I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN!!!

[Atash Hagmahani]

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1029

I knew this would happen! I said to myself, "gee, those gargantuan windmills look expensive. I bet it will cost a lot of money to maintain them. Plus, Europe has windstorms (during which they have to shut them down) and other hazards." I was particularly concerned that they were trying to plug them into big grids--that actually makes the problem worse.

All of the magic bullet solutions are failing. Deal with reality.

Wind has been the cornerstone of almost all environmentalist and social engineering proclamations for more than three decades and has accelerated to a crescendo the last few years in both the United States and the European Union.

But Europe, getting a head start, has had to cope with the reality borne by experience and it is a pretty ugly picture.

Independent reports have consistently revealed an industry plagued by high construction and maintenance costs, highly volatile reliability and a voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies. Such is the economic strain on taxpayer funds being poured into wind power by Europe's early pioneers -- Denmark, Germany and Spain – that all have recently been forced to scale back their investments.
...
But wind infrastructure has come at a steep price. In fiscal year 2007-08 U.K. electricity customers were forced to pay a total of over $1 billion to the owners of wind turbines. That figure is due to rise to over $6 billion a year by 2020 given the government's unprecedented plan to build a nationwide infrastructure with some 25 gigawatts of wind capacity, in a bid to shift away from fossil fuel use.

Ofgem, which regulates the U.K.'s electricity and gas markets, has already expressed its concern at the burgeoning tab being picked up by the British taxpayer which, they claim, is “grossly distorting the market” while hiding the real cost of wind power. In the past year alone, prices for electricity and natural gas in the U.K. have risen twice as fast as the European Union average according to figures released in November by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 15 percent energy price rises were experienced across the E.U., in the U.K. gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7 percent. Ofgem believes wind subsidy has been a prime factor and questions the logic when, for all the public investment, wind produces a mere 1.3 percent of the U.K.'s energy needs.

In May 2008, a report from Cambridge Energy Research Associates warned that an over-reliance on offshore wind farms to meet European renewable energy targets would further create supply problems and drive up investor costs. No taxpayer respite there. But worse news was to come.

In June, the most in-depth independent assessment yet of Britain's expanding wind turbine industry was published. In the journal Energy Policy gas turbine expert Jim Oswald and his co-authors, came up with a series of damning conclusions: not only is wind power far more expensive and unreliable than previously thought, it cannot avoid using high levels of natural gas, which not only it will increase costs but in turn will mean far less of a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions than has been claimed.

Oswald's report highlights the key issue of load factor, the actual power generated compared to the theoretical maximum, and how critical it is to the viability of the wind power industry. In 2006, according to U.K. government statistics, the average load factor for wind turbines across the U.K. was 27.4 percent. Thus a typical 2 megawatt turbine actually produced only 0.54 MW of power on an average day. The worst performing U.K. turbine had a load factor of just 7 percent. These figures reflect a poor return on investment. But this poor return is often obscured by the subsidy system that allows turbine operators and supporters to claim they can make a profit even when turbines operate at a very low load factors. So what’s the bottom line? British consumers are paying twice over for their electricity, funding its means of production and paying for its use as end users.

Variability is one of the chief criticisms levelled at wind power. When the wind drops or blows too hard, turbines stop spinning and you get no power. Wind turbine advocates have claimed that this can be avoided by the geographical spread of wind farms, perhaps by creating an international “supergrid.” But, as Oswald's report makes clear, calm conditions not only prevail on a fairly regular basis, they often extend across the country with the same conditions being experienced as far away as France and Germany. Worse still, says Oswald, long periods of calm over recent decades occurred in the dead of winter when electricity demand is highest.

Periods of low wind means a need for pumped storage and essential back-up facilities. Oswald told The Register online news service that a realistically feasible U.K. pumped-storage base would only cope with one or two days of low winds at best. As regards back-up facilities, Oswald states the only feasible systems for the planned 25 gigawatt wind system would be one that relied equally on old-style natural gas turbines. As Oswald says however, the expense of a threefold wind, pump storage and gas turbine back-up solution "would be ridiculous."

The problems don’t end there. The British report highlights what more and more wind farms would mean when it came to installing gas turbine back-ups. "Electricity operators will respond by installing lower-cost plant ($/kW) as high capital plant is not justified under low utilisation regimes."

But cheap gas turbines are far less efficient than big, properly sized base-load turbines and will not be as resilient in coping with the heavy load cycling they would experience. Cheaper, less resilient plants will mean high maintenance costs and spare back-up gas turbines to replace broken ones that would suffer regular thermal stress cracking. And of course, the increasing use of gas for the turbines would have a detrimental effect on reducing carbon dioxide emission – always one of the chief factors behind the wind revolution.

Oswald's report concludes also that the all this wear and tear will further stress the gas pipeline network and gas storage system. "High-efficiency base load plant is not designed or developed for load cycling," says Oswald. Critically, most of the issues raised in the independent report have not been factored into the cost of wind calculations. With typical British understatement, Oswald concludes that claims for wind power are "unduly optimistic."

[Mike]

In Texas, windmill operators sometimes pay the grid to take their electricity.  Why?  Production Tax Credit  & Renewable Energy Tax Credit.

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2008/11/wind-farming/comments/page/3/

In the first half of 2008, [electricity] prices were below zero nearly 20 percent of the time...During these negative price periods, suppliers are paying ERCOT to take their power....the negative prices appear to be the result of the large installed capacity of wind generation. Wind generators face very small costs of shutting down and starting back up, but they do face another cost when shutting down: loss of the Production Tax Credit and state Renewable Energy Credit revenue which depend upon generator output. It is economically rational for wind power producers to operate as long as the subsidy exceeds their operating costs plus the negative price they have to pay the market. Even if the market value of the power is zero or negative, the subsidies encourage wind power producers to keep churning the megawatts out....You could, as a correspondent put it to me, build a giant toaster in West Texas and be paid by generators to operate it.

[Dame]

Has anyone calculated the environmental cost of manufacturing the hardware for all these multiple back-up systems.  At some point I would think the construction materials used in these facilities would have to be thermselves produced and that this capital asset production is likely to generate some pretty nasty resourse utilization and carbon itself.

[offdalip]

storage technology would take care of all that. problem is that there are really only two: battery or potential energy storage.
battery tech does not exist at that scale. potential energy involves alot of work to build the infrastructure but would work. You would build reservoirs
in a higher elevation and pump water up the potential energy gravity well from the grid during "on" hours. then in "off" hours let the water flowing down the potential energy gravity well
power some hydroelectric generators

[The Future]

Take the origial write up with a pinch of salt.  If it were written by someone with nothing to lose or gain it might carry some weight.  But coming from a party who makes a living selling gas turbines, it is dubious material.  To be clear, I have worked in the power utility industry for a long time.  There is a fight going on for other people's money (OPP).  In Europe the politicians have seen fit to fleece established utilities by legislating rates for renewables that are unheard of for any other electricity provider.  This has the effect of transferring huge wealth from non-renewables to renewable firms.

The gas turbine crowd is not at all happy about this and are - excuse the pun - powerless to do anything about it.  What is the utilization rate of their equipment?  That wind is intermittent should be patently obvious.  A combination of technologies - wind, solar, geothermal, plant based ethanol etc. - could provide a sustainable mix, but wind on its own is a dumb idea. 

The cycling of existing equipment is also a fraud.  A scare tactic used by existing players.    As for storage tech, I agree this is the breakthrough needed to make these things viable.  There was a massive plan proposed inthe US for air compressor storage - cover of a Scientific American magazine.  I question some of the numbers used but it was at least something other than battery power.

Truth be told is is our monstrous consumption and the ease with which we access it that is the problem.  If people could only appreciate what goes in to what they consume with the flick of a switch!

The best thing that can be done to go green is go vegetarian.  Hands down that has thew biggest impact on this planet. 

I say feed everybody first.  Then used what space is left to grow energy crops (including seaweed that happens to clean up AND re-oxygenate the ocean)  Use the last drops of oil left to create wind, PV and other tech.  The idea that we should have an electricity grid that is effectively like a UPS is so out of touch with where the world's resources are.  Starting with the answer and working back to the question is always problematic...

[Dame]

Feeding everybody first would require a great deal more actual labour imputs from persons not currently contributing to the effort.  I am not sure about vegetarian as when dealing with soil renewal, once again there is the energy imput required to do it without using animals, particularly herbivors, and once there are domestic or even wild herbavors then the population needs to be controled.  See the problems with the herbivor competition for my garden, which hunting and dogs (not vegetarian) currently manages.

[Atash Hagmahani]

Dame:

Humans are animals. No additional lifestock is needed to create a nutrient-cycle.

Eat any herbivores that eat the crops.

That is how about 90% of the world lives. 

[Publius]

A couple of disjointed thoughts.

Storage medium: Of course we have batteries, and compressed air. We also have pumped water to a higher elevtion and releasing it when needed. There also flywheel storage devices. With proper R/D efficiencies can exceed batteries. Phase change solids. I won't go into the physics of say how much energy it takes to turn 32 F ICE into 32 F water, but it's a lot. Other materials are better suited to this, but do some research. (Glauber's Salt)

Oil replacement: One alternate will NOT do it, it takes a combination of several, but there is one that can go along way, but it is still experimental. (Actually more than one) Algae derived oils. You could grow it on non arable land (Desert) in sufficient quantities to replace ALL diesel fuel, and #2 Heating oil. (Dirty diesel) Need to work out kinks, but doable. This can be done by sequestering HUGE amounts of CO2.

The other possible ways are to genetically modify say an E. Coli bacteria to secret gasoline directly. This is my favorite to come out on top of the Algae oils. http://www.valcent.net/s/Ecotech.asp?ReportID=182039

These guys are working on the other.
http://www.amyrisbiotech.com/
http://www.ls9.com/
http://sapphireenergy.com/

If this technology delivers as promised then cool. http://cleantechnica.com/2008/08/14/hyperion-power-generation-announces-first-customer-letter-of-intent/ Toshiba is doing something similar.

[offdalip]

Yeah, I've studied all the methods.

Obviously every single one derives energy ultimately from the sun. Even fossil fuels were derived from sun energy.

so the trick is the conversion efficiency of solar, whether it be derived from wind ( yes the sun drives wind gradients ), petro-algae, or photovoltaic to useful energy. As well as how to store this for off peak hours.

I think the future will have to be, by default, micro-grids of energy "on demand" instead of huge infrastructures that are always "on".

[mantis308]

Futurist Raymond Kurzweil believes that within the next 15-20 years there will be an energy shift from centralized to decentralized power production, where each home and business will generate it's out energy via extremely efficient PV units that are 1/10th or less the current size.

[Publius]

Yeah, I've studied all the methods.

Obviously every single one derives energy ultimately from the sun. Even fossil fuels were derived from sun energy.

so the trick is the conversion efficiency of solar, whether it be derived from wind ( yes the sun drives wind gradients ), petro-algae, or photovoltaic to useful energy. As well as how to store this for off peak hours.

I think the future will have to be, by default, micro-grids of energy "on demand" instead of huge infrastructures that are always "on".

Well said and so true. Coal, Oil and Natural Gas is that bank from millions of years of saving, but now we withdraw more and more. One day no more. Amory B. Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute has coined the term negawatts. http://www.rmi.org/ Watts that are not consumed as the most efficient way of saving energy. I agree too. I live on an Army post and I drive a vehicle that gets 15 mpg on the hiway. (I know bad boy) My tank of gas lasts near two weeks. Why because I drive three miles to work each way. I do this five times a day. I go do PT and come home, I go to work and come home for lunch and I come home after work. I also go to appointments, so living close is great. My wife has a car and she goes to the grocery (Commissary) two miles away. She does go to Wal-Mart about once a week and it's six miles away and rarely to Savannah which is 35 miles away. Her tank lasts longer than two weeks.

If I had an electric vehicle, I could recharge at no cost to me. I don't pay for electricity, so this would be real cool.

On this note Nuclear doesn't rely on the sun shining, maybe we go to those miniature nukes as posted earlier, spread out all over?

Another thought occurred to me and that is Enhanced Geothermal Systems. (EGS) They don't need the "hot" areas like conventional plants. Too quote.

"The well—named DP 27-15—is the first commercial application in the United States of a new technology known as enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS, which experts say could one day produce 10 percent of the nation's electricity.

Unlike conventional geothermal power, which has been limited to areas with stores of hot groundwater, EGS power plants create their own geothermal reservoirs by pumping water to hot, dry rocks located tens of thousands of feet under the surface. If successful, EGS projects such as the one in Nevada could vastly expand the geothermal power map—so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that another groundbreaking mapmaker has stepped in to help. Google.org announced last week that it will donate $10 million to develop deep-drilling techniques and other necessary technologies." http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4279680.html

My dad is always harping about Return On Investment (ROI) with energy projects, but I argue and say payback can be sooner if the cost of energy goes up quickly. He now is seeing my point of view. Besides that the peace of mind of independence can't be calculated in dollars. Of course most people look at his way, or else they wouldn't stay connected to the grid. Even those of us who think outside this particular box can't always afford to get off the grid. It may be forced on us sooner or later though.

[offdalip]

yeah, I didn't think of nuclear or geothermal , but yes they are renewable albiet specialized niches where you have to live near a particular area or make a huge investment.

My dad is always harping about Return On Investment (ROI) with energy projects, but I argue and say payback can be sooner if the cost of energy goes up quickly. He now is seeing my point of view. Besides that the peace of mind of independence can't be calculated in dollars. Of course most people look at his way, or else they wouldn't stay connected to the grid. Even those of us who think outside this particular box can't always afford to get off the grid. It may be forced on us sooner or later though

So true, I'm close to having our property off grid now. And it really is not about the money. It is about knowing you have power after whatever disruption rolls thru. In the meantime, I pay less to the utility.

[Atash Hagmahani]

My dad is always harping about Return On Investment (ROI) with energy projects, but I argue and say payback can be sooner if the cost of energy goes up quickly.

It's true that energy costs will go up. Unfortunately, so will the costs of repairs and maintenance. So keep all projects simple and easy. Also, pick the best alternative energy sources for your situation. In my part of the world, it would be microhydo, which has a lot of advantages...for example it is self-storing insofar as you could simply shut off the flow when you don't need the electricity, subject to your own drainage needs! One problem with it is that hydro is regulated.

Passive solar heating is pretty cost-effective. More a matter of design than buying a bunch of extra material. In most parts of the USA, but not mine, it will supply most or all of heating needs--even into New England. My part of the world too cloudy.

[The Future]

My dad is always harping about Return On Investment (ROI) with energy projects, but I argue and say payback can be sooner if the cost of energy goes up quickly.

I dunno bout this line of thinking.  I mean, imagine for a second that we are back (or is it forward?) to bartering.  How would you measure the ROI of an energy project?  I say financial measures are far to fickle to rely on.  Physics is governed by unchanging laws and if you want to measure anything, you need a reference point.  If you can pick a reference point that is unchanging, you are onto a winner....

[I trust you are fully aware that "prices going up" is just another way to say someone with an air of legitimacy created more money out of thin air and issued it for free to their buddies thus diluting the value of existing monies such that...prices had to go up.  Meanwhile 1 Watt still = 1 Watt.]

[offdalip]

How would you measure the ROI of an energy project? 

I think in our current environment most people measure these kinds of projects as ROI ( R$eturn On I$nvestment ); Whereas a better
measure in the future may be ROE ( Return On Energy ) ; especially if there are no $ to invest anyways. So basically the energy expended on a project should
be a small amount compared to the energy that you receive from the project. This is usually expressed in the form of a fraction. energy in / energy out . smaller the number the better.



Think of it this way. How much does an oil company expend on an easy to extract Saudi field vs. How much do they expend on a Brazilian subsalt 40,000 foot deep offshore well?