Posted by:

Willem Post

Posts Profile Comments

Please login or register to follow this user.

Energy From Wind Turbines Actually Less Than Estimated?

Like it?

comments

Posted January 10, 2013

Keywords: Electricity, Environmental Policy, Wind, Renewables, Subsidies, Germany energy policy, Ultra High Voltage Direct Current (UHVDC)

The capacity factors and useful service lives of industrial wind turbines are important determinants of levelized wind energy costs. Some recent studies have brought to light the capacity factors are less and useful service lives are shorter than typically used in spreadsheet-based analysis by IWT promoters to obtain bank financing and governmental approvals and sway the lay public, including legislators.

Lesser IWT Capacity Factors: Based on analyses of actual IWT production results, it appears the capacity factors of wind energy projects in many areas of the world are much less than estimated by project developers. As a result, the capital costs and environmental impacts of implementation would be much greater, because a greater capacity of wind turbines and transmission systems would be required to generate the same quantity of energy. See detailed explanation below.

Shorter IWT Useful Service Lives: in this article, a 20-year life is assumed, instead of the 25 years typically used by IWT project developers to obtain bank financing, federal and state subsidies and "Certificate of Public Good" approvals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/rethinking-winds-impact-on-emissions-and-cycling-costs/

http://docs.wind-watch.org/global-wind-resource-overestimated.pdf

NREL WIND ENERGY VISION

The US-DOE is envisioning the US having at least 20% of its energy from IWTs by 2050. Most of the wind turbines would be located in the Great Plains, where are the good to excellent winds. Currently, about 90% of wind turbine capacity, generating at least 95% of wind energy, is located west of Chicago.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratories, NRELs, have proposed multiple corridors with High Voltage Direct Current, HVDC, lines from the Great Plains to the East Coast, where the people are. Those lines have much less line losses than HVDC lines, and can be buried, or on pylons, as needed, to satisfy NIMBY concerns.

The implementation of at least 20% wind energy would have major impacts on the US electric power system and would require trillions of dollars.

Wind Energy Production and Transmission: About 90% of all wind turbines are west of Chicago. Transmitting their energy from the Great Plains to the East Coast via the envisioned seven (7) HVDC lines incurs energy losses. Below is a list of assumptions.

Average capacity factor, CF, of all wind turbines = 0.38

Loss due to gathering wind energy to AC lines = 1%

Loss due to step up to Great Plains AC voltage = 1%

Loss due to AC transmission to HVDC lines = 2%

Loss due to step up to HVDC voltage = 1%

Loss due to AC to DC conversion = 2%

Loss due to HVDC transmission to the East Coast = 5%

Loss due to DC to AC conversion = 2%

Loss due to step down to East Coast AC voltage = 1%

Loss due to transmission on East Coast = 3%

Loss due to distribution to users = 4%

As a result of the above losses, the net CF at the user’s meter is about 0.304.

Captal Cost of NREL Build-out: As the above NREL-envisioned IWT build-out proceeds to achieve 20% wind energy by 2052, and assuming a 20-year life, almost all of the existing 52,000 MW of IWTs would need to be replaced during 2012 - 2032, if economically/technically viable, plus the new IWTs built during 2012 - 2032 would need to be replaced during 2032 - 2052, etc.

Plant Level Costs: Assuming a life of 20 years, onshore capacity factor of 0.30 and offshore of 0.38, energy production growth at 0.9%/yr (due to electric vehicles?), a spreadsheet-based analysis shows, it would take about 425,000 MW of IWTs, onshore and offshore, to provide about 1,170 TWh in 2052, about 20% of the total US production in that year.

Grid Level Costs: As RE build-outs take place, more becomes known regarding grid level costs. The below OECD study quantified the levelized costs of the grid level effects of variable energy, such as wind and solar, on the grid. It includes back-up (adequacy), balancing, grid connection, grid reinforcement and extension.

In the US, at 10% annual wind energy on the grid, the cost for onshore IWTs is $16.30/MWh, at 30% it is 19.84/MWh. This is significantly greater than the about $5/MWh usually mentioned by IWT proponents. See page 8 of this URL.

http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2012/system-effects-exec-sum.pdf

The 40-year cost for new and replacement IWTs, back-up (adequacy), increased balancing and spinning capacity, grid connection, grid reinforcement and extension would be about $2 TRILLION, unsubsidized, with further annual capital costs after 2052 to maintain the 425,000 MW of IWTs as an on-going energy producer.

Economic Impact of NREL Build-out: The increased capital cost of IWT build-outs, IWT replacements, balancing plants and grid reorganization, and the impact of the lesser CFs and shorter lives would greatly increase the US levelized cost of energy. If US wind energy goals were increased to 30% or even 40%, levelized costs, and various other adverse impacts, would be proportionately greater.

Unless developing nations, i.e., China, India, Brazil, etc., handicap themselves in a similar manner (which appears unlikely, based on the outcome of COP-18 in Dohu, Qatar, in 2012), the US, with a low-growth economy and huge trade and budget deficits, would be at an even greater relative economic disadvantage than at present.

Add to that situation wind energy not being anywhere nearly as effective regarding CO2 emission reduction as increased energy efficiency, one may wonder if the Western World is on the right course regarding CO2 emission reduction.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/151031/global-warming-targets-and-capital-costs-germany-s-energiewende

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

Note: It is common practice among utilities to perform levelized cost analyses of energy systems. The annual cost of (Owning + O&M) is estimated and summed for, say 20 years, and the annual energy production, MWh, is estimated and summed for 20 years to obtain the 20-year average or levelized cost, $/MWh. Such analyses become more complex, if various financing aspects, subsidies, depreciation, renewable energy credits, aging factors and replacements of equipment, etc, are applied.

GERMANY's RENEWABLE ENERGY

Germany has set the ambitious goals of increasing renewable energy to 35 percent of total power consumption by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 while phasing out all of Germany's nuclear power plants by 2022. RE was 20.3% in 2011, 21.9% in 2012.

Germany, after it closed about 50% of its nuclear plant capacity, is rapidly building out CO2-emitting coal and gas plants to offset the loss of the CO2-free nuclear energy, and rapidly building out renewable energy facilities.

At the end of 2012, Germany had about 31,000 MW of IWTs producing about 7.3% of its total generation and 32,800 MW of PV solar systems producing about 4.6% of its total generation.

Transmission systems and balancing plant capacity to support these rapid build-outs were not built in time to prevent frequent grid instabilities that adversely affect industrial production.

As a result of the existing RE build-outs, Germany has the 2nd highest household electric rates in Europe, about 26 eurocent/kWh, including taxes, fees, surcharges, etc; Denmark has the highest at about 30 eurocent/kWh; France's are among the lowest.

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php?title=File:Half-yearly_electricity_and_gas_prices.png&filetimestamp=20130305151126

Germany's Wind Energy: Energy transmission facilities between North Germany and South Germany were not that important before the IWT build-out in North Germany and the PV solar system build-out in South Germany. As a result of these build-outs, there frequently is excess wind energy in the North and excess solar energy in the South.

Germany is planning to build HVDC lines from North Germany to South Germany. Because of NIMBY concerns, these lines are about 10 years overdue. There will be losses similar to the above NREL scheme.

Germany had been dumping its excess wind energy into the Polish grid, i.e., "unplanned energy flows", for some years AND NOT PAYING FOR THE BALANCING which cost Poland money AND destabilized its largely coal-based grid. Poland told Germany it would build a big switch unless it stopped.

They finally agreed: Two GERMAN grid operators, who were causing the problems, are paying for the transformers at the border; at least 15 million dollars. Poland, the innocent party, is paying nothing. Poland will be getting excess wind energy from Germany, only if and when it agrees and its system can take it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-22/germany-poland-sign-deal-to-boost-grid-security-power-trade.html

Germany exports a significant quantity of its variable wind energy (17.54 TWh during Jan-Oct 2012) at very low prices to the Netherlands, because it cannot use it on its own grid. Fortunately, the Netherlands has a large capacity of CCGTs and OCGTs for balancing it.

Germany already practices curtailment of wind energy production, but IWT owners, a politically well-connected group, have complained about losing revenues, and CCGT plant owners have complained about their reduced outputs, inefficiently produced, adversely affecting their plants' economic viability.

Germany's Solar Energy: About 22,000 MW of Germany’s 32,800 MW of PV solar systems (end 2012) are in South Germany. On a sunny summer day, from an output of about 0 MW at 6 AM, the PV solar output increases to about 16,000 MW at about noon, and back down to about 0 MW at 6 PM. As this would create major disturbances on the grid and, as PV solar panels cannot be turned off, Germany has to export part of the PV solar energy from about 10 AM to about 2 PM.

Germany has been exporting the excess PV solar energy to France and the Czech Republic at very low prices, after subsidizing it at 30 - 60 eurocent/kWh; France and Czech Republic net energy exports to Germany were 10.3 TWh and 4.8 TWh, respectively, during Jan-Oct 2012.

France has a significant hydro capacity for balancing part of the excess PV solar energy, but the Czech Republic is building a big switch. Any excess energy not wanted gets grounded!!!

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

http://theenergycollective.com/barrybrook/206306/can-household-solar-photovoltaics-provide-primary-source-low-emission-power

DANISH WIND ENERGY EXPORTS

Energy Flows: The Danish Wind Energy Association claims all wind energy is consumed in Denmark. That claim is invalid, according to NORPOOL grid energy flow analyses.

This study shows, during 2005 wind energy production was 18.7% of Danish demand, wind energy consumption in Denmark was 13.6% of demand, with the difference 5.1% exported, or 5.1/18.7 = 27% of the wind energy is exported. For 2006, the corresponding numbers were 17%, 10.3%, 6.7%, 6.7/17 = 39%.

http://docs.wind-watch.org/dk-analysis-wind.pdf

However, whereas energy is exported to the NORPOOL grid during strong-wind periods, energy, mostly from Norway’s hydro plants and Sweden’s hydro and nuclear plants, is imported from NORPOOL during other periods. During more windy years, Denmark may have a surplus energy trade balance, during less windy years, a deficit.

During strong-wind periods, traditional generation and its fuel consumption would show reductions, based on hourly or 15-minute records, if all wind energy stayed in Denmark. However, the Danish system cannot ramp up and down, i.e., lacks sufficient flexibility, to keep pace with all the wind energy variations, especially during strong-wind periods; the energy the Danish system cannot, or for various reasons, does not balance, is exported to NORPOOL; the hydro plants of Norway (98% hydro) and Sweden (53% hydro) perform most of the balancing function of NORPOOL.

As Denmark rapidly increases its future wind energy production to meet RE goals, the energy consumed within Denmark would not materially change, i.e., exports to NORPOOL and other grids would have to increase, unless Danish energy consumption is augmented by measures, such as adding electrically-heated hotwater storage tanks to district heating systems, charging several hundred thousand plug-in hybrids, increasing electric space heating, increasing supply management (reduce outputs of traditional generators, feathering turbine rotors) and demand management (varying hybrid vehicle charging rate, turning on/off selected demands of users), etc.

Money Flows: Energy flows have time-varying prices. As wind energy is generated mostly at night, it is likely, Denmark exports energy at low prices at night and imports at high prices during the day, which, depending on the quantities and prices, may yield a dollar deficit or surplus for a year.

CALIFORNIA's WIND AND SOLAR ENERGY

Sometimes California wind speeds suddenly decrease to near zero, or a cloud bank passes over solar arrays in the desert. The result is a rapid decrease in wind or solar energy that could cause instabilities and blackouts in the grid.

To prevent such instabilities and blackouts, quick-ramping OCGTs are kept in synchronous spinning mode (3,600 rpm), i.e., consuming fuel at about 6 to 8 percent of consumption at rated output, but not sending energy to the grid, to instantly make up for the missing energy.

Some generators, such as OCGTs and slower-ramping CCGTs, are started and stopped more frequently and/or operated in part-load-ramping mode 24/7/365 (instead of more steadily, near rated output), due to the variable, intermittent wind and solar energy.

The increased spinning, start/stop and part-load-ramping operations 24/7/365 have high Btus/kWh and high CO2 emissions/kWh. The extra fuel and extra emissions offset a significant part of what wind and solar energy was meant to reduce.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec/09/local/la-me-unreliable-power-20121210

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

AUSTRALIAN WIND ENERGY

A study was performed of the performance of the 21 IWT facilities on eastern Australian grid which is geographically, the largest, most widely dispersed, single interconnected grid in the world.

http://aefweb.info/data/Wind%20farming%20in%20SE%20Australia.pdf

http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/f1734hj8j458n4j7/

Whereas, the NRELs rely on subjective computer models to “predict” IWT wind energy production over large areas, this study (second URL, behind a paywall) relies on 5-minute, time-averaged, operational data. The results are grim, but not unexpected.

The study focuses on the year 2010, which was, apparently, not significantly different from other years. The study:

- uses an unusually low wind energy production standard of 2% of installed capacity for the Minimum Acceptable Level (MAL).

- relies on data provided by the grid operator that covers average power output over five minutes. Shorter time periods are preferable and instantaneous output is ideal.

For 2010, the combined output of all 21 IWT facilities failed to produce 2% of installed capacity 109 times. The longest period was for 70 minutes. One wind farm, described as typical, failed 559 times in the six months. The longest period was for 2.8 days.

Not only does the entire fleet fail frequently, but also it fails throughout the year. Clearly, such performance would be unacceptable for any traditional method of generating electrical power.

After analyzing the data, the authors stated wind energy cannot be used for base load, and that the installed capacity of required back-up must be at least 80% of IWT installed capacity.

In Eastern Australia the required back up is OCGTs which are far less efficient than CCGTs. As CCGTs are less quick-reacting than OCGTs, the latter need to operate in synchronous spinning mode 24/7/365 (using 6-8 % of their rated fuel consumption while sending no energy to the grid) to instantly provide energy when wind energy is ebbing.

WORLDWIDE WIND ENERGY CAPACITY FACTORS

Danish Offshore: Offshore turbines are located in very windy areas. Their capacity factors range from 0.235 to 0.484, with an average of 0.391.

http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms

CFs in Europe: This URL has detailed information regarding energy conditions, wind energy, CFs in Europe.

http://pfbach.dk/firma_pfb/statistical_survey_2012.pdf

Below are the averaged CFs in some widely-dispersed geographical areas for the 2006 - 2011 period.

http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/wind_5-yr_avg_cfs-1.pdf

Sample calculation: US wind energy CF in 2011 = 119,747 MWh/(46,919 MW, end 2011 + 40,180 MW, end 2010)/2 x 8,760 hr/yr) = 0.314; based on AVERAGE installed capacity. The US 6-yr average CF, similarly calculated, is 0.289; this is a more accurate value, as it evens out varying winds from year to year.

Germany, onshore 0.187; dismal, but rising due to offshore IWTs

Denmark, including offshore 0.251; rising due to offshore IWTs

The Netherlands 0.228

The US 0.289; a high value due to excellent winds in the Great Plains.

Texas 0.225

Ireland 0.283; Ireland and Scotland have the best winds in Europe. Spain 0.241

China 2009, 0.153; 2010, 0.152; 2011, 0.161; 2012, 0.166

Australia 0.300

UK, 2012 0.275; rising due to offshore IWTs

https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/load-factors/

http://www.windaction.org/documents/38237

NEW YORK AND NEW ENGLAND WIND ENERGY CAPACITY FACTORS

All US IWT owners connected to the grid have to report their quarterly outputs, MWh, to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. The data is posted on the FERC website, and, with some effort, can be deciphered.

https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/u-s-wind-capacity-factors-2011/

http://www.windaction.org/documents/38449

http://www.windaction.org/var/images/File/US-WINDmap(1).jpg

Here are the 2011 CFs of all wind turbine facilities in the US, as reported by wind turbine owners to FERC and the IEA/DOE.

The 2011 CFs of the NE states were: MA, 0.177; ME, 0.276; NH, 0.314; RI, 0.222; VT, 0.206.

The 2012 CFs of the NE states were: MA, N/A ; ME, 0.243; NH, N/A ; RI, N/A ; VT, 0.231

New York: 19 facilities; 2009, 0.189; 2010, 0.227; 2011, 0.236; 2012, 0.235

Pennsylvania: 17 facilities; 2011, 0.273

New Hampshire: Lempster Wind LLC; 24 MW; 66,092 MWh (2011); CF 0.314

Rhode Island: Portsmouth Wind Turbine; 1.5 MW; 2,912 MWh (2011); CF 0.222

Maine: Maine's plans to have 2,000 MW of IWTs by 2015 and 3,000 MW by 2020 may need to be reviewed, as energy production is well below expectations. About 400 MW was in operation at the end of 2012.

Production and CFs for 2011, as reported by IEA/DOE.

Mars Hill 42 MW 127,554 MWh CF 0.347

Kibby Mtn 132 MW 278,436 MWh CF 0.241

Stetson I 57 MW 154,348 MWh CF 0.309

Stetson II 26 MW 59,745 MWh CF 0.296

Beaver Ridge 4.5 MW 11,676 MWh CF 0.296

Fox Island 4.5 MW 11,098 MWh CF 0.282

Below are some numbers regarding the much less than expected results of the Maine ridge line IWTs for the 12-month periods indicated in the below table.

Oct 2011-Oct 2012 Dec 1011-Dec 2012

Mars Hill, 42 MW 0.353* 0.3613

Stetson I, 57 MW 0.254 0.2140

Stetson II, 26 MW 0.227 0.1837

Kibby Mtn, 132 MW 0.238 0.2278

Rollins, 60 MW 0.238 0.2408

Record Hill, 50.5 MW 0.197 0.2462

Weighed average 0.247 0.2427

*Uniquely favorable winds due to topography.

Example: The Maine weighted average CF = (42 MW x CF 0.353 + 57 x 0.254 + 26 x 0.227 + 132 x 0.238 + 60 x 0.238 + 50.5 x 0.197)/(42 + 57 + 26 + 132 + 60 + 50.5) = 0.247; excluding Mars Hill, the weighted average CF is 0.234.

Note: CF reduction due to aging is not yet a major factor, as all these IWTs were installed in the past 5 years.

http://www.coalitionforenergysolutions.org/maine_wind_thru_3q2012m1.pdf

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/maine-wind-sites-production-for-entire-year-2012

CAUSES OF CAPACITY FACTORS LESS THAN PROMISED

CFs less than promised are likely due to:

- Turbulent winds entering 373-ft diameter rotors varying in speed AND direction under all conditions; less turbulent in the Great Plains and offshore, more turbulent, if arriving from irregular upstream or hilly terrain.

- Turbine performance curves being based on idealized conditions, i.e., uniform wind vectors perpendicularly entering rotors; those curves are poor predictors of ACTUAL CFs.

- Wind testing towers using anemometers about 8 inch in diameter; an inadequate way to predict what a number of 373-ft diameter rotors on a 2,500 ft-high ridge line might do, i.e., the wind-tower-test-predicted CFs of 0.32 or better are likely too optimistic.

- Rotor-starting wind speeds being greater than IWT vendor brochure values, because of turbulent winds entering the rotors; for the 3 MW Lowell Mountain IWTs rotor-starting wind speed with undisturbed winds is about 7.5 mph, greater with turbulent winds.

- IWT self-use energy consumption up to about:

up to 4% for various IWT electrical needs during non-production hours; in New England, about 30% of the hours of the year (mostly during dawn and dusk hours, and most of the summer), due to wind speeds being too low or too high, and due to outages. This energy is drawn from the grid and treated as an expense by the owner, unless the utility provides it for free.

up to 8% for various IWT electrical needs during production hours; power factor correction, heating, dehumidifying, lighting, machinery operation, controls, etc.

Note: In case of the 63 MW Lowell Mountain, Vermont, ridge line IWT system, a $10.5 million synchronous-condenser system to correct power factors was required, by order of the grid operator ISO-NE, to minimize voltage variations that would have destabilized the local rural grid; self-use energy about 3% of production, reducing the IWT CF of about 0.25 or less, to about 0.2425 or less.

http://windfarmrealities.org/u-minn-and-vestas-reality-check/

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/53258/examples-wind-power-learn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_condenser

- CFs declining up to 1%/yr, based on UK and Denmark experience, due to aging IWTs having increased maintenance outages, just as a car.

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/day1_sessioniv_04_shermco_alewine.pdf

- Reduced production for various other reasons, such as:

* Curtailment due to the grid’s instability/capacity criteria being exceeded

* Curtailment due to excessive noise; nearby people need restful sleep for good health

* Curtailment due to excessive bat or bird kill

* Flow of an upwind turbine interfering with downwind turbine’s flow. As a general rule, the distance between IWTs:

- in the prevailing wind direction should be at least seven rotor diameters

- perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction should be at least three rotor diameters.

Note: In case of the 63 MW Lowell Mountain, Vermont, ridge line system, 21 IWTs, with 373-ft diameter rotors, are placed on about 3.5 miles of 2,500-ft high ridge line. Construction drawings indicate the spacing varies from about 740 ft to about 920 ft, or 1.96 to 2.47 rotor diameters.

New England ridge line directions are from SW to NE, as are the prevailing winds. Significant wind flow interference, increased noise, increased wear and tear, such as rotor bearing failures, and lesser CFs will be the result.

GMP opting for the greater diameter rotor, to increase the CF, worsened interference losses, i.e., likely no net CF increase, but an increase in lower frequency noises that are not measured with standard dBA testing.

http://www.wwindea.org/technology/ch02/en/2_4_1.html

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/construction/wider-spacing-leads-to-greater-farm-efficiency-says-cfd-study/

http://www.nrel.gov/wind/pdfs/day1_sessioniv_04_shermco_alewine.pdf

Note:

US bird kill = 1 bird/day x 39,000 IWTs x 365 days/yr = 14,235,000 birds/yr.

US bat kill = 2 bats/day, or 28,470,000 bats/yr, for a total of 42,705,000 animals/yr.

http://www.cfact.org/2013/03/18/wind-turbines-kill-up-to-39-million-birds-a-year/

Note: Irregular air flows to the rotor cause significant levels of unusual noises, mostly at night, that disturb nearby people. Details in this article.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses

The net effect of all factors shows up as real-world ridge line CFs of 0.25 or less, instead of the vendor- predicted 0.32 or greater, i.e., much less than estimated by IWT project developers to obtain financing and approvals.

Government Regulator Lack of Due Diligence: It appears regulators:

- Did not ask the right questions on their own (likely due to a lack of due diligence and knowledge of power systems), or

- Ignored/brushed aside the engineering professionals, who gave them testimony or advised them what to ask, or

- Received invalid/deceptive answers from subsidy-chasing IWT project developers and promoters, or

- Kowtowed to wind energy-favoring politicians allied with wind energy oligarchs, i.e., not hinder IWT build-outs, or

- Did all of the above.

The developers told Maine regulators their IWT projects would have CFs of 0.32 or greater, and 25-year lives, to more easily obtain bank financing, federal and state subsidies, and "Certificate of Public Good" approvals. Once they get approval, there is no accountability for poor performance. Meaningful players in the IWT smoke-and-mirrors game, including regulators, know this. All understand IWTs are about subsidy chasing and tax sheltering, not about efficient, high-quality energy production.

Because of subsidy-chasing by IWT project developers, and politicians wanting to be seen as doing something about climate change and global warming, the vetting process of proposed IWT projects by boards of political appointees is much compromised, which is creating distrust, resentment, anxiety and division among the lay public, and especially among the many thousands of people "living" nearby the IWTs, whose quality of life is greatly compromised.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/98061/irelands-wind-energy-export-plan

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/84293/wind-turbine-noise-and-air-pressure-pulses

VERMONT RIDGE LINE WIND ENERGY CAPACITY FACTORS

Bolton Valley Ski Resort

Since October 2009, the Bolton Valley Ski Resort has had a Vermont-made, 100 kW “community” wind turbine, project capital cost $800,000 (includes a $250,000 gift from the Clean Energy Development Fund); vendor-predicted energy production 300,000 kWh/yr, for a CF = 0.34; vendor-predicted estimated useful service life 20 years.

A recent check of the Bolton Valley website in January 2013 indicates actual energy production from October 2009 to-date (39 months or 3.25 yrs) was 509,447 kWh, for an actual CF = 509,447 kWh/(3.25 yr x 100 kW x 8,760 hr/yr) = 0.179, 47.4% less than the vendor-predicted CF of 0.34 to obtain VT-PSB approval. Like selling a car and telling the new owner it will do 34 mpg, whereas it actually does only 18 mpg. Also, an early red-flag indication of poor CFs on Vermont ridge lines that should have been heeded by the VT-PSB and VT-DPS.

Value of energy produced = (509,447 kWh x $0.125/kWh)/3.25 yr = $19,594/yr; if annual O&M and financing costs, amortized over 15 - 20 years, are subtracted, this value will likely be negative, i.e., a CEDF-subsidized, money-losing project.

Sheffield Mountain

Vermont Electric Cooperative, VEC, purchased energy from the Sheffield Wind LLC project (16 IWTs, each 2.5 MW = 40 MW) since it came on line in October 2011.

Under two Power Purchase Agreements, PPAs, VEC purchased 2 x 20,124 MWh in 2012, for a VEC-calculated CF = 0.23, less than the vendor-predicted CF of 0.32 or better, to obtain VT-PSB approval. In Mar 2013, CF = 0.249, a winter month.

Note: The Maine ridge line IWTs had a 2012 CF = 0.234; data source FERC website. See above.

VEC paid 10 c/kWh for the energy and received 5.5 c/kWh by selling Renewable Energy Credits, RECs, to out-of-state entities that should have reduced their CO2 emissions, but likely did not want IWTs to destroy their ridge lines.

Lowell Mountain

The Green Mountain Power 63 MW Lowell Mountain wind turbine facility with (21) 3 MW Danish, Vestas V-112 wind turbines, 367.5-ft (112 m) rotor diameter, 275.6-ft (84 m) hub height, total height (275.6 + 367.5/2) = 459.3 ft, stretched along about 3.5 miles on 2,600 ft high ridge lines, has nothing to do with community-scale wind, everything with industrial, utility-scale wind. The housings, 13 ft x 13 ft x 47 ft (3.9 m x 3.9 m x 14 m), on top of the 280-ft towers, are much larger than a Greyhound bus.

Gaz Metro of Quebec, Canada, owns GMP (and CVPS). It recently acquired Central Vermont Public Service Corporation. It now controls at least 70% of Vermont’s electrical energy market.

The GMP name for this facility is “Kingdom Community Wind”. GMP is using blatantly deceptive PR to soft-soap/deceive

Vermonters.

Exclusion Zone: The blasting, clearing, road building, and foundation areas of the Lowell project directly impacts 159 acres of land. The Lowell project land area includes a total of about 2,700 acres that remain undisturbed and acts as a buffer zone.

As wind turbines’ capacity, MW, increased from 500 KW to 3,000 kW, their environmental impact is much greater. About a 1.25 mile (2 km) distance from a residence is needed for IWTs 2 MW and up to minimize adverse:

- infrasound and low frequency noise impacts on nearby people, especially pregnant women and children.

- impacts on the ambiance, quality of life and property values of nearby residences.

Lowell would need an exclusion zone of (3.5 m + 2.5 m), length x 2.5 m, width x 640 acres/sq m = 8,125 acres.

Lowell and the Grid: GMP claims to be all about renewables, but it recently entered into an agreement with the Seabrook nuclear power plant to buy 60 MW of steady, near-CO2-free nuclear energy at 4.66 cents/kWh, much less than the cost of the HEAVILY-SUBSIDIZED Lowell wind energy, which is variable and intermittent energy, i.e., junk energy, and only partially CO2-free. To make the wind energy useful on the NEK grid, it requires:

- voltage regulation

- extra, quick-ramping/quick-starting, OCGT spinning plant capacity*

- extra OCGT/CCGT balancing plant capacity*

- grid modifications

* Because the annual wind energy percent on the NE grid is small, about 1%, the owners of existing generators do not yet “see” adverse impacts on their operations. As the percent increases, owners will “see” increasingly adverse impacts and will demand to be compensated, as happened on other grids with a greater percent, say 3-4 %, i.e., present owners are free-loading off other generator owners.

http://energy.worldconstructionindustrynetwork.com/news/green_mountain_power_selects_vestas_turbines_for_kingdom_community_wind_project_110607/

http://www.vestas.com/Files/Filer/EN/Brochures/Vestas_V_112_web_100309.pdf

Voltage Regulating Facility: Lowell wind energy varies with the cube of the wind speed; double the wind speed, eight times the energy. According to ISO-NE, because the variations of the wind energy voltage are too excessive for the NEK grid, a 27.5 MVAR voltage regulating facility needs to be installed by GMP. It will be located adjacent to the Jay Peak 46 kV Switching Station, housed in a 40’ x 68’ x 45’5” tall building, surrounded by 70’ x 90’ x 8’ tall fencing.

The voltage regulating is performed by a bank of synchronous-condenser systems*, consisting of motors operating at 3,600 rpm and at no load, 24/7/365 (high-speed idling, year-round), plus electrical systems to modify the variable wind energy by adding or subtracting reactive energy to satisfy below-criteria voltages on the 115 kV transmission system. The system will cost about $10.5 million and be operational by the end of 2013. During all of 2013, Lowell will be operated in curtailed mode.

S-C systems have energy losses of about 3%, i.e., 97% efficient, plus the facillity has its own levelized (Owning+O&M) costs which will adversely affect the project economics.

http://psb.vermont.gov/sites/psb/files/248j/2013/02.%20Petition.pdf

*Newly-developed systems are available from GE, Siemens, Vestas, that perform two functions: vary the pitch of the blades, based on wind velocity, as measured at the nacelle, to more-efficiently obtain energy from the wind, and, using partially-charged batteries that absorb and supply energy, to reduce voltages variations. The resulting processed outputs are collected from each IWT and fed, via a substation, into the grid. The likely net effect, claimed by Vendors, is an increased CF and less disturbance of the grid.

Capital Cost: GMP calculated the Lowell capital cost at about $160 million, plus about $10.5 million for a synchronous-condenser system, per ISO-NE requirements, to minimize voltage variations and instabilities of the Northeast Kingdom grid, for a total of about $170.5 million.

The above capital costs may not include transmission upgrades ($10,280,000) and substation upgrades ($3,160,000 or $17,420,000) of which Vermont Electric Cooperative will pay 41% and GMP 59%. See page 14 of URL.

http://psb.vermont.gov/sites/psb/files/docket/7628LowellWind/Testimony%20&%20Exhibits/VOLUME%201/03.%20Pughe/Exh.%20Pet.-CP-5%20GMP-VEC%20LOI.pdf

Production: GMP estimated the Lowell production at 63 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x CF 0.336 = 185,570 MWh; or 180,003 MWh, adjusted for 3% voltage regulation losses.

http://vermontspeed.com/project-status/

More Likely Energy Production: Based on 5 years of Maine ridge line production results, the Lowell CF is likely to be about 0.25 or less. More likely production = 63 MW x 8,760 hr/yr x 0.25 x 0.97 = 133,831 MWh/yr, or 134/5,800 x 100% = 2.3% of Vermont’s annual consumption.

Energy Cost: GMP calculated the levelized Lowell energy costs, based on a vendor-provided CF of 0.336 and a vendor-provided 25-year life, at 10 c/kWh, heavily-subsidized; it would 15 c/kWh, unsubsidized, per AEI/US-DOE.

More Likely Energy Cost: A percentage of the 10 c/kWh, say 40%, is due to the site preperation (land acquisition, blasting, road building, foundations, site runoff, connection to the grid, etc.) and the rest, 60%, is due the IWTs (mast, nacelle, rotor, etc.). Only the part associated with the wind turbines is affected by a lesser CF and a shorter life.

More likely energy cost = (0.60 x 10 c/kWh x CF ratio 0.336/0.25 x Life ratio 25/20 x S-C system 1/1.03) + (0.40 x 10 c/kWh) = 14.1 c/kWh, heavily-subsidized; it would be 21.2 c/kWh, unsubsidized, per AEI/US-DOE.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/61309/lowell-mountain-wind-turbine-facility-vermont

Note:

- NE grid prices have averaged about 5-6 c/kWh (there are occasional spikes, as shown by below ISO-NE data), have been at that level for about 3 years, are likely to stay there for some decades, as a result of abundant, domestic, low-cost, low-CO2-emitting natural gas.

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/new-england/elec-ne-rto-mth-pr.pdf

- Hydro Quebec and Vermont Yankee pricing is about 5.5-6 c/kWh, inflation and or grid price adjusted; 24/7/365, steady, near-CO2-free energy.

- GMP bought 60 MW of steady, near-CO2-free nuclear energy at 4.66 cents/kWh, inflation and or grid price adjusted. Smart move, now that Lowell has become a PR disaster and will likely be a financial fiasco as well.

CO2 Emission Reduction: GMP claimed 25-yr CO2 emission reduction, shown below, is based on 0.5 metric ton CO2/MWh, NE grid intensity, CF = 0.336 and 25 yr life.

Realistic 20-yr energy production, accounting for aging at 0.5%/yr, lesser CF of 0.25, shorter life of 20 years, 3% synchronous-condenser losses, is shown below.

Energy Production CO2 Emission Reduction

MWh metric ton

GMP 25-year Claim 4,639,250 2,319,625

Realistic 20-year 2,522,860 1,261,430

Less pre-production* 100,000

Net** 1,161,430

** Pre-production CO2 emissions are for mining, processing, manufacturing the wind turbines, excluding shipping, site preperation, erecting, interconnecting to the grid.

* Not adjusted for wind energy-induced grid inefficiencies, because New England annual wind energy is only 1%. At future greater annual wind energy percent on the NE grid, CO2 emission reduction effectiveness declines, as confirmed by a study of the Irish grid which shows at 17% annual wind energy, effectiveness is 0.526, which would reduce the net CO2 emission from 1,161,430 to 563,512 metric ton.

Conclusion: The GMP CO2 emission reduction claim is at least 1.997 higher than the more likely reduction. In the future, with 17% annual wind energy on the NE grid, that claim will be even more extravagant, i.e., at least 4.116 higher than the more likely reduction.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf

http://www.clepair.net/Udo201303payback.html

GMP’s Optimistic Assumptions: GMP used a vendor-predicted CF of 0.336, but that value is much greater than the average CF of 0.234 of six ridge line IWT facilities in Maine, based on FERC production data.

For comparison: New York State, 19 facilities 2009, 0.189; 2010, 0.227; 2011, 0.236; 2012, 0.235. See below URLs.

GMP used a vendor-predicted 25 year life, instead of a 20 year life.

GMP used optimistic vendor-predicted values to:

- obtain bank financing and federal and state subsidies

- obtain "Certificate of Public Good" approvals from the VT-PSB

- make Lowell look good on paper to befuddle the gullable lay public, including legislators

- polish its “greenness” in the eyes of the public

Failure to base approval decisions on realistic spreadsheet-based analyses is a malfeasance of a public trust, which has legal consequences.

Note: CFs were a closely guarded business secret, until it became known IWT owners have to report quarterly energy production to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC.

Based on the FERC data, the CFs on ridge lines are about 0.25 or less, instead of the 0.32 or better claimed, largely due to overestimating wind speeds and quality, aging of the IWTs and various outages and curtailments. See URLs.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/169521/wind-turbine-energy-capacity-less-estimated

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9770837/Wind-farm-turbines-wear-sooner-than-expected-says-study.html

GMP Made Whole, Others Pay: Whereas Lowell Mountain may have significantly greater levelized energy costs than the above 10c/kWh, this would not affect GMP's bottom line, as it would roll all its costs regarding Lowell Mountain mostly into its household rate schedules, subject to PSB approval, after pro forma hearings.

Because the business records of this heavily-subsidized project are "proprietary", it is likely, the lay public will never learn what the real costs were, and legislators do not dare investigate lest they be seen as less green.

VT-PSB AND LACK OF DUE DILIGENCE

The VT-PSB, VT-DPS, etc., likely knew CFs on Vermont ridge lines would be less than the vendor-predicted values (the evidence was on the FERC website, and they are on my email distribution list), but rooted for and/or approved the above three projects anyway, after pro forma hearings.

It should be obvious to the VT-PSB (it is supposed to serve/protect the public) and other government entities, whereas IWT project developers make claims of IWTs having:

- CFs of 0.32 or greater, this claim should be discounted to at most 0.25, based on real-world ridge line results in Maine and in Vermont.

- Useful service lives of 25 years, this claim should be discounted to at most 20 years, based on real-world useful service life results.

The spreadsheet levelized energy cost analyses prepared by IWT project developers, currently based on their dubious claims, should be revised to better reflect the real world, rather than an "Alice in Wonderland" world.

Failure to base approval decisions on real-world, spreadsheet-based analyses is, as a minimum, a lack of due diligence, or, if facts were known to the VT-DPS, as is the case with the Lowell Mountain and Sheffield Mountain approvals, a malfeasance of a public trust; both have legal consequences.

» Login or register now to comment!

Authored by:

Willem Post

Willem Post, BSME New Jersey Institute of Technology, MSME Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, MBA, University of Connecticut. P.E. Connecticut. Consulting Engineer and Project Manager. Performed feasibility studies, wrote master plans, evaluated and performed designs for incineration systems, air pollution control systems, utility and industrial power plants, and integrated energy systems ...

See complete profile

Would you like to contribute to this site? Get started »

» Already a member? Login now to comment!

» Not a member? Register to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

First, Willem gets it completely wrong on capacity factor of modern turbines:

- Wind Turbine Net Capacity Factor — 50% the New Normal? http://cleantechnica.com/2012/07/27/wind-turbine-net-capacity-factor-50-the-new-normal/

Second, capacity factor is really little more than a red herring. The viability of wind power is determined mainly by what each kWh costs. Onshore wind is now significantly cheaper than nukes, and cheaper than coal and gas in certain regions / countries.

- Unsubsidised renewable energy now cheaper than electricity from new-build coal and gas-fired power stations in Australia, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. http://about.bnef.com/2013/02/07/renewable-energy-now-cheaper-than-new-fossil-fuels-in-australia/

No matter how many uninformed ideologues post nonsens about "capacity factor", "intermittency", or "baseload", renewables keep on growing at an exponential rate, pushing fossils and nukes off the grid.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Willem Post says:

Davis,

The CFs in the article are mostly from 5-year-average, actual production statistics, MWh/yr, in various areas of the world.

Some offshore wind turbines in very windy areas, such as the English Channel and the Baltics, do have high, above 0.45, CFs, when new.

As offshore units age, they quickly experience wear and tear (harsh conditions), have more maintenance outages, and the CFs gradually decrease, as Denmark is experiencing.

You have good points, but bringing up ideology and making slurring, ad hominem comments detract from your message.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 16, 2013

wind smith says:

Last year Iowa got 24.5% of there power from wind in the state. Would be interesting to see how the Iowa utilities manage their grid. Their grid may be more interconnected than most. Based on wikipedia info the average capacity factor calculates to 31%. They have 5137mw wind operating. If all were running to max on a particular day with average load the percent contribution of wind would be 79%. Given the peaks and valleys of daily load, I would think that there are many hours were wind output is equal or greater than the Iowa only load. Iowa does export power so they handle the high wind days by exporting which would not affect the CF or they feather the turbines. Now if the whole MISO region was at 24.5%, balance and stability could be a problem. But because the MISO region is big enough to have varying weather, it could allow a much higher percent wind. The monthly output in 2012 varied from a high of 1490 Gwh in January to 643 Gwh in July. If a person really cared to dig into it and the info was not trade secrets, one could relate CF to age of turbines or other factors. I think the lower output in July could easily be made up with residential, farm and commercial ground and roof mount PV. If this raises the cost of power it will incentivise more efficiency, demand response, CHP, biogas etc. projects to lessen the need for CCGT or storage backup.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 16, 2013

Willem Post says:

Wind Smith,

Thank you for the intersting information. As you say, rural Iowa sends most of its wind energy to densely populated, industrialized Illinois, especially on windy days, as Illinois has a large enough grid and generators to balance the wind energy.

Denmark does the same with its wind energy. On windy days, it practices curtailment of onshore wind turbines and exports to Norway and Sweden which balance it with their hydro plants, and to Germany, if it can take it; this balancing and transmission has energy losses and costs money which are paid by the Danes. Sometimes, when reservoirs are full or near full, more feathering and less exports occur.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

You clearly did not read or did not understand the evidence put in front of you. Short version: modern turbines have much higher capacity factor than old ones, so looking at long-term averages is highly misleading.

Your claims re. Danish offshore turbines are just more of your usual nonsense.

- Capacity factors at Danish offshore wind farms. "...at Rønland I: the turbines have been operating for over 8 years now, with a lifetime capacity factor of 44.1%..." http://www.energynumbers.info/capacity-factors-at-danish-offshore-wind-farms

I suspect you know you are talking nonsense which is why you never offer evidence for most of your claims.

P.S. Pointing out that you are perpetually wrong and do not respond to science, facts and reality is not "ad hominem".

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Willem Post says:

Davis,

I had seen the site you mentioned. I wish the US would publish such good data.

It shows Ronland at 44.6 for 10 years, Horns Rev 1 at 41.2 for 10.2 years; both in very windy places.

These are "base-loaded" offshore turbines, i.e., not curtailed.

Onshore turbines in Denmark are often curtailed (I have been to Denmark many times, lived in Norway, the Netherlands and Germany; I have seen wind turbines) which results in Denmark having a low CF for its good wind conditions.

The real world does matter, because it imposes contraints, and historic numbers from the real world are relevant.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

So you admit your earlier claims were nonsense now that I have put an example of reality in front of you. Good to see you not ignoring it for a change.

Your anecdotal tales of where you have lived and visited are of no interest or value.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Willem Post says:

Davis,

"Your anecdotal tales of where you have lived and visited are of no interest or value."

They are to me, and enable me to write about IWT systems with more knowledge than most people.

I have added 2 paragraphs to my article to reflect your input.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

I suspect you don't know what anecdotal means. Your evidence-free claims about where you've been are nothing but pointless noise.

You clearly do not have more knowledge than people with expertise, nor most people who make an effort to learn the basics of this subject. Part of the reason for that is that you rely on highly unreliable sources like REF.org.uk, and wind-watch.org which are just anti-clean energy propaganda organisations.

As others have pointed out in the past, when the facts do not fit your ideology you ignore the facts.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Willem Post says:

Davis,

That is your opinion, but some other people who comment on this site hold a different view and appreciate my articles, and they are more polite when making their comments. In France: "the tone is what makes the music".

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

I wonder if it's possible you really cannot understand why "I went to Denmark" is utterly worthless in a debate about science, engineering, and economics?

You need to back up your arguments with data from credible sources - not your usual selection of blogs and stink tanks that are funded by dirty energy interests. Of course, if you did that then you would not be able to support your anti-clean energy agenda.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 1, 2013

Stan Ridley says:

Dear Willem;

Many thanks for doing the research and presenting the results on IWTs in such a clear & organized manner. The problems you clearly identify have been concerning me greatly in my engineering career. For decades I have found it very difficult to find/obtain real cost and operational/performance data, that one can rely on. Consequently, and based on experience, I generally discount any and all information from the IWT market/business.

Over the last 36 years I have worked as a Professional Engineer & company Executive of one of the world's largest and most efficient electric Utilities and one of the world’s largest engineering/EPC contracting companies, with large electric power & transmission projects in North America, South America, Asia, China and Africa.

Over the years, I have been involved in a number of IWT projects. However, the proponents of all of them have, in their studies and engineering and financial analyses, over estimated the Capacity Factors by 20% to 30%, over estimated the life of their IWT components, underestimated the Scheduled Outages & Forced Outages and O&M costs and/or underestimated the total “fully loaded” Capital Cost.

The result of adjusting these overly optimistic assumptions to more realistic values, in their financial models, was to immediately show that most of these projects were not economically viable by a large margin.

For example, in one case the Capacity Factor (CF), estimate by the Supplier/EPC contractor proposing the project to a large Client, was 35% and the total Capital Cost in the Model did not include the cost of the required interconnections, substation, protection & control equipment or the transmission, the Debt Reserve, O&M Reserve, Working Capital Reserve, Development Costs, Financing Costs or Interest During Construction.

My recommendation to the Client was a CF range of 20% to 25% (based on actual site investigation results) and after adjusting the CF and other above Inputs to the financial model, to more reasonable numbers, the commercial viability of the project "collapsed".

However, having said all of the above, I think that, as the reliability and efficiency of the IWT technology improves (it would be helpful to see reliable published actual and recent data for newer IWT facilities), we should continue to develop suitable wind power sites, tied into large electricity grids where the "Non-Firm" electricity from IWTs can be efficiently absorbed and distributed.

As you know, we on the Planet, do have a problem with ALL fossil fuel – fired generation (incl. Coal, “Fracked” Shale Gas, Oil & conventional Natural Gas etc. ~ in that order) and we will need all of the scientifically & economically reasonably and sensibly developable power/energy sources before we (hopefully) discover/develop a power/energy “Breakthrough” in the next 50 years?

My difficulty with the IWT industry is the lack of reliable reporting of real "fully loaded" Capital and O&M costs and real performance data. Your above article is a "breath of fresh air" in this "windy" and often obfuscated industry.

Regards,

Stan Ridley P.Eng, CEng, MICE.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 2, 2013

Willem Post says:

Stan,

We have about the same work experience. I have about 27 articles on this site.

I agree 100% with your testimonial.

IWTs in the Great Plains, Texas Panhandle, etc., with much wind, far from people, low construction costs, low O&M costs, are the best places.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

February 4, 2013

wind smith says:

Willem, the link for the study is below. Now I recognize that the organiztion behind the study may make you skeptical of it's objectivity but it seems complete even though the assumptions could be challanged.

thanks for your input.

Also you may be interested in GE's latest turbine - use smart planet link below.

http://www.nukefree.org/news/avianmortalityfromwindpower,fossil-fuel,andnuclearelectricity

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/ges-new-8216brilliant-wind-turbine-for-low-wind-sites/11754?tag=nl.e660

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

February 4, 2013

Willem Post says:

wind smith,

My experience is to not get numbers or opinions from pro-RE websites, which habitually misinform for self-serving/business development reasons.

Most people are bedazzled by smoke and mirrors, a la Madison Avenue, and are not able to distinguish the wheat from the the chaff, fact from fiction.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

Your circular logic protects you from uncomfortable truths. If a source communicates facts that support clean energy, you ignore it. If a source communicates claims that oppose clean energy, you blindly accpet it. A good example of which is your reliance on REF:

- The Renewable Energy Foundation is a front for biofuel and energy-intensive industries, and anti-wind campaigners. “All of the above represents clear evidence that the Renewable Energy Foundation has an industrial agenda aimed at skewing government policy in favour of the industries for which it is a front. Its pronouncements on renewable energy, jobs, and especially windpower, must therefore be taken with several pinches of salt.” http://www.eaem.co.uk/news/renewable-energy-foundation-front-biofuel-and-energy-intensive-industries-and-anti-wind-campaig

You could have discovered this yourself with the most obvious Google search. But you didn't because REF confirms what you *want* to be true. That's known as 'confirmation bias' and once again reveals you are not working from facts, science and reality.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 14, 2013

wind smith says:

Birds of prey, such as eagles and hawks, account for about one-third of deaths from wind turbines across the United States, said Don Gorney, a well-known Indianapolis birder and former president of the Amos W. Butler Audubon Society. Warbler species account for another third, he said, and all other species account for smaller proportions of deaths. Gorney believes wind farms are compatible with bird conservation if sensible guidelines are followed. Homoya, the Purdue researcher, agreed. "It's interesting to point out that (one) study found that in terms of gigawatt-hours of electricity produced, there are roughly 13 times more bird deaths associated with fossil fuel energy production than with wind farms."

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

February 3, 2013

Willem Post says:

wind smith,

13 times more? Source of your statement is?

Your statement is invalid. It compares apples and oranges.

Coal energy production in 2011 about 1,733 TWh

Wind energy production in 2011 about 120 TWh

The number of birds and bats killed will be much greater with 1,700 TWh of wind energy.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_03_01_b.html

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

The avian benefits of wind energy. "...wind farms ... are responsible each for between 0.3 and 0.4 fatalities per gigawatt-hour (GWh) of electricity while fossil fueled power stations are responsible for about 5.2 fatalities per GWh." http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960148112000857

“...if wind power supplied all of the country’s electricity, bird fatalities would still be dwarfed by the mortality figures for other types of structures: vehicles, 60 to 80 million; buildings, 98 to 980 million; power lines, up to 174 million; communication towers, 4 to 50 million (Erickson et al. 2001). Furthermore, the American Bird Conservancy estimates that feral and domestic outdoor cats probably kill on the order of hundreds of millions of birds per year (Case 2000).” http://www.defendersofwildlife.org/programs_and_policy/policy_and_legislation/energy/renewable_energy/wind_energy/detailed_recommendations.php

If you were a rational person you would ask yourself why you don't know these things given how much time you spend obsessing over energy. But you won't because your beliefs are not driven by facts. You are clearly driven by blind, anti-clean energy ideology. You only accept facts (and false claims) if they appear to work against renewables.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 16, 2013

Willem Post says:

Davis,

Note: bird or bat carcasses found near wind turbines, means many more were killed, but eaten by other animals, according to people who do such research.

I saw a video of bats flying near a wind turbine in upstate New York, being violently tossed around, falling to the ground. It was filmed with a night-vision camera.

http://www.voanews.com/content/wind-turbines-take-steep-toll-on-birds-and-bats/1524387.html

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Willem Post says:

Davis,

The world used to be teeming with wild life before about 1850; cats, domestic and wild, etc., were busy as they still are.

After that, it was downhill, as modernity took over, the bird and bat population shrank, and a human population explosion, on a consumption binge, occurred.

Highly-visible IWTs are just the latest manmade addition to the bird and bat killing.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 15, 2013

Davis Carson says:

More empty waffle and bluster from you in an attempt to ignore the science and facts put in front of you that expose your nonsense claims.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 14, 2013

Willem Post says:

Imklish,

If a US 450,000 MW IWT build-out occurs vs the existing 50,000 MW, would there be more bird deaths?

With about 265 million cars in the US, there are about 35,000 deaths, plus about 1,000,000 injured.

One can go on and on, and yet the world's people population will be increasing until the world chokes, but long before that the fauna, flora and environment will be further destroyed.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 14, 2013

wind smith says:

willem,

agreed, our population and lifestyle are putting way to much pressure on the natural world we love and depend on. Hard to know which direction to turn. Even efficiency seems to get far less attention than it deserves but most people and corporations seem to need ridiculously short payback times on projects even if they have billions of $ setting around. Thanks for your input on wind power - we need skeptics no matter what the plan or idea. I think the biggest question on any analysis like yours is knowing for certain the accuracy and quality of the inputs/data.

On another note I would like your reaction to the below article in "journal of Power Sources"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378775312014759

thanks

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 15, 2013

Willem Post says:

Imklisch,

In Germany, similar studies were done using hydro plants for storage.

A recent study by the Vermont Electric Cooperative, financed by DOE, concluded the cost of utility-scale, utility-standard, battery storage is 23 c/kWh; this added to the cost of production, say 10 c/kWh for subsidized ridge line wind energy; 15 c/kWh unsubsidized; plus utility mark up of 6-7 c/kWh, incl. fees, taxes, surcharges, to obtain the household price.

Norway, 98% of its energy from hydro, could be performing a storage/smoothing function for Germany, etc., but it would mean frequent and greater variations in reservoir water levels which causes increased shore erosion and more wear and tear of hydro plants. Hence, Norway will do it, but for a significant fee, because other ways of storing/smoothing variable energy are sooo expensive.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 14, 2013

Oscar Fleury says:

Mr Post wrote:

"Add to that situation wind energy not being anywhere nearly as effective regarding CO2 emission reduction as increased energy efficiency..."

" http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated "

From the first statement it occurs that wind energy CO2 emissions are understated.

From the second statement it occurs that wind energy CO2 emissions are overstated.

This kind of contradiction is inevitable in a complex system of lies designed to mutually consolidate false truths over time.

Hence, Mr Post would be well advised to acknowledge the well known fact that it is almost impossible to lie to everybody all the time...

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 16, 2013

Willem Post says:

Euroflycars,

"Add to that situation wind energy not being anywhere nearly as effective regarding CO2 emission reduction as increased energy efficiency..."

" http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated "

From the first statement it occurs that wind energy CO2 emissions are understated.

From the second statement it occurs that wind energy CO2 emissions are overstated.

My first statement avers IWT wind energy is not nearly as efficient regarding the cost of CO2 emission reduction as increased energy efficiency. Even the AWEA agrees with that statement.

My second statement avers wind energy promoters overstate the CO2 emission reduction of IWTs, as the article clearly implies. After you read the article, you will learn there are several studies based on 1/4-hour, 1/2-hour and 1-hr real-time grid operations data that show the mediocre efficiency of IWTs.

BTW, no process, even EE, is 100% efficient.

Your assertions of contradictions and lies are not valid. You should verify your assertions with energy systems analysts before making them. I have my work reviewed/commented on by such people, eventhough I have 40 years of experience in energy systems analysis.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 12, 2013

Randy Voges says:

Dovetailing with John and Willem's comments, it's important to distinguish between capacity resources and energy resources (I also alluded to this in Anna Leidreiter's post). Capacity resources are dispatched by the transmission system operator and must generate power within a defined range, and they face penalties for deviating from it. Energy resources (i.e., wind and solar) are not under this obligation; they put out whatever they can, although it's possible they may be curtailed in order to keep the system stable. In fact it's useful to think of energy resources not as generators, but rather as negative load. Anyway, because most of the generation is capacity, it isn't too difficult to accommodate the available energy resources. The more energy resources you have (the technical term is 'penetration level'), the more flexible the system has to be to maintain stability. The issue gets really challenging for an island grid (think Hawaii).

Would be nice for someone from an RTO (ERCOT, PJM, MISO, etc.) to expound on this further in a post; they could do it better than I could.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 16, 2013

Paul O says:

In this era of deficits and tight resources, should we be throwing so much money at wind farms? As I see it and have opined elsewhere, wind power is a very poor and il-adviced stand alone source/ replacement for carbon based generation of electricity. We should be pouring money into research for stand alone base load replacement for current carbon based power generation.

What really irks me is the way and (expensive) manner that variable energy (aka Capacity Resources) interests are being allowed to dominate the energy debate, without due dilligent questioning, how and why are they not required to publish their Quarter-hour grid operations data, when they are being funded by public funds?

It is also irkesome to witness the virulent response of Wind Energy adherents when someone points out the "Emperor Has No Clothes" flaws of wind energy. There is a near tangible religious fervor in the attitude by which casters of doubt on the suitability of wind power are being attacked.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 15, 2013

Willem Post says:

Aggie,

You are doing pretty good.

"The more energy resources you have (the technical term is 'penetration level'), the more flexible the system has to be to maintain stability."

The greater the variable, intermittent annual wind energy percent on the grid, the greater the need for quick-ramping generators (a.k.a. flexibility), usually a mix of OCGTs and CCGTs, to perform increased spinning, start/stop and part-load-ramping operations, all of which are inefficient, consume greater Btu/kWh and emit greater CO2 emissions/kWh, thus partially offsetting the fuel and CO2 emission reductions of wind energy.

The greater the wind energy percent, the greater the potential roiling of the grid, the greater the balancing efforts, the greater the offsets. At some point adding more wind energy, actually increases CO2 emissions.

Wind energy promoters say, with enough interconnection, the wind will blow somewhere to ensure some wind energy, and the variabilty will be reduced, i.e., build wind turbines everywhere there is wind and connect them all, to which I answer, with enough money, even pigs can be made to fly, leaving aside the environmental impact of it all.

Destroying the environment to reduce CO2 emissions? What about increased energy efficiency and zero-energy buildings and high mileage cars?

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/155681/co2-emissions-and-chevy-volt-vs-honda-civic-ex-l

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/46652/reducing-energy-use-houses

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/71771/energy-efficiency-first-renewables-later

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 11, 2013

Alan White says:

CF will only significantly change once the platform for wind is changed. big blade windmills are so 13th century and bigger is not getting any better. one aspect of the CO2 debate that gets lost is the amount of energy that it takes to produce all the components in a current 400 ft windmill. That energy is never recaptured or replaced with new energy from the unit being online.

Nw technology is on the horizon for wind and one that will make more power not kill birds and not make a whoosh noise. these will raise the CF to levels that they shoud be. to be profitable for everyone.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 10, 2013

Willem Post says:

Alan,

Your wishful thinking is admirable, but a next-technology wind energy device has not yet been invented. If and when someone does invent a technically/economically viable device, I'll be in favor of it.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

March 10, 2013

Alan White says:

William,

yes in fact it has been invented for I did it. Windshine electric generators are the next generation in power production from wind. I know you will like the design and just contact me at windshine.electric@gmail.com and I will let you know what is possible for the future.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 11, 2013

Michael Goggin says:

John, Willem, I don't expect DOE will be updating its wind capacity factor numbers from 33% because, despite your best efforts to cherry pick data, wind's capacity factor in the U.S. is actually 33% (page 41): http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/emp/reports/lbnl-5559e.pdf

Regarding the myth that wind doesn't produce the expected emissions savings, I'd kindly ask that you stop repeating this lie until you can explain the following DOE data that directly contradicts your claim. I posted this comment more than 6 months ago on another one of Willem's spam posts on this website, and to date he hasn't been able to offer any explanation for why the data directly contradicts his claim:

"Unfortunately for Mr. Post, repeating a myth does not make it true. Regular readers of EnergyCollective have probably seen a nearly identical posting from Mr. Post almost a dozen times already. In fact, since everything in this posting has already been debunked, I'll just copy and paste the previous debunkings below. However, I would be curious how Mr. Post would attempt to explain away this inconvenient truth, which conclusively tests and refutes his entire hypothesis:

The Department of Energy collects detailed data on the amount of fossil fuels consumed at power plants, as well as the amount of electricity produced by those power plants. By comparing how the efficiency of power plants has changed in states that have added significant amounts of wind energy against how it has changed in states that have not, one can test the hypothesis that wind energy is having a negative impact on the efficiency of fossil-fired power plants. The data clearly shows that there is no such relationship, and in fact states that use more wind energy have seen greater improvements in the efficiency of their fossil-fired power plants than states that use less wind energy. Specifically, coal plants in the 20 states that obtain the most electricity from wind saw their efficiency decline by only 1.00% between 2005 and 2010, versus 2.65% in the 30 other states. Increases in the efficiency at natural gas power plants were virtually identical in the top 20 wind states and the other states, at 1.89% and 2.03% improvements respectively. The conclusion that adding wind energy actually increases fossil plant efficiency makes intuitive sense, because adding wind energy to the grid displaces the output of the most expensive, and therefore least efficient, fossil-fired power plants first."

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 11, 2013

John Miller says:

Michaelgoggin, your analysis that shows adding variable wind power to state-wide power systems increases average fossil fuel power plant thermal efficiency appears to be questionable. Granted the EIA data may show increased efficiency of coal power plants in states that have significant amounts of wind power generation, but this factor may be ignoring the actual variables that affect power system efficiencies. Coal plants are primarily baseload (constant) capacity and are not directly affected by variable wind on an hour-to-hour or day-to-day basis. Natural gas intermediate-peaking plants are most affected. I am not sure what time frame you evaluated, but over the longer term (years) all fossil fuel power plant efficiencies routinely improve due to retiring older-inefficient power capacity, continuously improving in-service power plant equipment efficiencies and installing new state-of-art, high efficiency power generation capacity. Also, improved power grid controls (or smart grids) have further increased total and fossil fuels power generation efficiencies. Are you sure you have taken these factors into account when arriving at you comment that “adding wind energy actually increases fossil plant efficiency and makes intuitive sense”?

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

May 13, 2013

Willem Post says:

John,

Priceless!

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 11, 2013

Willem Post says:

Mike,

Wind energy production in 2011 = 119,747 GWh

Installed IWTs = 46,919 MW

CF in 2011 = 119,747/(46,919, end 2011 + 40,180, end 2010)/2 x 8,760) = 0.314; I used AVERAGE installed capacity.

5-yr average CF, similarly calculated, = 0.289; this is a more accurate value, as it evens out varying winds from year to year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States

It is necessary to use 1/4-hour ACTUAL grid operating data, as published by EirGrid, to more accurately calculate CO2 emissions reductions.

The US-DOE uses ESTIMATES, based on energy production and applying various factors.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 11, 2013

Michael Goggin says:

Thanks Willem, now I understand why your math is wrong. The majority of wind plants finish construction and become operational near the end of the year, so simply averaging the MW capacity at the start and end of the year significantly overstates the MW that were actually online on average over that year. That explains why your capacity factors are lower than the real DOE/LBNL data.

DOE's data are based on actual fuel use at power plants, so your claim that they use estimates for fuel use data is simply false. http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia923/

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

February 8, 2013

Willem Post says:

Mike,

Using your method, i.e., shifting "all new-built" to the last quarter, I calculate a CF = 119,747/{40,180*3/4 + (46,919-40,180)*1/4)/8,760} = 0.33, which agrees with your value.

As more and more IWT build-outs occur, they will likely be on sites less and less windy and lesser CFs.

My above comment shows:

"The US-DOE uses ESTIMATES, based on energy production and applying various factors."

I did not use the words "fuel use data". Fuel is measured at each generator, but not reported to grid operators.

IEA/US-DOE uses the energy production of each month, MWh, for each grid, which is broken down by fuel type, obtained from the grid operator.

The grid operator records show the fuel type, when a generator comes on line, energy produced by time interval, say 15 minutes, and when it goes off line.

The grid operator has the characteristics of each generator and can calculate how much fuel is used by each generator and how much CO2 is produced. This is exactly how EirGrid calculates its CO2 emission intensity, g/kWh, of the Irish grid. See Below.

The following is a direct quote from the EirGrid website:

“EirGrid, with the support of the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland, has developed together the following methodology for calculating CO2 Emissions.

The rate of carbon emissions is calculated in real time by using the generators MW output, the individual heat rate curves for each power station and the calorific values for each type of fuel used.

The heat rate curves are used to determine the efficiency at which a generator burns fuel at any given time.

The fuel calorific values are then used to calculate the rate of carbon emissions for the fuel being burned by the generator“

But there are other factors which EirGrid does not take into account.

How EirGrid Understates CO2 Emissions/kWh: The 1/4-hour reported CO2 emissions/kWh are understated, as Eirgrid does not account for the extra fuel/kWh and CO2 emissions/kWh due to:

- Increased spinning plant operations; fuel and self-use energy is consumed, no output to the grid

- Increased start/stop operations; fuel and self-use energy is consumed, minimal output to the grid

- Increased part-load-ramping operations with wind energy than without.

- less than optimum economic scheduling of generating units with wind energy than without.

- increased line losses to gather the distributed wind energy from wind turbines.

- self-use energy drawn from the grid by the wind turbines during low/no-wind periods.

If EirGrid had accounted for all of the above items, wind energy's CO2 reduction effectiveness would have been significantly LESS than the Dr. Fred Udo-calculated 70.6% using the reported 1/4-hour EirGrid data.

The below, recent, Joe Wheatly study, an Irish energy systems engineer, using the more accurate SEMO data of the Irish power system, does take SOME of the above factors into account; he confirmed this in an email to me.

His study result is a 53% wind energy CO2 reduction effectiveness at 17% annual wind energy on the Irish grid, which is similar to the Netherlands grid and the New England grid; each has a significant component of gas turbines. At 20% annual wind energy, the 53% would be less.

Slowly but surely the real world facts are being revealed.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/64492/wind-energy-reduces-co2-emissions-few-percent

http://www.clepair.net/IerlandUdo.html

http://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf

http://www.clepair.net/windSchiphol.html

http://www.clepair.net/Udo-okt-e.html

http://www.clepair.net/Udo-curtail201205.html

http://www.clepair.net/statlineanalyse201208.html

http://docs.wind-watch.org/Wheatley-Ireland-CO2.pdf

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 10, 2013

Randy Voges says:

Willem,

On a related note (and speaking of Vermont) have you seen this?

Things are getting interesting in California, too.

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 10, 2013

John Miller says:

AE, despite California’s apparent leadership in all things environmental such as wind power, they still appear to import about 20% of their electric power from adjacent State’s (Re. EIA data) and pay about 25% more for average retail electric power than the U.S. average (Additional EIA data).

John Miller

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 10, 2013

John Miller says:

Willem, just a few years ago the DOE was using a standard estimate of 38% for onshore average wind power capacity factors. The DOE reduced their estimate to 33% more recently. Your data clearly shows this estimate needs to be further reduced in the near future. A couple years ago a business contact in Texas indicated the local Utility companies typically budgeted-planned for annual average wind capacity factors of about 20% (vs. your actual of 22.5%). These relatively low capacity factors were likely contributing issues to why T. Boone Pickens abandoned/sold his ‘American Wind Alliance’ investments in Texas and Minnesota large farm projects over the past couple years.

Another factor often not discussed related to wind power unpredictable-variable performance is the impact on affected Utility companies peaking power generation thermal efficiency performance. If wind power is allow to uncontrollably supply a local power grid, sufficient natural gas peaking power must be on-line and idled-hot standby to quickly stabilize power grids when wind farm power supplies decrease or drop off line and local power grid voltages drop. This operation directionally makes natural gas peaking power plants less efficient (more fuel consumption per KWH) and/or requires feathering-idling wind turbines to reduce their output in order to reasonably stabilize local grids; which contribute to lower capacity factors.

Another factor not well communicated to the general public is why wind (or solar) power costs are at least 20% greater than coal, natural gas and nuclear on average even though the wind (and sun) energy is free. As you are aware, the 25% +/- capacity factor you have identified for wind power means that over 3-times the total power generation capacity must be installed vs. coal/natural gas baseload plants that typically have capacity factors greater than 85%. This makes the capital costs of renewable wind (or solar) for a given power generation-delivered capacity significantly greater than fossil fuels. Even with the added fossil fuels costs, wind power apparently cannot compete without perpetual 2.2 cent/KWH subsidies (adjusted for inflation) and additional tax credits in the future.

John Miller

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Like it?

January 11, 2013

Willem Post says:

John,

Great comments. I fully agree and will make some additions to the text.

The main topic is capacity factors and useful service lives being not anywhere near what is touted by AWEA, et al, largely due to the reasons state in my article. I verified these reasons with an engineer working for a Vermont solar and wind company.

In addition, CO2 emission reduction due to wind energy is not anywhere near AWEA touted values.

http://theenergycollective.com/willem-post/89476/wind-energy-co2-emissions-are-overstated

Share this comment: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

» Login or register now to comment!

Please note: Your first comment as a registered user will be held for moderation up to 24 hours (usually less). For more information about comments on our site, please read our FAQ and terms of use.