Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 11:55:29

GHung wrote:
Again: Why do you guys hold wind energy to a higher standard?

I'm not. Life cycle costs are life cycle costs and have to be computed over the realistic service life of the installation including all routine maintenance and periodic retrofits required to reach that life, balanced to the lifetime production. At present wind turbines especially off shore turbines have a much shorter service live then a fixed gravity dam water turbine setup.
You can't just declare that the wind turbine will last as long as the fixed installation without accounting for the likely cost to keep a unit running at that location for that long.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 12:08:09

Not trying to hold it to a higher standard, trying to evaluate if it is truly SUSTAINABLE.

SUSTAINABLE means that it needs to produce more energy in its lifetime than it costs to A build it and B replace it. (And of course to maintains it) If it can’t pay for its replacement then it’s not sustainable. Now an argument could be made that you could spread the replacement over a couple of cycles.

This is just taking a common sense approach. If it flies then fine, if not then it’s not sustainable.

To my mind NKNE of the current projects are held to this standard, thus they are NOT sustainable energy, they are green washing.

I would be very pleased to know I am wrong. Please show me.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9422
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 12:53:32

Newfie wrote:Not trying to hold it to a higher standard, trying to evaluate if it is truly SUSTAINABLE.

SUSTAINABLE means that it needs to produce more energy in its lifetime than it costs to A build it and B replace it. (And of course to maintains it) If it can’t pay for its replacement then it’s not sustainable. Now an argument could be made that you could spread the replacement over a couple of cycles.

This is just taking a common sense approach. If it flies then fine, if not then it’s not sustainable.

To my mind NKNE of the current projects are held to this standard, thus they are NOT sustainable energy, they are green washing.

I would be very pleased to know I am wrong. Please show me.


Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines
by Karl R. Haapala; Preedanood Prempreeda
International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing (IJSM), Vol. 3, No. 2, 2014


Abstract: Wind turbines produce energy with virtually no emissions, however, there are environmental impacts associated with their manufacture, installation, and end of life. The work presented examines life cycle environmental impacts of two 2.0 MW wind turbines. Manufacturing, transport, installation, maintenance, and end of life have been considered for both models and are compared using the ReCiPe 2008 impact assessment method. In addition, energy payback analysis was conducted based on the cumulative energy demand and the energy produced by the wind turbines over 20 years. Life cycle assessment revealed that environmental impacts are concentrated in the manufacturing stage, which accounts for 78% of impacts. The energy payback period for the two turbine models are found to be 5.2 and 6.4 months, respectively. Based on the assumptions made, the results of this study can be used to conduct an environmental analysis of a representative wind park to be located in the US Pacific Northwest.
http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=62496

Online publication date: Mon, 09-Jun-2014


....and....

Energy and environmental payback of the blades is a few months:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 ... 012032/pdf

Turns out that people HAVE analyzed many areas of the cumulative overhead costs of wind energy relative to payback - Search engines return many results - mostly positive, especially when one skips articles from Breitbart, etc.

Show me where they did this for Hoover Dam.
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 13:12:41

Newfie wrote:Not trying to hold it to a higher standard, trying to evaluate if it is truly SUSTAINABLE.

SUSTAINABLE means that it needs to produce more energy in its lifetime than it costs to A build it and B replace it. (And of course to maintains it) If it can’t pay for its replacement then it’s not sustainable. Now an argument could be made that you could spread the replacement over a couple of cycles.

This is just taking a common sense approach. If it flies then fine, if not then it’s not sustainable.

To my mind NKNE of the current projects are held to this standard, thus they are NOT sustainable energy, they are green washing.

I would be very pleased to know I am wrong. Please show me.

No you go too far there. It is enough if it pays for itself. The replacement has to pay for itself. If the foundations can be reused their cost could be spread over the cost of both or however many it will serve for. But it would be better business to have it covered by the first one with the uncertainty of future conditions and prices.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 13:18:03

GHung wrote:
Show me where they did this for Hoover Dam.
The calculations for Hoover dam were done with a slide rule and if they still are extant they are rolled up in some dusty store room in a BoR archive.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 13:29:21

VT,
I disagree but let’s save that for a future argument. I think the Spanish team did a good job of explaining it. But for the future. For now, let the first generation stand on their own.

It if they stand on their own then they need to include the full restoration cost.

Is this TRUE life cycle cost included in any of the existing contracts?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9422
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 13:36:37

Newfie wrote:VT,
I disagree but let’s save that for a future argument. I think the Spanish team did a good job of explaining it. But for the future. For now, let the first generation stand on their own.

It if they stand on their own then they need to include the full restoration cost.

Fine that would give you a good margin of error safety factor.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 13:50:03

NWMossback clearly knows his stuff, but why listen to his experienced input if'n it is info one doesn't wish to hear?
Most all the questions regarding turbine maintenance, costs, lifespans, even performance declines, etc,. are easily accessible online if one chooses to do a little research.

Check out the grout problems in the bases of the offshore turbines.
Check out the most recent issues of difficulty in maintaining true vertical in the 50/60 story high newbuilds with such large components that the stress factors are enormous.

The 85 gallons of gearbox oil - supposed to be changed annually prior to the recent adaption of specialized synthetics - took two men 12 hours using a 'bucket brigade' until more innovative processes were adopted. Inadequate change out is suspected for high gearbox failure.

Offshore is INCREDIBLY expensive to maintain and even the operators know it and are determinedly attempting to lower costs.

Offshore US will NEVER - say again NEVER! - take hold as CCGT sourced electricity will be miniscule in cost comparisons.

Studies objectively validating damaging infra sound like the recent Max Planck Institute paper will have lawyers salivating for compensation and insurance companies and financial backers scurrying for cover.

It's over, folks, for US renewables.
This current flurry of wind build out is 100% - say again 100% - prompted by the ITC/PTC programs which will incrementally expire in a couple of years. (Uncle Warren wants to thank you folks for the additional billions he has pocketed through your collective naivety).
coffeeguyzz
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 13:53:39

NWMossBack wrote:Wind turbines are maintenance nightmares. After about 15 years the cost of maintaining them is not worth it. There is a new study that just confirmed the results of this one, but I could not find it on line.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... study.html
That study used a statistical model to come up with it's results. A study that looked at actual results from old wind turbines came to a different conclusion:

There has been some debate about whether wind turbines have a more limited shelf-life than other energy technologies. A previous study used a statistical model to estimate that electricity output from wind turbines declines by a third after only ten years of operation.

In a new study, researchers from Imperial College Business School carried out a comprehensive nationwide analysis of the UK fleet of wind turbines. They showed that the turbines will last their full life of about 25 years before they need to be upgraded. The team found that the UK’s earliest turbines, built in the 1990s, are still producing three-quarters of their original output after 19 years of operation, nearly twice the amount previously claimed, and will operate effectively up to 25 years. This is comparable to the performance of gas turbines used in power stations.

The study also found that more recent turbines are performing even better than the earliest models, suggesting they could have a longer lifespan. The team says this makes a strong business case for further investment in the wind farm industry.
New research blows away claims that ageing wind farms are a bad investment
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4017
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 14:09:47

Check out this map to understand WHY the offshore wind resource is where most of the energy can be gathered:

https://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/80m_wind/awstwspd80onoffbigC3-3dpi600.jpg

...it's too big to embed and it needs to be that big to show the level of detail needed.

Note that in the NE, Mid-Atlantic, and the whole right half of the MidWest, where power consumption and populations are concentrated, the wind potential is almost all offshore. My second home on Nantucket Island, for example, is in the average 9.0-9.5 mph average wind speed zone, and the island is about 35 miles offshore.

Note also that there is a lot of potential wind resource in the left half of the MidWest all the way to the Rocky Mountains, a huge area that is sparsely populated. That is available power and should offer lower expenses than offshore - after the buildout of the power grid and storage facilities.

The difference is that we need the power in the NE and every megawatt we collect from wind displaces coal generated power, saving lives and reducing atmospheric carbon injection.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4199
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 16:16:32
Location: California's Silly Valley

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 14:29:43

coffeeguyzz wrote:NWMossback clearly knows his stuff, but why listen to his experienced input if'n it is info one doesn't wish to hear?
.........


The guy who claims to work for a company that has acquired 3 wind energy companies in 7 years, $1.5 billion acquisition this year? That guy? Yeah. The stuff doesn't work so we'll buy it.
No wonder GE is in trouble, eh?

Or maybe they are getting their asses kicked by Vestas and Siemens.

Oh,, Look! A Vestas in Texas.

Image
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby pstarr » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 15:24:21

That pictures speaks a thousand words. Tiny appropriately scaled technology next to a monstrous behemoth. The little windmill runs when there is a breeze, pumps water into long-term essentially free storage. From there it is drawn and used on site to water the livestock. Brilliant! Who thought of that?
Haven't you heard? I'm a doomer!
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 26329
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby coffeeguyzz » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 15:44:21

For those of us in the real world, the article "London Array turns two" describes actual operations of the world's largest offshore wind farm.
For comparison purposes, the Lackawanna Energy plant has 1.500 MW capacity, SIX TIMES the functional capacity (630*.4) of the London Array, is fueled by cheap nearby Marcellus gas, can be turned off an on in minutes, and has a staff of 30.
The offshore farm cranks out most prodigiously at night, requires 90 fulltime staff - most working 12 hour shifts - 6 crew boats, is subject to weather conditions, costs TWICE as much to build as Lackawanna, and has 50% rate of maintenance 'unscheduled', aka breakdowns.
NEVER happen in USA
coffeeguyzz
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:09:47

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 15:59:53

NW - As k said one should assume E.ON has solved that problem. Which is probably why it was one of 8 contracts awarded out of 243 bidders to build one of the first grid storage systems in the UK. A 10 MW design: "At times of either an oversupply or an undersupply, E.ON’s battery system will respond within one second absorbing or discharging power into the local distribution network to which the battery is connected and thus maintaining the system frequency at a safe level."

Doesn't sound like there's an issue with either voltage or any other compatibility requirement.

In fact just discovered the system is up and running as of last Sept...2 months ahead of schedule:

"The project will offer sub-second responses to keep the national grid stable by balancing power supply and demand in real-time to maintain a safe frequency. This is becoming more challenging due to the growing range of renewable generation sources making the electricity system more prone to changes in frequency.

In fact it was designed to specifically deal with the unique nature of renewables:

"The project will offer sub-second responses to keep the national grid stable by balancing power supply and demand in real-time to maintain a safe frequency. This is becoming more challenging due to the growing range of renewable generation sources making the electricity system more prone to changes in frequency."

Still haven't found the cost of the system but:

"Over four years we estimate that this service will save the system operator around £200m (US$262.7 million). This is good news for consumers who benefit from our cost efficiencies, and paves the way for battery technology to establish itself as an important component of our energy system.”

And found this: "Out of a list of some 64 pre-qualified bidders, National Grid picked eight vendors with a combined 201 megawatts of projects, ranging in size between 10 and 49 megawatts apiece, with a total value of £66 million ($86.4 million)."

So if the 10 MW will save about $60 million per year and the 200 MW total projects will cost $86 million then combined projects should payout in less then a year. If they aren't fibbing sounds like a great investment.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 10642
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby GHung » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 16:03:26

coffeeguyzz wrote:For those of us in the real world, the article "London Array turns two" describes actual operations of the world's largest offshore wind farm.
For comparison purposes, the Lackawanna Energy plant has 1.500 MW capacity, SIX TIMES the functional capacity (630*.4) of the London Array, is fueled by cheap nearby Marcellus gas, can be turned off an on in minutes, and has a staff of 30.
The offshore farm cranks out most prodigiously at night, requires 90 fulltime staff - most working 12 hour shifts - 6 crew boats, is subject to weather conditions, costs TWICE as much to build as Lackawanna, and has 50% rate of maintenance 'unscheduled', aka breakdowns.
NEVER happen in USA


Yes, and I've never been an either-or person. Trains are much more efficient than cars at moving people and goods, but we don't get rid of cars and build more trains everywhere. Wouldn't make sense. If these new combined cycle gas plants are so much more economical and efficient, why aren't they built everywhere?
Blessed are the Meek, for they shall inherit nothing but their Souls. - Anonymous Ghung Person
User avatar
GHung
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue 08 Sep 2009, 15:06:11
Location: Moksha, Nearvana

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 17:02:09

Been digging around a bit, I’ve got some decent internet for a couple of days for a change

As to the Spanish report: I can’t find the dang thing. The gist is it was written by its two project managers, took a comprehensive look at all the installation and maintenance costs, and laid a format for the Total Life Cycle Analysis. If anyone can find it, I originally came across it here on PO, I would appreciate a link. Or just some search suggestions.

I DID find a number of USA LAND projects are requiring a restoration fund and specifying the restoration measures. The contracts I found were pretty simple documents with no testing or verification measures. Basically they remove the foundation to 4’ below grade and remove roads and add topsoil (of course that’s just moving the site of the damage).
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9422
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 17:05:13

The recent British and EU wind farm reverse auctions have gone for very low numbers. I’m highly skeptical that they are planning on living up to their requirements. I mean what are you gonna do? Once they have the contract and do the build out what do you do if they go belly up? So what if the operator goes bankrupt. You are dependent on the system no matter the cost. It’s a social investment that will require the community to support it. It’s a devils game.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9422
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 17:40:20

Newfie wrote:I wAs thinking more along the lines of the blades, towers and those zMASSIVE FOUNDATIONS. Or is it just assumed they will be abandoned in place.
What often happens is that the wind farm is upgraded with new turbines as the old turbines age or new technology makes new turbines cost effective for a replacement. This is called repowering and comes in 2 flavors: full repowering and partial repowering. Full repowering is where they take down most of the wind farm: turbines, towers, foundations, but leave the roads, buildings, and transmission lines. Partial repowering is where they leave the foundation and tower intact and simply replace the turbine parts. As for the old equipment, it is sometimes resold in second-hand wind turbine markets such as in Latin America, Eastern Europe, etc where it gets a second lease on life. Otherwise the equipment gets recycled.

Repowering as defined here includes two types of actions. Full repowering refers to the complete dismantling and replacement of turbine equipment at an existing project site. Partial repowering is defined as installing a new drivetrain and rotor on an existing tower and foundation. Partial repowering allows existing wind power projects to be updated with equipment that increases energy production, reduces machine loads, increases grid service capabilities, and improves project reliability at lower cost and with reduced permitting barriers relative to full repowering and greenfield projects. There is also the potential to offset repowering costs by recycling or selling the older equipment.
Wind Power Project Repowering: Financial Feasibility, Decision Drivers, and Supply Chain Effects

GE Renewable Energy today announced at the AWEA Windpower Conference that it has repowered 300 wind turbines, the equivalent of adding 75 wind turbines worth of output. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has estimated that the U.S. repowering market could grow to $25 billion by 2030. With the largest installed base in the US, GE is uniquely positioned to serve this growing market segment.

As the US wind industry matures, legacy units are old enough to benefit from this lifecycle extension program, which brings new value to wind farm customers through upgrades and technology advancements.
Anne McEntee, GE Renewable Energy Vice President and Services CEO said “The Repower program can include increasing a turbine’s rotor size, and upgrades to the gearbox, hub, main shaft, and main bearing assembly. This is an exciting opportunity to bring new life to older turbines and help them provide even more energy for years to come. Repowering is so much more than simply providing new wind turbine equipment—we’re bringing the entirety of GE to the table for our customers, providing options for servicing, grid solutions, forecasting and tailored financing solutions.” “The GE repower package provides the opportunity to modernize our windfarms, improving the efficiency and increasing the farm output. Repowering ensures our wind turbines not just remain productive, but perform better than ever.”
GE Adds Value to the US Wind Turbine Industry With its Repower Offering
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4017
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 17:59:50

Newfie wrote:Been digging around a bit, I’ve got some decent internet for a couple of days for a change

As to the Spanish report: I can’t find the dang thing. The gist is it was written by its two project managers, took a comprehensive look at all the installation and maintenance costs, and laid a format for the Total Life Cycle Analysis. If anyone can find it, I originally came across it here on PO, I would appreciate a link. Or just some search suggestions.
Was it one of these papers:

Life cycle assessment of a multi-megawatt wind turbine

LCA sensitivity analysis of a multi-megawatt wind turbine

Those papers are a bit old though and one of them is behind a paywall. This one is a bit more recent:

Abstract: Wind turbines produce energy with virtually no emissions, however, there are environmental impacts associated with their manufacture, installation, and end of life. The work presented examines life cycle environmental impacts of two 2.0 MW wind turbines. Manufacturing, transport, installation, maintenance, and end of life have been considered for both models and are compared using the ReCiPe 2008 impact assessment method. In addition, energy payback analysis was conducted based on the cumulative energy demand and the energy produced by the wind turbines over 20 years. Life cycle assessment revealed that environmental impacts are concentrated in the manufacturing stage, which accounts for 78% of impacts. The energy payback period for the two turbine models are found to be 5.2 and 6.4 months, respectively.

Conclusions
This LCA study compared the environmental impacts of two 2.0 MW wind turbines using two methods (ReCiPe 2008 and energy payback). The tower, rotor, and nacelle are found to have the greatest contribution to the environmental impact in each case. For the tower, the large amount of steel required is the major contributor to cradle-to-grave environmental impact. One of the outcomes from this LCA study is the confirmation that the main life cycle environmental impacts of a wind turbine originate from the manufacturing stage. When compared to prior work, the results lead to a similar conclusion that environmental impacts are driven by the material consumption, especially steel.
It was shown that the use stage has an almost negligible environmental impact due to maintenance activities. In addition, the transportation distances of wind turbine components to the wind park site influenced environmental impact. The travel distance of model 1 is longer than model 2 by 16,000 km (approximately 50%), and some components for model 1 are transported from other continents. It was found that recycling is important to the environmental profile of the turbine, while transportation type can have a profound effect on life cycle impacts when components must travel relatively longer distances.
Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4017
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 18:00:57

If you wanted to take a shallow water turbine totally out of service removing the foundation all the way to the sea floor might not be the best option. Demolishing it down to an elevation well below the draft of any possible ship that might pass by and leaving the concrete rubble where it falls around the stub of the base would provide an artificial reef where the nooks and crannies between the fallen chunks would make excellent lobster condominiums.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8029
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 02:00:00

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests