapes and such - going to have a lot more soon when the real electrics show up. All we need is to combine plugin versions of these vehicles with smart onboard charging and smart electric grids. We've already got some projects going for smart grids in Texas, some areas have pilot projects - won't be long before the cars can take advantage. Just plug your car in, tell it to charge when prices drop far enough, and tell it to sell power when prices rise high enough (and how much you need left to get to work and the grocery.) Won't just be the big boys arbitraging the electric market anymore. Safer, more stable grid for everyone - and a bit of profit for the hybrid or electric owners.
Someone mentioned EEStor - do I need to amble over there and ask them some particular questions? They're somewhere around Austin. I'm sure I could look them up.
Texan,
You're ignoring why the Pickens project failed. Transmission costs.
And wind power does take a lot of land and European land is quite expensive. Population density is quite high in many European countries.
To build a real wind power plant will require a lot of land, a lot of transmission capacity, and will still be just a backup source of energy because you can't tune production to demand.
It is howerver great for 'entrepreneurs' because they get a guaranteed rate of return. Guaranteed success ...
Sounds like the US banks - they can't fail ...
Guess you didn't read past my first couple of lines, Roderick.
Land was addressed. Don't y'all have farms, ranches or mountains in Europe?
Storage was addressed. Have y'all banned those hybrid cars?
Yes, one mega-wind project failed to materialize. We still put in a couple GW last year. Transmission isn't that big of a problem. Eventually we'll need to run some new transmission lines down I-20 and I-10. Might even get El Paso connected up to the rest of the Texas grid.
Nobody's been able to add a nuke plant to the grid for decades, and all the build prices quoted are stupidly high, even with $54,000,000,000 in .gov "loan guarantees" - sounds like a whole lot bigger subsidy than the wind industry can get, and nukes have been making commercial power for many times as long as wind. Shouldn't a mature industry be able to support itself?
I'm not sure why those nuke boys have to piss all over wind power. We can have both - but we'll keep on putting in wind down here while y'all get organized to actually build a new nuke plant. Try to stay at least close to these inflated budgets, alright?
Et cetera (thought I'd give ya a bit of Latin back for that European flavor)