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 coffeeguyzz » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 18:35:51

Ghung

That is a timely question for several reasons.
The biggest reason is the need for adequate natgas supply, and - consequently - the ferocious opposition to pipeline build out by renewable advocates.
However, the build out IS proceeding with many delays.
Two large pipelines are targeting the US southeast - Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley.
Once these are built (expected within 24 months), there will be future expansion potential which is much easier to accomplish.
There are already several CCGT plants being built or planned in the south east, and 26 in Ohio and Pennsylvania alone.
It's kind of a shame that anti fossil fuel folks have so thoroughly demonized natgas as the systems work most effectively with intermittent (think wind) supply.

VTS, trawling fishing boats are not compatible with remnant, sea-bottom structures.
This aspect is a very strong influence against offshore turbines in the northeast US.
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 GHung » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 19:30:12

coffeeguyzz wrote:Ghung

That is a timely question for several reasons.
The biggest reason is the need for adequate natgas supply, and - consequently - the ferocious opposition to pipeline build out by renewable advocates.
However, the build out IS proceeding with many delays.
Two large pipelines are targeting the US southeast - Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley.
Once these are built (expected within 24 months), there will be future expansion potential which is much easier to accomplish.
There are already several CCGT plants being built or planned in the south east, and 26 in Ohio and Pennsylvania alone.
It's kind of a shame that anti fossil fuel folks have so thoroughly demonized natgas as the systems work most effectively with intermittent (think wind) supply.

VTS, trawling fishing boats are not compatible with remnant, sea-bottom structures.
This aspect is a very strong influence against offshore turbines in the northeast US
.


Which is why sport fishing around these structures is generally good.
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, 19:41:26

GHung wrote:
coffeeguyzz wrote:Ghung

That is a timely question for several reasons.
The biggest reason is the need for adequate natgas supply, and - consequently - the ferocious opposition to pipeline build out by renewable advocates.
However, the build out IS proceeding with many delays.
Two large pipelines are targeting the US southeast - Atlantic Coast Pipeline and Mountain Valley.
Once these are built (expected within 24 months), there will be future expansion potential which is much easier to accomplish.
There are already several CCGT plants being built or planned in the south east, and 26 in Ohio and Pennsylvania alone.
It's kind of a shame that anti fossil fuel folks have so thoroughly demonized natgas as the systems work most effectively with intermittent (think wind) supply.

VTS, trawling fishing boats are not compatible with remnant, sea-bottom structures.
This aspect is a very strong influence against offshore turbines in the northeast US
.


Which is why sport fishing around these structures is generally good.

Yes!! My limited deep sea fishing experience (about one trip a summer) has shown me that a wreck or other obstacle keeps the dragers from plowing the sea bottom into a sterile desert to keep from losing nets and other gear. Drifting a jig above a cannon ball sinker (so as not to get caught on old nets) will often put a good fish onto every line as you drift by.
If I had my way I'd buy out every drager and sink their boats into a well planned artificial reef.They have fished the New England coast almost completely dry and need to take a five to ten year rest to let the stock recover.
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 NWMossBack » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 22:17:11

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


Rock - I said wind and solar PV do not currently provide significant voltage and frequency support, and batteries do not _necessarily_ solve that problem. As I also said, those features could be engineered into the inverter, but that added complexity is not included in EROEI calculations for wind & solar. I have not seen any analysis of the EROEI impact of adding batteries to wind, but at a starting point of only 5:1 it would not take much to push it into unprofitable territory. (I think 3:1 is right around the economic break point.) Also I said that the grid is designed around very large _inherently stable_ rotating machines, which _currently_ limits solar and wind penetration to around 10 to 15% to maintain stability. I am sure that number will be improved upon, and I think batteries are worth looking into, but as I already said that technology is unproven at the scale that would be required for a wholesale switch to an all renewable grid, and much more work is required before anyone can say it definitely is or is not possible. Remember that we would be replacing inherently stable generators with inherently unstable ones that require a long series of energy conversions, sophisticated computers, and very large semi-conductors. For an analogy think of an airplane; would you rather be a passenger on an inherently stable plane that does not need computers and would stay in the air even if the pilot took a little nap, or an inherently unstable plane that needs hundreds of decisions a second by a computer sent to the control surfaces, with hundreds of things that could go wrong every second. The question should not be just what is technically possible, it should also be what is more robust, what is economically feasible, what carries more benefits than drawbacks, etc.
To a man with a bunker, every problem looks like Armageddon.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby NWMossBack » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 22:36:31

kublikhan wrote:
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


Your link did not include the data - but here is a pretty good analysis that comes to a similar conclusion. But if you read through this you will realize that a 25% fall off in output is still significant, and has not been previously accounted for in calculating lifecycle costs.

Also, output degradation is obviously not the only consideration for the _economically useful_ lifespan. O&M costs increase over time, and with output simultaneously degrading it should be no surprise that the point when a turbine has reached it's maximum economic life is less than the original design estimate of 20 years, and a 15 year estimate seems to be reasonable.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 8113005727
To a man with a bunker, every problem looks like Armageddon.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 22:45:39

EROEI of wind is not 5:1. Depending on what source you use it's anywhere from 18:1 to 40:1:

40:1 - Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines

25:1 - EROEI OF ELECTRICITY GENERATION

20:1 - Energy return on investment – which fuels win?

20:1 - EROI of different fuels and the implications for society

18:1 - The Economics of Renewable Energy(data in this study is 10-40 years old)

NWMossBack wrote:Your link did not include the data - but here is a pretty good analysis that comes to a similar conclusion.
That's the same paper I was talking about. My link was a high level overview of the paper, your link is the paper itself.

NWMossBack wrote:Also, output degradation is obviously not the only consideration for the _economically useful_ lifespan. O&M costs increase over time, and with output simultaneously degrading it should be no surprise that the point when a turbine has reached it's maximum economic life is less than the original design estimate of 20 years, and a 15 year estimate seems to be reasonable.
The wind farms are not mothballed at 15-20 years though. They are repowered(upgraded) to newer parts.

The idea that wind farms only have 20-year useful lives “is ridiculous.” Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Co. said last month that it would upgrade hundreds of older turbines at power plants in Iowa. The reasons aren’t limited to age and health. Newer turbines produce more electricity than older models, so owners can downsize their power plants without reducing electricity output. And these jobs are sometimes easier than building new wind farms because power lines and permits are usually already in place.
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 ROCKMAN » Sun 05 Nov 2017, 23:53:33

Offshore, offshore, offshore. Having dealt with offshore facility construction, maintenance and abandonment for more then 4 decades its costs don't even exist in the same universe as onshore wind power. I don't care what numbers anyone tosses out. The cost for just one offshore service boat to run a couple of hands out for a day to check on a turbine could cost more then the normal maintenance of a 50 turbine onshore wind farm for a month.

Lifetime of a project: argue on. But a typical oil well drilled over the last 50+ years produced a meaningful amount of daily oil for less then 15 years. And many very profitable ones lasted less then 10 years. I don't recall any operator bitching about a profitable well being abandoned after a "short life".

What I've yet see for any alt project is the standard metric we use in every drilling project: NPV...Net Present Value. The NPV takes into account initial capex, maintenance, abandonment costs, income revenue AND the discount rate. The DR is typically 10% and represents the method of reducing future income as per the time factor. If the NPV of a wind farm negative it sucks. If it's positive then it's a good investment by some degree.

For folks building a wind farm the NPV would be primary determining factor and not the life span. The shale play can represent an extreme example: a well with just a 6 or 7 year life span might yield a 30% ROR. OTOH a well completed in a convention a reservoir might have a 20 year life span but yield only a 10% ROR. The longer a project's income stream is stretched out the lower the NPV which would yield a lower ROR. And at the extreme end of possibilities: a wind farm might last 25 years but might not ever recover 100% of the 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 NWMossBack » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 01:23:34

kublikhan wrote:EROEI of wind is not 5:1. Depending on what source you use it's anywhere from 18:1 to 40:1:


Your link purporting to show 40:1 does not discuss EROEI at all, and your other sources appear to be using "unbuffered" EROEI for wind. The EROEI after taking intermittency into account is around 5:1.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
To a man with a bunker, every problem looks like Armageddon.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 05:36:10

NWMossBack wrote:Your link purporting to show 40:1 does not discuss EROEI at all, and your other sources appear to be using "unbuffered" EROEI for wind. The EROEI after taking intermittency into account is around 5:1.

http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
My link was bad. here is the correct one:
Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines

They calculated input energy and output energy making it easy to calculate EROEI. The energy input was calculated as being repaid in about 6 months(0.5 years) and assuming 20 years of output. 20 / .5 = 40. So 40:1 EROEI.

As for buffering, all generators require some buffering. Yes this reduces overall EROEI but it is not a factor of 4 that your study uses.

Overview of power grid operations
System operators always maintain significant “operating reserves,” typically equal to 5-7% or more of total generation. These reserves are used to deal with the rapid and unpredictable changes in electricity demand that occur as people turn appliances on and off, as well as the very large changes in electricity supply that can occur in a fraction of a second if a large power plant suffers an unexpected outage. Instead of backing up each power plant with a second power plant in case the first plant suddenly fails, grid operators pool reserves for the whole system to allow them to respond to a variety of potential unexpected events.
System operators use two main types of generation reserves: “spinning reserves,” (regulation reserves plus contingency spinning reserves) which can be activated quickly to respond to abrupt changes in electricity supply and demand, and “non-spinning reserves,” (including supplemental reserves) which are used to respond to slower changes.
Spinning reserves are typically operating power plants that are held below their maximum output level so that they can rapidly increase or decrease their output as needed. Hydroelectric plants are typically the first choice of system operators for spinning reserves, because their output can be changed rapidly without any fuel use. When hydroelectric plants are not available, natural gas plants can also be used to provide spinning reserves because they can quickly increase and decrease their generation with only a slight loss of efficiency. Studies show that using natural gas plants or even coal plants as spinning reserves increases emissions and fuel use by only 0.5% to 1.5% above what it would be if the plants were generating power normally.
Non-spinning reserves are inactive power plants that can start up within a short period of time (typically 10-30 minutes) if needed. Hydroelectric plants are frequently the top choice for this type of reserve as well because of their speedy response capabilities, followed by natural gas plants. The vast majority of the time non-spinning reserves that are made available are not actually used, as they only operate if there is a large and unexpected change in electricity supply or demand. As a result, the emissions and fuel use of non-spinning reserves are very low, given that they only rarely run, the fact that hydroelectric plants (which have zero emissions and fuel use) often serve as non-spinning reserves, and the very modest efficiency penalty that applies when reserve natural gas plants actually operate.

Accommodating Wind Energy
Fortunately, the same tools that utility system operators use every day to deal with variations in electricity supply and demand can readily be used to accommodate the variability of wind energy. In contrast to the rapid power fluctuations that occur when a large power plant suddenly experiences an outage or when millions of people turn on their air conditioners on a hot day, changes in the total energy output from wind turbines spread over a reasonably large area tend to occur very slowly.
While occasionally the wind may suddenly slow down at one location and cause the output from a single turbine to decrease, regions with high penetrations of wind energy tend to have hundreds or even thousands of turbines spread over hundreds of miles. As a result, it typically takes many minutes or even hours for the total wind energy output of a region to change significantly. This makes it relatively easy for utility system operators to accommodate these changes without relying on reserves. This task can be made even easier with the use of wind energy forecasting, which allows system operators to predict changes in wind output hours or even days in advance with a high degree of accuracy.
Moreover, changes in aggregate wind generation often cancel out opposite changes in electricity demand, so the increase in total variability caused by adding wind to the system is often very low. As a result, it is usually possible to add a significant amount of wind energy without causing a significant increase in the use of reserves, and even when large amounts of wind are added, the increase in the use of reserves is typically very small.
The conclusion that large amounts of wind energy can be added to the grid with only minimal increases in the use of reserves is supported by the experience of grid operators in European countries with large amounts of wind energy, as well as the results of a number of wind integration studies in the U.S. The table below summarizes the results of some of these studies.

On average, adding 3 MW of wind energy to the U.S. electric grid would reduce the emissions from fossil power plants by 1,200 pounds of CO2 per hour. Adding this amount of wind would at most require anywhere from 0 to 0.01 MW of additional spinning reserves, and 0 to 0.07 MW of non-spinning reserves.
Wind energy, backup power, and emissions
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 NWMossBack » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 11:44:34

kublikhan wrote:They calculated input energy and output energy making it easy to calculate EROEI. The energy input was calculated as being repaid in about 6 months(0.5 years) and assuming 20 years of output. 20 / .5 = 40. So 40:1 EROEI.

That is not how EROEI is calculated. (40:1 is a preposterous claim for wind!) You might want to read the EROEI For Beginners link I posted, or this one for a more detailed treatment of the topic:

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf
To a man with a bunker, every problem looks like Armageddon.
User avatar
NWMossBack
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed 24 Jan 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Pacific NW USA

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 12:59:37

NWMossBack wrote:That is not how EROEI is calculated. (40:1 is a preposterous claim for wind!) You might want to read the EROEI For Beginners link I posted, or this one for a more detailed treatment of the topic:

https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weiss ... eprint.pdf
Actually, you might want to read it. it's the very first equation given:

The EROI of a power plant, R, is the ratio of the usable energy ER the plant returns during its lifetime to all the invested energy EI needed to make this energy usable, R := ER / EI
Energy intensities, EROIs, and energy payback times of electricity generating power plants

R = EROI. ER = all energy returned during the power plants lifetime. EI = all of the energy needed to make the energy usable. In the paper I linked to, they added up all of the energy it takes to make a wind turbine, cradle to grave. They then compared that to the energy output of the wind turbine:

A 2.0 MW wind turbine would generate 6.12 GWh per year, assuming a 35% capacity factor. Analysis revealed that energy payback time would be 0.43 years and 0.53 years for model 1 and model 2, respectively
Comparative life cycle assessment of 2.0 MW wind turbines

input energy for turbine model 1 = 0.43 years * 6.12 GWh/year = 2.63 GWh
input energy for turbine model 2 = 0.53 years * 6.12 GWh/year = 3.24 GWh
output energy = 6.12 GWh/year * 20 years = 122.4 GWh

Plugging these values into the equation in the paper you gave me gives us: 122.4 GWh / 2.63 GWh = 46.5:1 for turbine 1 and 37.8:1 for turbine 2.
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 pstarr » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 13:11:30

From the study, Kub:

"It is recognised that LCA methods are evolving and can generate widely varying results (Davidsson et al., 2012). Thus, use of the different methodologies makes it difficult to compare assessment results and raises questions about whether studies using different methodologies should be compared at all. In addition, it is difficult to assess the breadth of technical improvements driven by LCA results due to the fact that LCA results are often used for internal decision making or to support specific goals, e.g., preparing an environmental product declaration (Elsam, 2004). "


Net energy analysis is notoriously flaky, especially when it is based on embodied energy accounting. No one is ever in agreement where the boundaries should be established. So if we debit the energy consumed in smelting the aluminum/steel/plastic must we also do the same for the energy consumed by the draglines and monster trucks the deliver the feedstock to the smelter. Lest we forget that Spindletop (under lithostatic pressure for an eroei of 100:1) pumped itself into the pipelines and the refinery.

This is precisely why a thermodynamic model (Cutler J. Cleveland, 1981) that models exergy, and the slope toward a known null net-energy (using reserve size and well depth) is really the only useful model. I'll leave it to your imagination to discover other comparable models lol
Last edited by pstarr on Mon 06 Nov 2017, 13:21:46, edited 1 time in total.
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 ROCKMAN » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 13:13:57

k - Interesting debate you and NW are having about the EROEI of wind farms. Especially since the decision to build a wind farm (just like drilling an oil/NG well) has never and will never be based on the EROEI. The economics of such projects will determine if the investment is made. I doubt such projects with an EROEI of 20+ would be undertaken if the ROR is less then 5%. OTOH if the ROR were a solid 15% and the EROEI were 5 then I have no doubt an investor would jump on it.

But carry on with the debate: interesting from a purely academic point of view.
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 StarvingLion » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 13:25:20

You're all wasting your time. Its all Enron until this happens after the lights go out: ...and the stupid authors solution to fake money? Fake money, of course.

http://ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle ... 77322.html

Image
The 200 Year Scrap for Crap Oil will soon begin.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 13:51:31

pstarr wrote:Net energy analysis is notoriously flaky, especially when it is based on embodied energy accounting. No one is ever in agreement where the boundaries should be established. So if we debit the energy consumed in smelting the aluminum/steel/plastic must we also do the same for the energy consumed by the draglines and monster trucks the deliver the feedstock to the smelter. Lest we forget that Spindletop (under lithostatic pressure for an eroei of 100:1) pumped itself into the pipelines and the refinery.

This is precisely why a thermodynamic model (Cutler J. Cleveland, 1981) that models exergy, and the slope toward a known null net-energy (using reserve size and well depth) is really the only useful model. I'll leave it to your imagination to discover other comparable models lol
Let's keep the debate about wind shall we? I don't want to see another thread derailed with that nonsense.
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 pstarr » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 13:53:38

kublikhan wrote:
pstarr wrote:Net energy analysis is notoriously flaky, especially when it is based on embodied energy accounting. No one is ever in agreement where the boundaries should be established. So if we debit the energy consumed in smelting the aluminum/steel/plastic must we also do the same for the energy consumed by the draglines and monster trucks the deliver the feedstock to the smelter. Lest we forget that Spindletop (under lithostatic pressure for an eroei of 100:1) pumped itself into the pipelines and the refinery.

This is precisely why a thermodynamic model (Cutler J. Cleveland, 1981) that models exergy, and the slope toward a known null net-energy (using reserve size and well depth) is really the only useful model. I'll leave it to your imagination to discover other comparable models lol
Let's keep the debate about wind shall we? I don't want to see another thread derailed with that nonsense.

How about this then: you posted a particular study replete with hard numbers in order to promote wind power. I pointed out that numbers are MEANINGLESS out of context. What is the context? The promotion of wind power as an alternative to gas/oil/coal power. Since this is a wind-power thread, your remark is off topic. How's them cookies?
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 StarvingLion » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 14:13:27

The Brits have done it. They have just released a 100 page report on saving themselves from Mad Max 2. The solution is Ponzi Everywhere and Windmills Everywhere. Bird Choppers R Us

The new strategy should be designed to meet six strategic goals.

Ensuring adequate investment in infrastructure
Decarbonisation of the energy economy
Developing a sustainable health and social care system
Unlocking long-term investment
Supporting high-value industries and building export capacity
Enabling growth in all parts of the UK


http://industrialstrategycommission.org ... ission.pdf

http://industrialstrategycommission.org ... ommission/
The 200 Year Scrap for Crap Oil will soon begin.
StarvingLion
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 997
Joined: Sat 03 Aug 2013, 17:59:17

Re: THE Wind Power Thread pt 3 (merged)

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 15:00:33

Here's some more on Wind's EROEI:

The EROI of wind turbines depends on invested energy in the turbine, produced energy and life span of a turbine. In the scientific literature EROIs normally vary between 20 and 50.
Energy returned on energy invested

3.2 Net energy production, harvest factor and energetic payback time
As the main differences between the scenarios are the wind conditions, the net energy production varies accordingly. At the inland-site there is a net energy production of 101,990 MWh, at the near-coast-site 117,500 MWh and at the coastsite 147,000 MWh. Based on this, the harvest factor for the inland-site is 35.4, for the near-coast-site 40.8 and for the coast-site 51. That implies that at the different sites under assessment the WEC feeds between 35.4 and 51 times more energy into the grid than it consumes primary energy throughout its life cycle.
Fully parameterized LCA tool for wind energy converters

For reference, the average wind turbine being installed in the U.S. today has a nameplate capacity of almost 2,000 kW, and nearly all utility-scale wind turbines in the U.S. and around the world have capacities greater than 750 kW. As the study notes, the EROI significantly increases as turbines get larger, with the study noting that even at 750 kW the EROI is around 40.
Setting the record straight about wind’s lifecycle emissions and return on energy invested
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 coffeeguyzz » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 15:40:18

Kub

Just curious ... did you read Gail Tverberg's analysis on this stuff? (It was posted on this site several weeks back).
No one can accuse ol' Ms. T of vying for the title "Ms. Oil Patch 2017" for being a staunch proponent of fossil fuel consumption.

I dunno, methinks her sceptical appraisal should give pause to the Zephyr worshippers.

I am firmly in the camp of RM in that "show me the money" indicates where the serious players place their bets.

European nations continue to rely upon whirleys. US companies continue to build and utilize massive CCGT sourced power and will therefore achieve an insurmountable economic advantage for decades to come.
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 » Mon 06 Nov 2017, 16:15:08

Well coffee if you are in the "show me the money camp" you should be even more in favor of wind. That's because wind(and solar) benefit from a positive learning curve: they get cheaper as time goes on. This is in contrast to nuclear power which gets more expensive as time goes on and fossil fuels which have depletion issues.

Two renewable-electricity-generating technologies that advocates hope will one day power much of human society—solar and wind—have both plunged in price in recent years. According to a recent report from Bloomberg New Energy Finance, on-shore wind is competitive with fossil-fuel-burning plants in many parts of the world. And if you factor in coal’s devastating public-health costs, it’s already much more expensive than solar or wind.

Two main forces have driven the price of wind in the past five years. First, it’s cheaper to produce wind turbines than ever before. Second, wind turbines are much more efficient than they used to be.

There was a large plunge between 1980 and 1996, as manufacturers figured out how to better build the technology. Then, from 2000 to 2008, “there was actually a plateau period. From 2004 to 2008, prices even start to increase. That was really driven by a shortage of turbines in the market,” she said. Between 2008 and 2012, the demand for turbines turned into a supply glut. “People produced a ton of turbines, there was too much capacity, and the market didn’t grow as fast as people were expecting.” Since then, the price of building turbines has been brought down by a “learning curve”—that is, manufacturers have gotten better at building turbines better, cheaper, and faster. “For wind, we’ve seen a 9 percent drop in the cost of an actual turbine, for every doubling of installed capacity.”

But the falling cost of turbines is not the only factor driving down the price of wind. Manufacturers have also gotten better at making individual turbines produce more energy. Wind turbines can now be mounted higher, so they reach more powerful breezes; and their rotors can be bigger, so they capture more air. Utilities have also gotten better at deciding where to place turbines, and they’re more reliable, so they don’t break down as often.

The two great mechanisms pushing along renewables—competition and ever-improving technical know-how—are likely to keep chugging along. The only question is how fast they’ll move, and how soon they’ll be definitively cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels.
How Solar and Wind Got So Cheap, So Fast

As for Gail, are you referring to this article?
The “Wind and Solar Will Save Us” Delusion

I just quickly glanced through the article. Most of the article is ripping apart the case of "all renewables all the time". I am not proposing that. Why do people do this? "If renewables can't provide 100% of our energy forget it." This is binary thinking and so far flung from reality it's not even worth debunking. We can increase the amount of wind in the grid without going 100% renewable. As for the one paragraph talking about wind EROEI, there were no numbers given so I can't comment on that either.

And as for your US vs Europe comment, the US is installing more wind than any country in Europe:

The United States ranked second[behind China] for [wind] additions (8.2 GW), for cumulative capacity at year’s end (82.1 GW) and for wind power generation (226.5 TWh; only 6% below China) during 2016. Wind power accounted for one-fourth of newly installed US power generating capacity, ranking third after solar PV and natural gas for gross capacity additions, and second for net additions. US utilities continued to invest strongly in wind power, with some
going beyond state mandates based on favourable economics. The cost-competitiveness of wind power also drove corporate and other purchasers, with a diverse range of new companies entering the market. Non-utilities accounted for 39% of more than 4 GW contracted in 2016.

Germany again was the largest European market, increasing operating wind power capacity by almost 5 GW for a total of 49.5 GW (45.4 GW onshore and 4.2 GW offshore). Five other EU countries had a record year for new installations, including France (adding 1.6 GW), the Netherlands (0.9 GW, mostly offshore), Finland (0.6 GW), Ireland (0.4 GW) and Lithuania (0.2 GW).
RENEWABLES 2017 GLOBAL STATUS REPORT
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 4017
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Illinois

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests