Fueling Wind's Surge
Most of AWEA's 2009 report is only available to non-members for a fee. Some of the information I'll be referring to can be found in the media version, but not in the free "teaser" available on AWEA's website. One interesting comparison featured in both versions shows that wind accounted for 39% of new US power generation installed last year, having overtaken all other technologies except for gas-fired generation within the last few years. Coal was a distant third, and "other renewables" lagged far behind, despite the high profile of solar and geothermal energy. It's a toss-up whether wind can overtake gas on new additions anytime soon, considering that wellhead gas prices are running at less than half their level of just two years ago. That ultimately translates into lower levelized electricity costs, particularly compared with wind and other new sources vying for the non-baseload portion of the power market.
One of the other main uncertainties for wind energy concerns the financial and policy environment in which it operates, both of which were changed drastically by the recession and financial crisis. Prior to the demise of Lehman Brothers and the retrenchment of the entire banking sector, many wind projects relied on the "tax equity" market, in which the rights for future tax credit receipts were exchanged for prompt cash. The collapse of that market threatened to bring the US wind industry to a standstill, as developers without sufficient taxable earnings, or lacking the financial strength to wait to receive tax credits once their projects began to sell power, had few options for financing new activities. That would have left turbine manufacturers with unsold inventories or unacceptably risky receivables. Into this void stepped the US Congress with the Renewable Energy Grant program included in the stimulus bill. Importantly, in order to qualify for up-front cash grants in lieu of tax credits, a project must at least have begun construction by the end of 2010. After that, new wind projects would still be entitled to the Production Tax Credit (PTC), or to an Investment Tax Credit in lieu of the PTC, but as before the financial crisis they'd only receive it as a reduction to future income taxes. Two Senators introduced a bill last year to extend the grants for another two years, but it is apparently still in committee.
You might also recall that the grant program was the subject of considerable controversy, when it turned out that most of the money disbursed as of last fall had gone to non-US companies, mainly to purchase non-US wind energy equipment. A review of AWEA's 2009 statistics shows that the situation probably hasn't changed. Of the top 10 wind turbine companies in the US last year, only two, GE and Clipper--now part-owned by United Technologies--were notionally domestic. Together they accounted for just 45% of installations by capacity. The list of top wind farm owners also includes many foreign companies. Spain's Iberdrola and Germany's E.On , both of which were leading recipients of the Treasury grants last year, were in the top 5, along with the US subsidiary of EDP.
My intent here is not to vilify foreign wind companies, most of which either have US manufacturing or source significant portions of their wind turbine supply chains here, and without which US wind installations would slow dramatically. However, the structure of the US wind market does raise serious questions about who stands to gain the most from an extension of this temporary stimulus program beyond the end of 2010. That's especially pertinent, since most of the companies that now dominate US wind on both the manufacturing and project side--including GE, Siemens, UTC, Iberdrola, MidAmerican, and big utilities like FPL, Edison Mission, and Duke--are again strong enough financially to afford to wait for their tax credits as projects are completed and power is actually produced, as intended under the original PTC rules. Moreover, it's not clear how the tax equity market could be expected to revive fully--and the larger renewable energy financing business with it--as long as companies can continue to turn directly to the government for nearly a third of their project costs, paid up front.
This leaves the Congress and administration with two fundamental questions to address. First, as the economy recovers from the worst recession in decades, when do temporary measures to prevent the complete breakdown of business activity during a crisis begin to retard full recovery and become counter-productive? Second, how forcefully should the government be promoting wind power, which has developed into the most competitive and mainstream of our new energy sources? Fairly soon the focus should turn to how we might eventually wean wind power off subsidies, altogether, rather than continuing to accelerate them in a manner more appropriate to less well-developed, less-competitive energy sources. To complicate matters further, this must be considered against the backdrop of climate change policy, which is still very much in flux, and the growing debate over deficits. I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more about this issue as the wind industry begins to consider projects that couldn't realistically start construction before the year-end deadline for the current grant program.
Link to original post
Other Posts by Geoffrey Styles
E15's Problems Are Symptomatic of A Failing Biofuels Policy - May 22, 2012
Are Chesapeake's Problems A Red Flag For Shale Gas? - May 17, 2012
Where Gas is Already $10 per Gallon - May 9, 2012
Resources from Space? - May 4, 2012
US Natural Gas Price Nears $10 per Barrel Equivalence - April 30, 2012
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
eareidjr said:
VCs require the returns they do because they know that a large number of the companies they invest in will fail. If the successes don't pay for the failures, there is no more VC. That is neither brain science nor rocket surgery. Only the government can lose money on every investment and make it up on the volume. :-)WilmotMcCutchen said:
It was a revelation to me too, Bill, but that's a fact. Scavenging companies in trouble, or maybe some software play where there are no manufacturing costs, is the sort of opportunity that gets funded. I'm not surprised to learn from Geoff that VCs are not into wind.BillWoods said:
"Venture capital expects at least ten times its money back within two years."Who gets that kind of return, outside of drug smuggling, maybe?
RickEngebretson said:
To tame the most chaotic force on earth (the wind) and make it provide the most extensively controlled energy product (the electric grid) is risky technology.Anyway, the industry is investing in low carbon fuel infrastructure and the taxpayer is investing in wind. I agree with your reporting.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Wilmot,
I'm not nearly as pessimistic as that. I see a positive role for wind, though its returns are likely to look more like typical utility returns, even with continued subsidies, rather than what VCs expect. VCs aren't typically investing in wind farms, anyway. Whether wind and solar can expand to provide 20% or more of our national electricity supply depends on many factors, including investments in transmission and the "smart grid", climate policy, and developments in energy storage, along with the price of competing energy, mainly gas. None of this is assured, and developers may find that filling a niche with intermittent power is one thing, satisfying the mainstream quite another.
WilmotMcCutchen said:
Thanks, Geoff, for starting and maintaining a good conversation here. I hope other authors will start participating in the discussion of their posts. From what you and Nathan said, it seems inevitable to conclude that wind has no future in American capitalism. Even if the connectivity problem could be solved, the need to quickly pay off the installation cost dooms wind, and solar as well. Venture capital expects at least ten times its money back within two years. So even if wind and solar projects could be connected to the grid, there seems to be no possible way to work them hard enough to pay off the investors in two years, even though the power is produced with no fuel cost. The power is free, and the only cost associated with it is the amortization of the plant. It seems logical to go even further, and conclude that the velocity of money in America is now so toxic that investment for the long term public good has become an antiquated concept. The "free market" has no use for wind power.RickEngebretson said:
Nathan, you are a wise young man. You have an open mind.May I suggest a concept that has served me well in my energy wanderings. The concept of "quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator zero point energy."
Every chemical bond vibrates, even at absolute zero. The energy content is related to a model of a spring (in my day we used a "slinky"). Big molecules have very low vibration modes, and thus are very stable. So cellulose is very low energy relative to fragmented pieces like methanol.
It takes a lot of energy to produce a fuel like methanol. That energy can come from solar.
I'm sure there are many fuels production technologies that can be considered. And there is more physics as critics will claim. But I believe this to be a core concept overlooked.Nathan Wilson said:
Wilmot, another way to look at the wind-to-fuel conversion is based on energy cost. There are 3413 BTUs/kWh, and a gallon of gas has 115,000 BTU. So if you buy electricity from a wind farm at 8 cents/kWh, then convert the energy to gasoline at 100% efficiency, that's $2.70 worth of electricity going into each gallon of gasoline equivalent.
Now factor in some realistic efficiencies (50%?), interest and depreciation on the plant (this part gets more expensive as the capacity factor goes down), and profit. Sounds like a recipe for prohibitively expensive fuel.
Hydrogen fuel cell cars were supposed to mitigate this by being twice as energy efficient as other chemically fueled cars. That day still appears far off. And there's still a problem that hydrogen currently costs much less when produced from natural gas than from wind.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Andrew,
Look to Congress and those lobbying it on this issue.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Wilmot,
I've reviewed a lot of projects in my career, and if anyone had ever showed me a fuel processing facility that only ran 30% of the time, I'd have sent them back to the drawing board. You can't just consider the energy side of this; you must also consider project economics. That means paying back your hardware costs in a reasonable interval. Unless you're making something extraordinarily valuable--perhaps your nanotubes--the normal way to do that is to run the kit as hard as you can, even without considering the larger storage you'd need to accumulate feedstock for intermittent operation. It would take some serious convincing to alter my view on this.
David Lewis said:
Thanks for your estimate of the cost.WilmotMcCutchen said:
Geoff, instead of supplementing wind with gas, to achieve full-time operation of cracking facilities, I would prefer wind alone, even though it has a small capacity factor due to intermittency. Fossil fuel creates more CO2 than it can crack. The aim is to put isolated wind assets to work on a job they can do, instead of continuing the Procrustean push to connect wind to the grid. Even if wind energy is available only 30% of the time at a cracking site, there would be no fuel cost and no emissions, and the CO2 cracking job could be scheduled for when wind is available. Efficiency is moot because there is no fuel cost and no competing use for the wind. Liquid CO2 would remain stored at the site until it could be cracked, so the load could adjust to the power supply, rather than vice versa. The hybrid power combination of wind and fossil fuels would allow for a gradual reduction of CO2 emissions and a gradual deployment of wind so that eventually most of the CO2 from stationary sources could be eliminated, and even turned from a waste product to a resource. Syntrolysis would be a place to start the clean energy economy of the future.AndrewRourke said:
The article mentions a move towards increasing the duration of the grant program. How does one go about influencing this change? What groups have the most influence on this topic? How long of a process is it? I am interested in knowing more about the program and who really makes these changes happen. Any information would be great.RickEngebretson said:
The book was titled (IIRC), "Direct Use of the Sun's Energy," by Farrington Daniels. They named a building after him at UW Madison. He also cited that the Atacama Desert in Chile had more energy production potential than all other conventional sources then in use.As for producing Hydrogen from wind, J.O.M. Bockris described that the only way to economically produce hydrogen was off peak nuclear. He had it down to the AWG wire and distance from the generator. Another top scientist for his day.
I am also aware of a separate analysis some years ago by a top physicist concluding the same. He got his Ph.D. from Birmingham, England studying coal but favored nuclear. I was able to get him to pass on solar fuels.
All the wire, hysteresis, towers, steel, concrete, solid state. Don't kid yourself about wind.
Geoffrey Styles said:
"We can't recover the energy of the support structure with wind electricity."
I'm not familiar with the referenced study, and I am not quite sure what the above means. If the implication is that wind has a negative energy return on energy invested, that's incorrect. Most estimates I've seen for wind show an EROEI of at least 10:1, which is better than many conventional sources.
RickEngebretson said:
IIRC, in 1961 Farrington Daniels published an analysis of wind economics. He proposed a structure that relied on ropes, much like a sail. We can't recover the energy of the support structure with wind electricity. So, in effect, by building these things we are contributing to use of standard energy resources.Has anybody read propeller engineering from the WWII era? The science and justification for the current effort is just not there.
We desperately need to develop a growing energy base of sustainable technology. But constructive innovation is very hard to find.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Wilmot,
Interesting idea but with a serious drawback. Who is going to invest in all that downstream hardware (electrolysis, synfuels, etc.) on the basis of running it just 30% of the time, on average? Utilization is critical for manufacturing NPV, and here wind's intermittency looks like every bit as much of an obstacle as for reliable delivery to the grid. You'd have to supplement either with dedicated natgas backup (effectively turning it into a weird hybrid form of gas-to-liquids via electricity--sounds hugely inefficient) or buy power from the grid for the 70% of the time wind doesn't generate. Either route looks like a very expensive path to liquids.
Geoffrey Styles said:
David,
The version of AWEA's report I received didn't include an average cost per MW installed. Ballpark would be around $2.5 million, excluding T&D, so the entire 10,000 MW would have cost about $25 B, 30% of which (federal ITC in lieu of PTC) would come to $7.5 B. That doesn't include any state subsidies/incentives or the effect of state Renewable Portfolio Standards, which provides another revenue stream in the form of payments for Renewable Energy Credits, but only when a facility generates power. It also doesn't include the new 30% Renewable Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit (MTC) provided under the stimulus bill. If AWEA's figure of $2.5 billion in facility investments since '07 is correct, that's up to another $0.75 B in subsidies, though at least all spent here.
Geoffrey Styles said:
Jesse,
You raise an excellent point. Innovation can't just be about capturing perpetual rent from the government; ultimately it has to deliver something that competes on its own merits.
WilmotMcCutchen said:
Thanks for another great post, Geoff. Wind needs to find another job, because intermittent and distant sources will continue having trouble getting connected to the grid. The reported cost of these wind projects, I assume, does not include the projected cost of transmission lines. Other than baseload generation, what else can wind do? It could electrolytically crack CO2 from coal and gas plants to CO and O2, and H2O to H2 and O2. CO + H2 are syngas, which can easily be processed to make vehicle fuel. So think of wind sites as oil wells. CO2 pipelines run into them, and synfuel runs out. Even elemental carbon in the form of nanotubes (more valuable than gold, 100 times stronger than steel, and near superconductive) might be made from CO2 by wind power. Wouldn't that be an incentive to invest in CO2 capture and disposal? See http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0200176.htmlDavid Lewis said:
I'm wondering how much capital was required to build this 10GW of nominal capacity. And the next question in my mind is what the total subsidy was. Is your figure, i.e. subsidies equal "nearly a third" of the capital cost something I can think of nationwide or would it vary a lot state to state? Does this approximately 1/3 "from government" exclude or include the effect of the programs that mandate that utilities obtain a percentage of their capacity with renewables in some states that amounts to a subsidy to the wind power owner from the utility and ratepayers as opposed to government?At least it doesn't sound like as much money per kWhr produced as solar PV or solar thermal.
JesseJenkins said:
"Second, how forcefully should the government be promoting wind power, which has developed into the most competitive and mainstream of our new energy sources? Fairly soon the focus should turn to how we might eventually wean wind power off subsidies, altogether, rather than continuing to accelerate them in a manner more appropriate to less well-developed, less-competitive energy sources."Indeed, the debate over the pending 2012 expiration/renewal of the wind production tax credit will pose just such a question. I hope it will provide a key opportunity to re-rationalize our clean energy deployment subsidies and market creation policies not simply to drive megawatts into the ground, but rather to drive continual, incremental price and performance improvements towards the point where ongoing subsidy is not required. That should be the end goal of our 'deployment' policies, which should probably be better thought of as a continuation of our clean energy innovation policies. Make clean energy cheap enough to compete w/neither permanent subsidy or high carbon prices. That's the aim if we either (a) want to tap global export markets in the developing world where the bulk of energy demand will be for affordable energy products and governments lack resources to impose costly carbon fees or subsidies for clean energy; and (b) want to get a handle on climate change, which will ultimately hinge on our ability to fuel rapid global development with zero-carbon power sources...
-
Baby You Can Drive My (Electric) Car
Posted May 11, 2012 by Scott Edward Anderson
-
Siemens develops ABS plastic alternative
Posted May 9, 2012 by Doris de Guzman
-
Reduce CO2 and Slow Global Warming?
Posted April 30, 2012 by Willem Post
-
WGC 2012 - 25th World Gas Conference
June 4, 2012, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
-
Ecwatech 2012
June 4, 2012, Moscow, Russia
-
Intersolar Europe
June 11, 2012, Munich, Germany
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Marc Gunther is a writer, speaker and consultant, who focuses on business and the environment. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Jesse Jenkins is the director of energy and climate policy at the Breakthrough Institute. More »
Robert Rapier works in the energy industry and writes and speaks about energy and the environment. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
Dan Yurman is a nuclear energy blogger and writes regularly for Fuel Cycle Week. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Marc Gunther
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Jesse Jenkins
- Lynne Kiesling
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Robert Rapier
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- John Whitehead
- Dan Yurman
Hidroenergia 2012
When: Wed, 2012-05-23 09:00
NERC CIP Compliance Training
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 08:00
Webinar on Transported Asset Protection Association’s (TAPA) Freight Security Requirements and Trucking Security Requirements
When: Thu, 2012-05-24 14:00
Global JOJOBAWORLD 2012
When: Fri, 2012-05-25 09:00
NESCO Town Hall: Security Risk Management Practices for Electric Utilities
When: Wed, 2012-05-30 13:00
Ecwatech 2012
When: Mon, 2012-06-04 09:00

About Social Media Today




