Report doubts future of wind power

Guardian ^ | 02/26/05 | Luke Harding in Berlin

[Pikamax]

Report doubts future of wind power

Luke Harding in Berlin, John Vidal and Alok Jha Saturday February 26, 2005 The Guardian

Wind farms are an expensive and inefficient way of generating sustainable energy, according to a study from Germany, the world's leading producer of wind energy.

The report, which may have ramifications for the UK's rapidly growing wind farm industry, concludes that instead of spending billions on building new wind turbines, the emphasis should be on making houses more energy efficient. Drawn up by the German government's energy agency, it says that wind farms prove a costly form of reducing greenhouse gases.

It costs €41-€77 (£28-£53) to avoid emitting a tonne of carbon dioxide by using wind energy, the report says.

The study is likely to feed the bitter debate on whether Britain should continue to emulate Germany and dramatically expand its wind farm programme. Germany has the largest number of wind farms in the world, producing more wind energy than Denmark, Spain and the US put together.

The UK's wind power movement is the fastest growing in the world, with up to £10bn expected to be invested in the next five years, attracting government subsidies of roughly £1bn.

But more than 100 national and local groups, led by some of Britain's most prominent environmentalists, including David Bellamy, Sir Crispin Tickell, and James Lovelock, have argued that wind power is inefficient, destroys the countryside and makes little difference to Britain's soaring carbon emissions.

"At last. This report confirms what we have been saying," said Angela Kelly, director of Country Guardian, an umbrella group for the anti-wind-power lobby. "Wind power is three times more expensive than conventional electricity. It is a scandalous waste of taxpayers' money."

The report comes when the British government is promoting wind power as a means of getting 10% of energy need from renewables by 2010.

The German report estimates that it will cost €1.1bn to link Germany's existing wind farms to the national grid if it is to meet its target of producing 20% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015.

About 800 miles of cables will have to be laid or upgraded, and power plants will have to be replaced or adapted to cope with the large fluctuations in wind-derived energy. This programme will cost each German household €16 a year, it says.

"Wind energy is expensive. That's true. You can't dispute it," Stephan Kohler, the head of Germany's energy agency told the Guardian. "Conventional methods are cheaper. But you have to do both."

In the past 15 years Germany has constructed more than 15,000 turbines, half of them in the past five years. The number is due to double again by the end of the decade.

In November British and German ministers announced plans for cooperation on alternative energy development.

The 1,034 big turbines now running in Britain produce about 700MW of electricity - about as much as one conventional power station - but in the next seven years more than 7,000MW of generating power will be installed on 73 new farms.

Last year 22 onshore wind farms with a capacity of 475MW were built, but developers are increasingly moving to shallow water off the coasts. Altogether, 9,000MW of new wind power is planned to be installed by 2010, enough to meet the government's targets.

Critics of wind energy in Germany said it would be cheaper and more environmentally efficient to insulate old houses or to renew existing power stations.

"The problem with wind farms is that you have to build them in places where you don't need electricity. The electricity then has to be moved somewhere else," Klaus Lippold, a Christian Democrat opposition MP, said.

"There is growing resistance in Germany to wind farms, not least because of the disastrous effect on our landscape."

The German environment minister, Jürgen Trittin, of the Green party, hit back, saying that the "central parts" of the report vindicated his claim that an expansion of wind energy could be done quickly and cheaply. "There are no grounds for pessimism," he said.

Last year more than 10% of Germany's energy consumption came from renewable sources, a record.

Jim Footner of Greenpeace said the German study would inevitably be used by opponents of wind power as an argument against further investment. But he remained confident that wind power was the best option for Britain's energy needs.

"You can't energy-efficiency your way out of climate change," he said. "You need to have clean forms of energy generation, and wind power is the technology that's competitive, current and it's the one that's available now."

The British Wind Energy Association said it was wrong to compare wind energy in Britain and Germany.

"The UK has a far greater wind resource than Germany. The winds blow harder and therefore the economics of wind power in the UK will be better than those of our European neighbours", said Richard Ford of the BWEA.

The National Audit Office, reporting on renewable energies last week, said wind was the most expensive way to fund carbon emission reductions in Britain. It gave a figure of £70-£140 a tonne of carbon saved - more than in Germany.

But it did not condemn wind, saying that a mix of renewable energies and energy savings was needed.

[Darkwolf377]

So I guess Ted "No windpower in MY backyard" Kennedy is suddenly going to side with the oil/coal/nuke crowd on this issue?

[ArmyBratproud]

If you tell him there is a stiff drink involved...he'll be for anything.

I still don't see how anybody can be for the windpower hoax.

It seems everywhere it is used in the US.....it does not provide the required power.

Companies who use it, have to buy supplemental power from other, more traditional energy companies. And then that ends up costing their customers more.

[Darkwolf377]

Not to mention the windfarms in California which get shut down so they don't hurt the birds. (And using that evil oil helps them...?)

The dems seem to think that they can simply back Americans into a corner--no windpower in their backyards (with good reason, apparently, but not the reason they were claiming); no foreign oil; no domestic oil; no fuel bought from dictators or whoever isn't on their Friends list. Their only answer seems to be "conserve" (funny, they don't take that approach where sex ed is concerned, do they? And how about that 'they're gonna do it anyway' response they give on that topic?). They seem to want us to just conserve all our energy problems away. It's unrealistic, and they know it, and they don't care because they sure aren't changing to lower-wattage bulbs in their mansions.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Your thoughts on this?

Report doubts future of wind power:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1351403/posts

[hinckley buzzard]

"You can't energy-efficiency your way out of climate change," he said."

Vice President Cheney said several years ago that energy conservation might well be an individual virtue but it was not a significant element of a national energy policy. Nice to see the GreenWeenies haave come to agree with The Man From Halliburton!

[Noachian]

"Wind energy is expensive. That's true. You can't dispute it," ...

Was that suppose to be a secret?

Let the Euros concentrate on expensive wind power if they want. It'll only drive the European cost of living up more than it is now, but there'll be less carbon in the air.

I suppose there's an environmental reason for not going with nuclear energy which is cheap, clean, and plentiful.

[JSteff]

"They seem to want us to just conserve all our energy problems away. It's unrealistic, and they know it, and they don't care because they sure aren't changing to lower-wattage bulbs in their mansions."

Yes but the general public feels good about seeing them... so it is worth paying more for them. You know, it is like recycling.

They feel good doing it, so it does not matter if they pay more, nor care to know if it really hurts the environment. Most would be/are shocked to learn that the trash the carefully sort really all goes to the same dump.

Idiots. Sheep.

[spinestein]

There is opportunity for private individuals to have wind generators located on their farms (of their own choice) here in north central Illinois and the NIMBYs are all putting up signs saying "No Wind Farms".

Why? Because they are ugly and the sight could reduce property values. I've spoken to many of these hypocrites, and they are against solar, nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, and every other source of power available.

I'm left to conclude that they think the electricity that comes out of their walls is a clean, free gift from mother Earth that originates in their basement.

[pillbox_girl]

I have a couple of problems with this article. I also have a couple of problems with wind power zealots (on both sides).

1. A dollar spent on efficiency is worth at least four dollars spent on "green" power generation. Having said that, it's very difficult to get certain people to live effieciently without increasing the price of power. On the far side of the spectrum, it's impossible to get welfare consumers to act efficiently because they don't pay for their energy regardless.
2. Why does everyone on both sides seem to insist on classifying wind power as a single source power supply. That doesn't make any sense at all. The wind is not a constant and is not reliable (in most places). However, as a supplemental energy source, there's none better or cheaper. Think of it this way: while the wind is blowing, every watt of wind power is one watt less that needs to be generated from fossil fuels.
3. Why all the emphasis on big wind farms? The best use of wind (as I see it) is for small operators in remote locations to set up small generators to supply their own needs (while the wind is blowing) and perhaps sell some excess to the grid, and then pull power off the grid when the wind is not blowing. This saves a lot in losses over transmission lines. Think distributed.
4. What is it with liberals? They either think all our problems can be solved with wind power (they can't), or they complain that windmills and an environmental nightmare (and also say they're ugly). And another word for NIMBY rhymes with Bass Hole.

Again, think distributed. I seriously think the first company that can come up with a small grid intertie capable windmill system with a full price tag of less than $1000 per kilowatt will be rolling in it. Surely someone out there can com up with a modern version of the Jacobs Long Case with modern components for modern efficiencies.

[fishhound]

"I'm left to conclude that they think the electricity that comes out of their walls is a clean, free gift from mother Earth that originates in their basement."

Thats brilliant!!!!

Can anyone tell me why the proposers of wind farms want states to subsidize it. I should think if they really belived it would be effective they would build these without reaching into taxpayers pockets. Just like any other business; on the risk that they would have something to sell.

[patton]

"Think of it this way: while the wind is blowing, every watt of wind power is one watt less that needs to be generated from fossil fuels. "

You have, buried deep in your argument, the assumption that a fossil-fueled electrical energy plant can be switched off like a light.

Rather than calling you silly names, I invite you to investigate this assumption.

[pillbox_girl]

You have, buried deep in your argument, the assumption that a fossil-fueled electrical energy plant can be switched off like a light.

No, I do not. You have buried deep in your arguement the assumption that power generating facilities are either fully on or fully off. You also assume there is an "either or" nature to power sources on the grid.

Rather than calling you silly names, I invite you to educate yourself on the matter. Have you ever heard of "reserve capacity"? For that matter, have you ever heard of a simple device called a throttle?

Fossil fuel electricity generating plants can, in fact, increase or decrease their output. They can also be turned on and shut off. We know this to be true because they do it every day.

All power grids need to keep a reserve generating capacity that exceeds demand. Throughout the day, the demand changes, with peak demand some time around two in the afternoon, and lowest demand around three in the morning (depending on the time of year, the location, the weather etc). By your arguement, all power plants would be running at peak capacity at three in the morning just to meet the peak demand at two in the afternoon because "a fossil-fueled electrical energy plant can't be switched off like a light." That just aint so, and it's not how things work regardless.

To maintain the reserve power necessary to keep the grid stable, generating facilities are capable of increasing or decreasing their output. They can either consume more or less fuel in the generators they are running, or bring more generators on and off line throughout the day. In the case of nuclear plants, they can withdraw or insert control rods to regulate the temperature in the reactor. Either way, more watts in output means more fuel is consumed (or waste produced in the case of nuclear plants).

This is managed through the predictable nature of the energy demand curve. Though the demand curve does change on a day to day basis, the causes are usually the results of the changing seasons and weather, which are themselves very predictable. The power output of a wind farm is also relatively predictable, because it is also dependant on the season and the weather. The difference between a wind generator and other more conventional sources is that a wind farm's output cannot be controlled; any energy not used when the wind is blowing is lost (unless soneone somewhere has some really big batteries).

A grid manager with a wind farm on his grid has a pretty good idea of what the output of that wind farm will be in the next few days based on the weather report. He also knows what the probable demand curve will be based on the same weather report. With that in mind, he has a good idea of the fossil fuel generating capacity he will need to order to maintain the reserve capacity of the grid for the following few days. On windy days, he needs to request less fossil fuel generation. On windless days, he needs to request more.

The point I'm making here is that wind farms are not a complete solution to any grid's energy needs. They are a good supplement to a grids energy needs, though, because of their extrememly low fuel costs (some is needed to drive the maintenance trucks). Because of their intermittant nature, the grid will still need enough conventional generating capacity to meet its peak load plus reserve capacity, but when the wind is blowing, all that conventional capacity need not be running, thereby conserving fuel for days when the wind is not blowing.

Having a wind farm on a grid is not a replacement for conventional generating capacity, but it is a supplemental power source that can reduce the fuel consumed by the conventional generating capacity. A distributed network of wind farms only improves the wind solution by reducing the grid load at the point of consumption (reducing transmission line losses) and also by stabilizing the wind power supply (if the wind isn't blowing at one location, it might be blowing at another).

[libstripper]

That's not so. The greenie way to obtain electricity is it perform a sacrifice to Gaia, hug a tree, plug a wire into the tree, and get all the free electricty you want.

[spinestein]

On a practical note, my folks live on a small farm in the Midwest that is frequently windy, and they looked into the feasibility of getting a single wind turbine to supplement their own electric use and discovered that the cost is about 6 to 10 thousand dollars for their needs. They figured that they would break even after about 8 years of nominal use in electric savings plus the ability to sell excess power back to the grid.

They decided against it for the simple reason that after about 8 years you need to replace the batteries for the unit and that alone is about 4 thousand dollars so you are stuck in a never ending cycle of just breaking even in terms of money, assuming that nothing goes wrong with your system that isn't covered by a warranty. In the event that does happen, you will definitely end up losing money.

The basic idea has merit, though, IF you recognize its limitations as a supplemental energy source, and IF the cost would drop by about half.

[spinestein]

Actually, many of the really Green people I know heat their homes in the winter (October through April in Northern Wisconsin) by BURNING WOOD so they don't have to rely on electricity or fossil fuels for warmth.

One wonders what the results would be in terms of pollution, greenhouse gases, and deforestation if the 6 billion people who now reside on this Earth all followed their example.

[pillbox_girl]

They decided against it for the simple reason that after about 8 years you need to replace the batteries for the unit

They might want to look again. Small scale wind power has made one very critical advance in the past couple of years. This important improvement has been the creation of a direct grid intertie inverter so a wind turbine can be connected directly to the grid.

While a batteryless turbine system doesn't offer the blackout protection provided by a bank of batteries, it does have two significant advantages. First, you don't need to waste money buying, maintaining, and replacing batteries. Second, a wind generator connected to an intelligent inverter can operate at peak power output for a larger spectrum of wind speeds because it's load can be controlled by the inverter, instead of being coupled to the charging voltage current curve of the battery bank. In other words, you get a lot more juice out of the turbine if its allowed to dump power into the grid instead of throttling it down to meet a battery's charging requirements.

Having said all that, they are still very very expensive, and only make economic sense if your parent's farm meets some specific criteria as to power consumption, average wind speed, and whatnot.

It is imperative to small scale turbine manufacturers that they do everything they can in developing their machines to expand the economic feasability envelope. The single most important things they can do are reduce the total cost of ownership, and improve the longevity of their turbines. There some designs which have been running sound for decades (the Jacobs first came out before the depression, and many are still spinning today), but there are a lot of turbines out there that are cheap fragile junk. A few turbines out there that can pay for themselves before their warranties run out, but not many (do a lot of research and ask for a list of owners of installed systems to contact before making any decisions). It's my personal opinion that the first company to come up with a good turbine, tower, and inverter system for less than $1000 per actually produced kilowatt will do extremely well, so long as they keep the quality up.

Of course, even with all the limitations of wind power, it still works a lot better than solar. Some wind turbines can pay for themselves in less than 5 years, and need little maintenance beyond that. The best solar arrays out there (even with taxpayer funded subsidies) can take upwards of 20 years to pay for themselves.

[libstripper]

Wood's just fossil fuel waiting to happen; take geology 101 and find out how all those fossils came to exist. By using it they just manage to get more nasty emissions than they would from oil or gas, but they feel so good and green.

[pillbox_girl]

Wood's just fossil fuel waiting to happen; take geology 101 and find out how all those fossils came to exist. By using it they just manage to get more nasty emissions than they would from oil or gas, but they feel so good and green.

Not really. That "waiting to happen" is important. The carbon released into the air by burning wood was pulled from the air in the last few years. Therefore, it does not add to the current atmospheric carbon balance. The carbon released into the air by burning fossil fuels weas pulled from the air many millions of years ago, so it does add to the current atmospheric carbon balance.

Of course, the best way someone can help reduce the amount of carbon in the air is by planting a forest, letting it lock carbon from the air into the wood, then cutting the forest down and building houses with it, thereby keeping the carbon out of the air and clearing the land for more the next forest for more carbon trapping. Yet, for some reason, the greenie weenies keep telling us logging is bad. Makes you think.

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[Dimples]

Sadly, it appears you're a bit naive about how power generation facilities operate. There are two types of generating units: base load generators, and peak load generators. Base load generators make up the majority of capacity of the grid. They are principally coal and nuclear fired plants. It can take a long as 24 hours to spin up a base load unit and bring it on-line. You do not "throttle" a base load generator. They must be kept at constant speed; any throttling is a matter of altering steam pressure to keep the turbine speed constant. This pressure is dependent on load. As the load drops, the generator requires less energy to maintain speed, but also becomes less efficient at generating power. Maximum efficiency is at or near maximum load. As long as a base load unit is spinning, it should be delivering as much output as it can.

Peaking units are usually natural gas fired, water powered. They can be more rapidly cycled but the conventional types do have a non-trivial statup time. These are generally brought on-line to satisify predictable peak loads. If the turbine is not up to speed and stable at the time you turn on that peak demand light switch that put the grid over-capacity, it won't help.

All of these sources are relatively inexpensive, reliable, predictable, and available. Wind is not. Power from wind is twice as expensive as power from other sources; it is unreliable; it is unpredictable; and it may or may not be available when needed.

If you have wind generating capacity sufficient to ensure you do not need to fire up a peaking unit for the day's peak demand, then, except for the cost of the watt-hours generated, wind can save a bit of fossil fuel (or water), however, if you don't you'll fire up the Peaiing Unit anyway.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The best use of wind (as I see it) is for small operators in remote locations to set up small generators to supply their own needs...

A windmill combined with a small solar power cell makes a dandy sheep-tank pump power supply.

[spinestein]

[the best way someone can help reduce the amount of carbon in the air is by planting a forest, letting it lock carbon from the air into the wood, then cutting the forest down and building houses with it, thereby keeping the carbon out of the air and clearing the land for more the next forest for more carbon trapping.]

This is, of course, a great source of perpetually renewable energy. Grow plants to take up CO2 and release O2 and then use them as fuel (with a clean combustion method) which reverses the process. An efficient way of using photosynthesis (natural solar power).

The tree huggers don't like this idea because they're too conditioned to the notion: Chop Trees = Bad

also:
Burn Fossil Fuel = Bad
Split Atoms = Very, Very Bad

[pillbox_girl]

Sadly, it appears you're a bit naive about how power generation facilities operate.

Actually, I've worked for G.E. in developing their nuclear power facilities.

They must be kept at constant speed; any throttling is a matter of altering steam pressure to keep the turbine speed constant. This pressure is dependent on load.

Do you know the difference between a throttle and an "accelerator"? The turbine speed may remain constant, but the load, and therefore the energy consumption do in fact change. Most base power plants mainatin an output somewhere between 85% and 90% of total capacity. Nuclear plants are slightly different, but then again, nuclear plants only qualify as "conventional" relative to wind and solar plants.

Take a look at this graphic. It's the chart of grid usage for the California Independent System Operator.

Note how closely the actual load follows the predicted load. Not also how the minimum power consumption of around 20000 megawatts is much lower than the peak consumption of around 27500 megawatts (for today, the chart will change from day to day). More importantly, note how the Available Resources Forecast varies from a minimum of about 32500 to a peak of about 35500. This in in the middle of winter, so California has significantly more generating capacity than their demand (with all the rain they've been getting, very few people are running their air conditioners). They do not need to run their less efficient "peaker plants", and therefore, the available power you see here is almost all coming from base generating facilities. Even so, throughout the day, the output of these base plants varies by almost 10% (which correlates nicely with the fact that most plants run at about 85% to 90% of their max capacity).

In the summer, things in California are very different (I wish I had another picture of summer consumption), with huge swings in demand throughout the day. The main power plants are simply not adequate for the demand, and cannot follow the power demand curve. Thus the dependence in high load conditions on imported power (with the associated transmission line losses) and less efficient and expensive to run "peaker plants". Suffice to say, in the summer, the Available Resources Curve for the Cali ISO swings a lot more throughout the day as peaker plants come on and offline. Even worse, ever since the Bad Old Clinton Days, grid operators have been encouraged to keep their reserve capacity to a minimum by taking generators off line to avoid expending excess fuel. While this is good for the environment and all (possibly), it is very bad for grid stability. A grid with 10 generators running at 85% is a hell of a lot more stable than one with 9 generators running at 95%.

Now back to wind power. If you will remember, my original point was that wind generation is a good supplemental energy source. I specifically said that it is not a good "single source" power supply, and is not a replacement for conventional generating capacity. My original complaint was that everyone seems to want to treat it as such for comparisons with other energy sources.

By calling wind generation a supplemental energy source, I was assuming people here would figure out I am putting it in the same generating category as peaker plants. When I said it is not a replacement power source, I also assumed people here would figure out I am specifically not comparing it to base generation. Compared to a nuclear facility, wind power simply cannot compete in either price or reliability. But it should not be compared to a nuclear plant. Compared to a gas fired peaker plant, wind power is much more attractive economically (especially once the cost of building the turbine has been recovered). Under peak load in the summer in California, when the wind is blowing, power from a wind farm is definately preferred to power from a peaker plant. When the wind is not blowing, the peaker plant is the only option, but that is why wind is a supplemental power source.

You also say that wind power is not reliable or predictable, which is true on a long term basis. In the short term, what with modern weather forecasting, wind power is very predictable. It is fairly trivial to determing from the weather report what the output of a turbine will be for the next three days. Three days lead time is more than enough time for a grid operator to order and coordinate the operation of peaker plants to meet the remaining excess demand.

Finally, back to my original original point: Whenever pro wind and anti wind zealots talk wind power, they are talking about giant wind farms, usually as a replacement for conventional generation. The future of wind power does not lie in large wind farm generation, though. The true potential of wind power comes from small scale distributed generation at or near the point of consumption. In other words, small scale privately owned turbines generating for local consumption. The whole purpose of such small systems is not to increase the available capacity on the grid (which is what wind zealots from both sides seem to want to force wind to do), but to reduce the perceived demand. In other words, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to set up a megawatt turbine to sell electricity to the grid at 3¢ per kilowatt-hour. It makes a lot more sense for me to set up a kilowatt turbine to offset my electrical consumption at 13¢ per kilowatt-hour (after I've installed compact flourescent bulbs and what not first, of course).

[Dimples]

First, let me answer your question: a throttle and an "accelerator" are the same thing; one opens the throttle to accelerate; one closes the throttle to decelerate.

I'm curious, what, exactly, do(did) you develop for GE? (I'm an old Westinghouse LRAD fan myself.)

Second, let me apologize if I impugned your level of knowledge. In your post 13 you make no distinction between base-level and peak-level generating capacity. You further imply that generating units can rather arbitrarily be "throttled" ... some can and are, some it's better not to "throttle." You then throw out the nuclear plant control rod operation as an example. As I'm sure you know, nuclear plants are base-load generating facilities, not peaking facilities. Contrary to your implication, one would not be "throttling" the nuclear plant to let the wind farm add a few dozen megawatts of capacity to the grid.

You imply that if the wind is blowing, we'd be better off "throttling" back conventional plants. I disagreed. Given your clarification now, that you would NOT throttle back generating units, but would DISPLACE a peaking unit, then perhaps we agree. My point was that if predicable, and reliable, wind power is available to avoid starting up a Peaking Unit, then, by all means use it. On that, we appear to agree. However, if the wind-powered capacity cannot be guaranteed, you need to fire up the peaker anyway. If you have to fire up the peaker, then it's cheaper to let it run up to nominal operating capacity.

I do agree that small scale alternative generating capacity can have the effect of reducing demand on the grid. As for the best alternative, one might be tempted to opt for a residential natural gas fired gas turbine or a residential natural gas powered fuel cell or a rooftop solar array. At least your local zoning board might let you install these. The problem with them all, however is that it they are not economically viable investments unless you are off-grid to begin with. Though I haven't checked lately, the non-subsidized payback time for all of these small-scale alternatives was still beyond their service lifetime.

At least we agree on the "supplemental" nature of wind power.

BTW, all the stuff about predictable demand and necessary reserve capacity was not in dispute; you didn't need to elaborate.

[pillbox_girl]

First, let me answer your question: a throttle and an "accelerator" are the same thing; one opens the throttle to accelerate; one closes the throttle to decelerate.

Not really. An accelerator is almost always a throttle, but not all throttles are accelerators. Another form of throttle is commonly called a "governor". An accelerator is a throttle (usually) which changes the speed of a machine under constant load. A governor is a throttle (sometimes) which maintains a constant speed of a motor under changing load conditions.

I'm curious, what, exactly, do(did) you develop for GE? (I'm an old Westinghouse LRAD fan myself.)

I used to work for them before bailing out of Kaliforniastan and starting my own metal fabrication business. I developed the machinery and automation to move and orient fuel bundles from the reserve pool to the reactor pool in BWR plants. Basically, I designed a giant automatic version of one of those crane claw prize grabber games you see at pizza restaurants, only in this case the prizes were at the bottom of a very deep pool, and you probably don't really want them regardless. When humans were doing this job, they had a nasty tendency to drive the trolley into the boom which was very expensive to repair.

While I had very little to do with the actual day to day operation of these plants, I did come away from that job with a bit of knowledge about how to run them. For this discussion, the important thing is that nuclear plants very specifically do NOT run at 100% capacity.

I also know that U.S. nuclear plants are very clean (so long as you can store the waste safely) and safe (so long as you are willing to pay the big salaries to hire people qualified to drive them). There's simply no comparison between a modern U.S. nuclear plant and the slow cooker time bombs the French and Russians use. However, I still think Hanford needs a serious clean up (U.S. Nuclear policy is almost as schizo as its immigration policy).

In your post 13 you make no distinction between base-level and peak-level generating capacity.

Sorry. I thought that ws implied by calling wind power a supplemental energy source. Generally, on this forum, I try to use more generic terms. If I started right out by talking about base line units, peaker plants, load aggregation and whatnot, I'd lose half the forum (though I suspect it's the half that has all the DU lurkers, so maybe that's not sich a bad thing).

You then throw out the nuclear plant control rod operation as an example. As I'm sure you know, nuclear plants are base-load generating facilities, not peaking facilities.

I mentioned nuclear plants because that's where my experience is. I was dealing with this as a sidetrack issue that even base unit plants can control their output to meet the varying grid load and stability requirements. Ther are three ways to "throttle" an reactor (though perhaps I should say "govern"). You can adjust the control rods, you can adjust the orientation of the fuel rod bundles, or you can move fuel rod bundles to and from the reserve poo, to the reactor pool. Of course, any time you mess with the fuel bundles, it's a major operation and can only be done when the reactor is off line.

Also, nuclear plants produce waste whether they are running or not, and their "fuel" only barely qualifies as fuel. Generally, when I think of "fuel" for power generation, I think of natural gas. I probably should have mentioned this at the outset and clarified what "supplemental" means.

You imply that if the wind is blowing, we'd be better off "throttling" back conventional plants. I disagreed.

I don''t know what you think I implied. What I meant, given my original arguement that wind turbines should not be considered as a replacement for main power generating (and my complaint that both sides of the wind arguement always do so), was that wind turbines are a good supplement for local or peak use generating. When the wind is blowing, you don't need to fire up a peaker plant, or your home generator, to keep the power flowing. When the wind is not blowing, you're no worse off than you were without the turbine. In my distributed turbine arguement, I tried to make the point that if a significant number of consumers connected to the grid supplement their supply with power from a turbine, the total perceived load on the grid is decreased, reducing the number of peaker plants needed to meet the peak demand, and improving the stability of the grid by expanding the reserve capacity produced by the main generating facilities. I think the miscommunication comes from the fact that you and others here are coming at the whole wind issue from the single source main generating supply concept, while I'm coming at it from the idea of distributed small generating capacity for local loads.

For local supplemental power, there are really only four options: wind, solar, mini-hydro, and a generator. Of these, solar is too expensive, mini-hydro requires a water flow source, and generators are expensive to operate. Wind turbines offer the cheapest price per watt, and the fastest turn around on the initial expense. Naturally, if you have an adequate stream on your property (which isn't very common), mini-hydro is the best option, and windmills are useless in regions without a lot of wind, but even so, windmills are useable a lot more places than hydro turbines. More people have wind than water.

Though I haven't checked lately, the non-subsidized payback time for all of these small-scale alternatives was still beyond their service lifetime.

Now that they've finally invented a direct to grid inverter for wind turbines that doesn't need batteries, some wind turbine systems (tower, turbine, inverter etc.) can pay for themselves in as little as three years (depending on the wind you get, how much power you consume, the local price of power etc). Solar systems are very low maintenance, and their output very closely follows the local demand for air conditioning power, but they are very expensive and can take 18 years or more to pay for themselves. Gas generators cost about half per watt to install as windmills, but they have ongoing fuel costs and significantly higher maintenance costs. Which all goes back to my original point: for mainline generating, wind is an economic wild goose chase, but for supplemental power generation, it's simply the best option out there.

BTW, all the stuff about predictable demand and necessary reserve capacity was not in dispute; you didn't need to elaborate.

You're not the only one reading these threads (well, this late in the thread, you might be), so my replies aren't just intended for your eyes.

To cap this thread off, here's my ideal power grid: Main line generators composed of hydroelectric dams where you can get them and modern nuclear plants where you can't. Natural gas or (better yet) biodiesel fired peakers to meet excessive load conditions. Finally, a liberal (in the correct use of the word) salting of the end user customer base with small scale supplemental generation to reduce the load on the grid. Windmills where it's windy and solar (for people who don't like to tinker but have lots of free cash) for where it's sunny (the only significant advantage of solar is that it's output curve follows the air conditioning demand curve in sunny places).

Of course, to create this ideal grid, we have to deregulate the power industry so that individual small producers can push and pull power from the grid without first wasting thousands of dollars on legal fees and license applications. It shouldn't be made any more difficult to put a windmill on the local grid than to get any other building permit and code inspection (which I also think is too much of a hassle too). Of course, by "deregulation", I specifically do not mean the suicidal set of laws the Kalifornians imposed and called "deregulation". Proper deregulation means people on welfare would actually have to pay for the power they consume, and thereby might actually be encouraged to conserve power.

Final thoughts: In NIMBY states, peaker plants should be put close to the points of comsuption to reduce transmission losses, and also as a message to the NIMBY's that if they'd just reduce their consumption they wouldn't have to hear the generator noise on hot days. Also, coal fired plants are a bad idea. Coal should be used to refine steel (and reduce my operating costs, quality steel has gotten way too expensive lately). Giving free electricity to welfare leeches so they can watch Jerry Springer is a waste of good coal. Finally, "big industry" (to steal a liberal catchphrase) has no interest in developng a cheap reliable small scale wind turbine. But the massive tax and bureaucratic burdens put on America's small businesses make it very risky for a small time operator to invest in developing such a system. If I could afford to hire a good electrical engineer, instead of sending half my payroll budget in to Uncle Scam to give out to people who do not work for me, I'd almost be tempted to try it myself. Remember the first bit of this post about throttles, governors, and loads? Well, welfare and "entitlements" are nothing more than a useless load applied to the economy by the government (which should instead be "governing" the economy), and they're "throttling" my business out of financial viability.

[Dimples]

Quite a reply ...

Had you asked me the difference between a governor and an accelerator, I would have given you the distinction you were apparently seeking. Both are mechanisms which can be used to control a throttle, given that a throttle is the mechanism used to meter a fluid involved in the speed control system.

I do wonder what that has to do with this whole conversation since throttle modulation is NOT the mechanism used to manage the power output of a turbine-generator set. The speed control loop is a reactive, secondary element that maintains turbine speed under varying load ... a governor, if you will.

In any event, properly managed peak capacity of a generating system (regardless of the prime mover) will have little to no effect on the output of base-load systems; they operate 24-7 at nominal capacity.

For this discussion, the important thing is that nuclear plants very specifically do NOT run at 100% capacity.

No one said they did. Perhaps you misinterpreted my use of nominal capacity. In this case, nominal would be about 85% of rated capacity; enough to keep efficiency high but with sufficient reserve capacity to absorb transient loads.

Now that they've finally invented a direct to grid inverter for wind turbines that doesn't need batteries, some wind turbine systems (tower, turbine, inverter etc.) can pay for themselves in as little as three years (depending on the wind you get, how much power you consume, the local price of power etc).

They only have such short payback times if they are heavily subsidized. Here is a study by the Canadian Wind Energy Association of US local small-wind turbine installations that says, in part:

"...The payback periods...vary from a low of 23 years to more than 40 years depending on the wind turbine type. Even though there are good wind resources within the state, the lack of any substantial incentives [subsidies, tax credits, net metering, etc.] makes small wind turbines unappealing unless one chooses to live off the utility grid."

...but for supplemental power generation, it's simply the best option out there...

I guess we'll just have to disagree about that. None of the distributed options are really cost effective even if you could remove the zoning issues. IMHO the best option is to first build more coal and nuclear capacity then dismantle the artificial subsidies for other forms of power generation. All that those subsidies do is raise the price of power for all of us AND increase our tax burden. If you want to install your own wind turbine, fine, be my guest. Just don't expect me to pay for it or force me to buy power from you at inflated prices.

[pillbox_girl]

Your information from the Canadian Wind Energy Association is a bit out of date.

Here are some recent numbers plus a little math from a few dealer websites. These are for batteryless grid intertie systems. I looked at the 10 kW (rated)Bergey XL and the 3.6 kW (rated) African Wind Power 3.6. The African Wind Power turbine cost is broken down thussly:

Component	Price
AWP 160V Wind Generator	$2950
SMA Windy Boy 1800 Inverter	$2600
A.R.E. Voltage Clamp	$850
Diversion Load	$400
43 meter Tower	$1700
TOTAL	$8500

The Bergey is a complete grid intertie system for $33500, all the above separate parts are included.

I did a quick economic feasibility study for each system. I am assuming an consumer electrical cost of 13¢ per kilowatt hour (from my last bill) and a location that's NREL class 2 (the second worst wind speed class). This is also assuming all the electricity generated gets used locally (i.e. no overall surplusses) and there are not other complications like net metering (which would only improve the situation). In other words, this is pretty much a worst case scenario.

System	Price	kW-hours per Month	Monthly Earnings	Months to Pay Off
AWP	$8500	375	$48.75	174
Bergey	$33500	2000	$260	129

From my results, unless you live somewhere with almost no wind at all, the African Wind Power design will pay itself off (at the worst) in fourteen and a half years, while the larger Bergey XL will pay for itself in just under eleven years. If the owner sets up net metering, or lives somewhere with more wind (the majority of Oregon is class 4 or better), the time to pay off the system only gets shorter. The larger Bergey system pays for itself sooner (probably because the tower and inverter costs are all the same for both), but it produces a large amount of power, and if it produces more power than you consume, you'll get a diminishing return because the power companies charge a lot more per watt than they pay. That's why with wind power, you really need to balance your production to your consumption, smaller is sometimes better.

For an ideal situation, such as a heavy electricity consumer with the Bergey turbine in a class 6 wind region (like the very windy Columbia Gorge if the hippies would just get past their "scenic protection" fixation), the turbine could produce just over 6000 kW-hours per month, and the system would pay for itself in just over three and a half years.

These are very simple calculations, and they depend a lot on the location, average wind speed, electrical consumption, and power prices, but they do show the long term feasability of buying a wind turbine system. Additionally, these numbers specifically do NOT include any government subsidies or other socialist tricks (like Ahnold the Gun Grabbing RINO's recent Solar Home initiative in Kalifornistan). It also does not require power be sold to the grid at an inflated price. In fact, for optimum economics, a small net power will still come from the grid and need to be payed for. The wind turbine is just supposed to be a supplement for the energy purchased from the grid. In other words, when you purchase a wind generator system, you should approach it with the mindset that you are paying for the next decade's electricity in advance.

As time passes and better technologies are implemented, the pay off time for wind systems have been getting a lot shorter. Five years ago, wind systems took about the same amount of time as solar systems to pay for themselves (about 18 years at the very best). Some of today's systems have halved that time, and there is still a lot of room for improvement. The two turbines I examined (and just about all of them apart from the amazingly solid depression era Jacobs) still use permanent magnet alternators, with all the associated startup torque and low speed cogging problems. A turbine with a multiple winding dual armature brushless alternator would have a much smaller start up speed, produce more power at lower wind speeds, and would allow the turbine to balance its output based on the load and wind speed by controlling the output of the exciter armature (I think, I'm a mechanical engineer, not an electronics wiz).

Some time in the next decade, we should see the first turbine that costs less than $1000 per rated kilowatt (the African Wind Power is about twice that). Such a hypothetical turbine would pay for itself in seven years (probably fewer) under the same assumptions above. With electricity getting more and more expensive every year (after all, someone has to pay for the solar subsidies and for all the welfare leeches to have lights), I seriously believe the first company to make a good small wind generator for less than this amount will make a fortune selling them (and not just to hippies). Until then, I have my doubts as to whether or not "green" energy subsidies will help (I'm really afraid they'll just encourage turbine makers to be lazy and spend more money on marketing instead of R&D where they should).

[Dimples]

Your information from the Canadian Wind Energy Association is a bit out of date.

OK, let's compare:

My 10KW installation (from the report) $31,387
Your 10KW installation (from your post ) $33,500

We can leave for another discussion whether these costs include stuff like labor, tower foundations, and other costs of installation.

Next let's consider your payback assumptions:

You say your 10KW installation generates 2000 KWh per month.

That's 24,000 KWh per year.

That's well over twice the annual energy consumed by a typical home (10,000 KWh per year.)

As a sanity check, my electricity bills tell me that for that last 10 years I've averaged 22 KWh per day (and it's been remarkably consistent.) That works out to 8,030 KWh per year.

If your 10KW installation was used on a typical house, it would have taken 26 years to break even.

If it had been installed at MY house, it would have taken 32 years to break even.

These break even times presume that I NEVER need to pull any power from the grid. Or said another way, these numbers presume that the wind is blowing at least 7 mph constantly ... if not, the turbine stops and I consume consume from the grid while the turbine is stopped. That reduces the total energy per year delivered from the turbine without some storage or net metering capacity.

Please note, that I'm not including several other factors in this simple analysis like the cost of financing the initial installation or the cost protecting the investment with insurance.

I'll also note that the $33,500 cost you reference is probably for a guyed tilt-up tower installation. You'll note that such a tower cannot be used in an urban or suburban setting but would be restricted to use by homes with at least 1/2 an acre without trees. Such limitations restrict the power density of these distributed installations. With such limited power density, it's not clear at all that enough wind power could be added to a region to eliminate the need to fire up the fossil fuel peakers on any given day.

Like I said, if you want to put up a wind turbine, go ahead. Just don't aks me to pay for it.

Regarding your AWP installation:

The AWP 160V is NOT rated at 3.6KW; it's rated at 1KW (3.6 refers to the size of the turbine blades at 3.6 meters.) Typical wind duty cycle for any installation is 25% to 30%. For a 1KW generator, that means a total annual production of 2,190 KWh to 2,628 KWh, or about 182 KWh to 219 KWh per month. You said you were in a class 2 area; wind does not blow 100% of the time there...or anywhere else for that matter.

Your tower cost of $1700 forgot to include the cost of the 43 feet of pipe to build the tower. The cost of the 43' tower kit WITH pipe is $2300. Your revised total cost of materials is $9,100. And again, that is only material cost of the major components; no labor, installation, permits, utility connection costs, etc ... but I'll let that slide.

With your revised material cost of $9,100 and a more realistic duty cycle of 30% on a 1KW generator, your system will generate 219 KWh per month. That brings your breakeven point to 27 years. Your mileage may vary ...

...but even in class 7, constant winds, the AWP will take 8 years to payback the material cost ... presuming you constantly consume over 1KW ... I know I don't; I only AVERAGE 0.9 KW over a typical 24 hour period. That means that during a substantial portion of my day, I'm consuming somewhat less than 0.9 KW. If my consumption duty cycle is 50%, even if the wind is constant, the AWP payback period stretches to 16 years.

My numbers may be a bit older than yours, but the conclusion is still the same.

[Aquinasfan]

I've spoken to many of these hypocrites, and they are against solar, nuclear, coal, oil, natural gas, and every other source of power available.

They're uniformly opposed to every possible energy source, so they're not exactly hypocrites. Crazy? Yes. Unrealistic? Yes. Hypocrites? No.

[Aquinasfan]

Couldn't excess energy produced by windfarms in periods of low demand be stored by pumping water up to a higher level where in periods of lower demand it could be used to power turbines? Has this ever been done?

[Dimples]

Yes, this is called "Pumped Storage" in hydro parlance. They are reversible water turbines. They range from 50 MW to 350 MW each. California has a couple of thousand megawatts of such capability on several of it's hyro dams in the Sierra. These are pretty large scale facilities.

Of course, if you are talking about a small scale installation, you now have to factor in the cost of the reservoir, pump, and water turbine/generator in your payback analysis. You might be better off with a bank of batteries.

The large-scale installations use excess, off-peak base load generating capacity, to do just as you suggest and lower the average cost of conventially generated power. The question, (which I cannot answer) is whether there is excess PS capacity that is not now being used that could absorb excess wind-generated power.

[spinestein]

Sorry to nitpick, but they are hypocrites.

They denounce everyone else for their use of power, but they still USE every bit as much power as anybody else.

I've been scolded by Greens for my use of paper bags by the same people who live in a house heated by a wood burning stove.

I've been told by Greens that my 1987 V8 Mustang that gets 23 MPG and I drive 25 miles per week is going to ruin the Earth with pollution, while these same people are driving a 1968 VW Micro-bus that gets 16 MPG and puts out 200 TIMES the amount of hydrocarbons and N0x pollution that my car does.

HYPOCRITES!

[spinestein]

Yes it could be done, but the mechanical losses make this a VERY inefficient way to produce energy. Mechanical water pumps are notorious energy wasters.

Also, you're talking about converting mechanical energy into electrical energy, then back into mechanical energy and then back again into electrical energy.

Sorry, but even solar cells are a much better use of money and resources.

:^)

[Semper911]

You kicked ol' dimple's ass with your responses. Nice work.

I love this place.

[pillbox_girl]

You kicked ol' dimple's ass with your responses.

I don't think of it that way. He (or she) is simply running with slightly obsolete information. Anyone can do that. He did point out a few things in his response that I was unaware of or mistaken about. Specifically, I was mistaken about the rated power of the AWP turbine. I should have noticed this from it's lower monthly kWatt-hour production numbers. However, I never used the rated output numbers anywhere in my calculations since turbine power ratings are essentially meaningless. Instead, I used the published kmonthly Watt-hour productions based on wind speed class (which is a much better way to judge a turbine).

I suspect Dimple's information predates the recent introduction of batteryless direct grid intertie inverters. I can't stress enough what a revolution these things are for small scale wind. For older battery charging systems, the cost of the battery bank needed to efficiently harness the turnbine's power was often equal to the cost of all the other components combined (effectively doubling the cost of the system). Even worse, the batteries need to be replaced eventually, adding further costs for the generator to pay off. Even better, when not slaved to a bettery charger but instead coupled to the near infinite holding capacity of the grid (at least compared to the few kilowatts the turbine puts out), most turbines increase their output by a factor of 50% or more, and also have a slower startup wind speed. So in other words, by choosing a batteryless direct to grid system, you effectively multiply your output per dollar by a factor of three (approximately). Even neglecting the ongoing battery replacement costs, this reduces your pay off time to a third of a conventional system. Of course, depending on your electrical consumption, system, and location, your mileage will vary, but that's still pretty darn impressive. And who knows what other future innovations are in store for small scale wind.

[pillbox_girl]

Couldn't excess energy produced by windfarms in periods of low demand be stored by pumping water up to a higher level where in periods of lower demand it could be used to power turbines? Has this ever been done?

It is possible, and it can be done on a limited scale at some hydro dams, but the mechanical losses make it innappropriate for a small scale wind system. Every time energy is converted from one medium to another, there would be losses. An electrical turbine driving an electric pump to lift water for an electric hydro generator would be a lot less efficient than a turbine mechanically connected to a pump, but even that would be less efficient than a fully electric battery storage systems. And don't get me stared on the hydrogen pipe dream.

Of course, if you do want to get into freaky esoteric energy storage systems, look into high speed flywheels.

[MitchellC]

But, Art Bell said it was the way of the future...

[Aquinasfan]

Sorry, but even solar cells are a much better use of money and resources.

I had to ask...

[Aquinasfan]

I've been scolded by Greens for my use of paper bags by the same people who live in a house heated by a wood burning stove.

I've been told by Greens that my 1987 V8 Mustang that gets 23 MPG and I drive 25 miles per week is going to ruin the Earth with pollution, while these same people are driving a 1968 VW Micro-bus that gets 16 MPG and puts out 200 TIMES the amount of hydrocarbons and N0x pollution that my car does.

HYPOCRITES!

LOL!

[Dimples]

Nice try ...

... however, except for the publication date (less than 2 year ago) of the Canadian study (which happens to be a virtual reprint or of an NREL study,) nothing in my posts is "obsolete." My data is as recent as yours. The Study uses batteryless direct-to-grid systems. You seem to have conveniently ignored the fact that my "obsolete" study used the same 10KW turbine setup from the same company; that the study's version of the setup COSTS LESS to install; and the installation was analyzed in a region with MORE FAVORABLE WINDS than yours.

I simply pointed out the inconsistencies in your reasoning. Your payback scenarios, contrary to your assertions, DEPEND on the utility buying all your excess power at the same price you pay the utility for its power. YOU said your simple calculations didn't include any subsidies or net metering. You conveniently ignored the fact that without net metering all the excess power you produce doesn't bring in a penny of payback.

Even if there was a net metering capability in your analysis, you, yourself, said that utilities don't pay as much as they charge.

Of the $0.13 you pay for power, only about $0.04 (less if your power is heavily nuclear or hydro generated) is the cost of generating the power ... and that's the price the utility is likely to pay you IF there is a net metering capability. The other $0.09 pays for distribution, transmission, and a host of costs of being a utility, none of which you are entitled to as a generator.

By using "published monthly Watt-hour productions based on wind speed class" you completely IGNORE where all that power goes. In your scenarios, MOST of the power from the 10KW setup goes NOWHERE. In you 1KW setup, you IGNORE the reality that there are significant periods of time when the turbine is spinning away producing power you are not consuming; that power, too, goes NOWHERE.

While a convenient dodge, the date of my data doesn't alter the credibility of the data (in most cases it is more favorable than yours); it does not alter the logic of the analysis (your's may be simple, but it's wrong); and it doesn't alter the conclusion (without subsidies, tax credits, and netmetering, wind power is not cost effective.)

[Old Professer]

Throttle generally means to cut off air to a combustion engine (as throttling one's throat starves one's lungs); governors control maximum speed by operating the throttle against load and weighted centrifugal force to operate either throttles or fuel injectors where air volume is constant and CFM changes increase with speed; on steam engines the driving force is a function of pressure and volume and is governored; in any case, all generators are sychronous at one certain speed, the prime mover simply changes the fuel volume or steam volume with load. With water turbines water is bled off or directed through the turbine as is air from wind by prop-feathering or dump buckets of some sort. Frequency is critical as it can't be changed downstream.

[Dimples]

...I used the published kmonthly Watt-hour productions based on wind speed class...

So, I'm curious ... where did you get your numers?

If you go directly to the Bergey 10KW spreadsheet and plug in average wind speed for a class 2 area (4.4 m/s to 5.1 m/s .. and don't forget to set the tower height to 18 meters - the smallest you can buy for a 10KW unit) you'll see that a Bergey 10KW grid intertie system will generate between 9,139 KWh and 13,439 KWh annually (that's from 762 KWh per month and 1,120 KWh per month). My "typical house" analysis used 833 KWh per month ... right on target.

How did you come up with 2,000 KWh per month?

The Bergey 1KW spreadsheet suggests that a 1KW turbine on a 14 meter tower, at the same 1,100 foot altitude, will generate annual outputs from 1,410 KWh to 2,033 KWh (thats 118 KWh per month to 169 KHh per month.) Even my 1KW analysis (at 182 KWh per month to 219 KWh per month) was overly generous. Using the Bergey data, the 1KW payback for materials only is from 54 years to 77 years.

How did you come up with 375 KWh per month?

It would seem my "obsolete data" is a whole lot closer to current reality than your "current data."

The Bergey Price Lists confirm that your $33,500 price tag is for materials only. The Solar Panel Store Price Lists confirm that your $8,500 price tag ($9,100 if you want a tower that actually has a pipe to hold up the turbine) is for materials only. Installation costs (labor, equipment rental, permits, utility fees,etc.) will raise that number considerably.

I've published sources for ALL my data ... where are yours??

[Nick The Freeper]

Waiting to see if pillbox_girl is going to reply and I don't want to miss it.

[pillbox_girl]

Waiting to see if pillbox_girl is going to reply and I don't want to miss it.

Thing got busy for me all of a sudden. I've got a big order to fill here that looks like it has some problems. Even worse, an unexpected nasty anti-gun bill has popped up in my home state that I need to pressure my reps about, so I haven't had the writing time to respond to Dimple in the the detail his post requires. I haven't had time to get to all my pings yet, and haven't read the main forum in a few days. On FR I've been concentrating on shooting down an ignorant little gun grabber on another thread; I value my rights more than my position on wind power. I will respond to Dimple in the next week, I hope.