Wind Power at Enormous Scale
2GreenEnergy Supporter Gary Tulie writes from his home in scenic Buckinghamshire, England (pictured): Hi Craig, I have wondered for a long time how big wind turbines might eventually get. This article indicates a possibility of reaching 50 MW per turbine. With blades 200 metres long for a sweep of around 420 metres diameter and the blade tips traveling 1320 metres or 0.8 miles with every rotation.
Yes, I know you’re interested in this; one of the key contributions you made to “Bullish on Renewable Energy” covered this section. This article is truly amazing.
Gary then cautions: Don’t expect them on the market next week! My guess is modest scale proof of concept by around 2020, commercial applications at 10 to 20 MW by 2030, with larger machines maybe by 2040.
I must confess to a dislike of these eyesores destroying the vista of our “green and pleasant land “.
I also question the economic and environmental benefits of investing in a heavily subsidized industry, which is inherently incompatible with the ” on demand” needs of industrial societies.
Wind power technology is a good example of taking an ideological-political driven technology that’s doesn’t really fit, and changing all the dynamics of the original problem, to justify it’s existence. The problem with these “solutions” is once the scale of investment and public expenditure is committed, such industries become politically very hard to later eliminate.
(the UK coal industry is a good example)
Just as the US ethanol industry turned out to be a gigantic disaster, it is my opinion that wind power will prove to have been a similar well intentioned mistake, except in specialized and localized applications.
I realize that for many ardent advocates, such an opinion will be regarded as outrageous hearsay. At some stage, all emerging technologies should become subject to the rigors of objective competition. Changing the rules to favour any particular technology on the basis of political expediency or ideological correctness, is folly and inevitably lead to a painful collapse.
Craig often argues (I believe somewhat naively) that because some major banks and financial institutions issue statements of support and invest in any particular variety of renewable energy technology, it proves the validity of the technology.
Sadly, it doesn’t ! At the best it proves the financial institution is lending to an undisclosed criteria. (It could also just display the executive, or lending committee’s poor judgement).
Considerable debate is growing about the benefits and disadvantages of Wind power. Many of the arguments advanced for and against get pretty crazy, and downright weird, but the real test will come when a superior technology is commercialized.
Some us take the cue from 97% of the climate scientists who tell us that humankind needs to make some radical changes in our approach to energy if we are to have a civilization here in 75 years. Some of us formulate our viewpoints from other sources, e.g., the oil companies, the U.S. Congress that they own, literal interpretations from the Book of Genesis, etc. I’m in the first camp, and you are in the second. It’s as simple as that.
Humankind needs to make radical changes in its SEXUAL ENERGY. In other words we are far too many on the planet. Optimum number is probably 2 billion and not 10. The second problem is that owing to the business drive of developed countries. lesser developed countries are persuaded to have an ever increasing demands for energy. Industry needs a lot of it, which means that everything that the earth stores, such as coal, oil (plus all the metals) is pulled out of the ground, without most people even giving a thought to future generations needs. The third problem is that with the adaptation of technology, the human race is becoming lazier and lazier, using machinery for the simplest tasks. In plain words our planet is doomed and problems are accelerated. Yet it is not PC to say any of it.
You’re absolutely right.
George,
In Ancient Rome you could have had a great career donning sackcloth and ashes, crying Doom, Doom, we’re all doomed !
But, of course we’re not all doomed, in fact this is a period of peace, prosperity and hope for mankind. We’re less plagued by our ancient enemies, war, pestilence and famine than at any time in our history. The majority of humans are even cheating death by living longer.
Sure it ain’t perfect, and it’s not a perfect world, but it is getting better. So come out of your bunker, forget your fears, and enjoy living.
Humans are by nature a curious, ingeniously inventive species. We create our own destiny, often with drawbacks and disasters, but each time we come back cleverer and stronger. It’s true we don’t adapt to our environment. Since the discovery of fire, we adapt our environment to suit ourselves, and for humans that is “natural” !
The only ” Utopia” is the one humans make for themselves. Each human is valuable, each has the right to know the joy of parenthood. Civilizations which start deciding what type of human is “more valuable” or “superior” lose the right to be considered civilized.
I wouldn’t say we’re doomed, but I would certainly say we’re in grave danger. (Is there any other kind?)
I would further say that dealing effectively means some sort of coming together as a species.
I certainly admire the line: “Enjoy living.” We all owe that to ourselves. FWIW, I enjoy the heck out of my life. My concern for humankind doesn’t mitigate that in the slightest; in fact, it may enhance it.
Whoa there Craig !
1) I’m neither a fundamentalist Christian or Creationist ! ( My great-grandfather helped both Alfred Wallace and Charles Darwin financially, and assisted Wedgewood in securing a hearing with the Navy that obtained a place for Darwin on HMS Beagle)
2) the oil companies don’t “own” the US congress, in fact the RFA has far greater lobbying power, and has no hesitation in using that power. But what has the US congress or oil companies, got to do with Wind power in the UK ?
3) 97% of scientists do not agree with anything ! At least certainly not what you believe. Like most people, you are citing (unintentionally I’m sure) a complete distortion. The reference to which you allude is completely unsustainable.
That misconception reference is drawn from a statement that 97% of peer reviewed articles by “climate scientists” agree on man-made contributions to climate change.
97% becomes a bit shaky when you examine the criteria is derived from Reuters publication survey, The survey admits only 80% of scientific journals were included. The figures get even more rubbery as you start to analyze the criteria constitute the definition of a “climate scientist” , and then discount the taint of orchestrated rings of mutual support “peer reviewers”.
It’s just as important to be scrupulously objective with claims you favour as those you oppose !
4) Last but not least, you are very unfair when you cast me into the category of those opposed to all alternate energy ! What I find astonishing is your passionate objection to ensuring public and private money isn’t wasted on enormous white elephants, ill-conceived grandiose schemes etc ?
All technology that relies on public funding deserves to be constantly monitored, analyzed, and questioned to ensure that money isn’t being wasted. Money that otherwise could be spent on more useful and practical technologies.
Now if that’s being conservative, so be it ! If you imagine that it’s a good thing to spend borrowed money on inefficient technologies, doomed to failure, just to maintain some ill-conceived ideological industry in business at the expense of the tax payer, then you’re not the rational individual I believe you to be.
Reasoned analysis requires an open mind, and objective gathering of information and intelligence. I try to examine carefully, and impartially all sides in any debate. It might be embarrassing, or even painful to be forced to abandon something I once passionately believed in, but it’s better than persisting with a error.
Well, I should apologize for the flippant and slapdash comment. I should have taken the time to express myself better:
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that our civilization is just starting to experience the suffering that is the direct result of our selfish and irresponsible behavior vis-a-vis the environment.
Anyone who sincerely believes that free market capitalism is going to lead us out of this mess is delusional.
The concept of government subsidies to kick-start a strategically important industry is hardly controversial, especially if that industry represents a social good. (There certainly are examples of poor / shortsighted decision making in the past. One could say that ethanol is an example, but in fairness, subsidies here were approved at a time at which the issue with gasoline was national security, not environmental stewardship.)
Solar and wind both have excellent EROI (energy return on investment) characteristics.
The cost of solar and wind has fallen to the point that they are near cost parity to fossil fuels, even without subsidies.
When I say that the oil companies own the US Congress I’m exaggerating. But very few Americans, regardless of their level of patriotism or political persuasion, deny that our country suffers from massive corruption in this arena.
This has brought us to this pathetic condition: ExxonMobil, after receiving billions of dollars in subsidies from the US taxpayer, came to the conclusion in 1981 that fossil fuel consumption would soon cause a catastrophic level of climate change, but conspired to suppress this fact and engaged in a $30 million campaign to convince a gullible people that global warming is a hoax. If you don’t regard that as “evil,” it’s hard to know what you are reserving that term to describe.
Craig,
The debate about Exxon’s role in identifying the causes of “climate change ” and its moral duties are another subject.
Gary Tulie referred to Wind power in the UK, not perhaps odd for someone from Buckinghamshire where the village of Brill has a famous old windmill dating from 1685.
Your sweeping statement ” The cost of solar and wind has fallen to the point that they are near cost parity to fossil fuels, even without subsidies “. is incorrect. Almost any technology can be justified if the economic criteria is continually rejigged by passionate advocates to justify continuing public expenditure.
I’m an analyst. I try hard to gather and assess all relevant information without ideological bias. I understand the desire of passionate advocates to maintain their enthusiasm for well intentioned projects and technologies that ‘should ‘ have worked. I understand the desire to support technologies which you believe should be promoted for “moral” or ideological reasons, even if they turn out to be impractical.
But it’s irresponsible. It’s irresponsible because governments have no money of their own. They derive income from taxpayers both private and corporate. That income must not only pay to promote economic activity but pay for services which individuals or the private sector doesn’t provide.
Funding economically unsustainable industries at the expense of civic services is irresponsible and a breach of trust with taxpayers.
The assessment of economic costs associated with power generation in the US is complicated by the uniquely complex regulations that govern how power utilities generate income and assess costs. These regulations are little understood and don’t translate to any other form of commerce.
In the UK it’s a bit easier to separate the actual cost of generation, and although inter-grid transmission with co-operating grids have created some efficiencies, Wind and Solar power remain uneconomic and need massive government subsidies to exist.
Enthusiasts for Wind and Solar power dismiss the large initial capital cost of installation, maintenance and replacement.
Advocates also fail to mention the inherent problems of trying to match a technology which delivers ” power when available” with consumers who want ” power on demand”.
To be successful, technology should fulfill the requirement of the consumer. The idea the consumer must change requirements to satisfy the inadequacies of a technology for ideological reasons, will always prove a wasteful exercise in political bloody-mindedness.
The lessons of Germany and Spain (or even Nevada) are beginning to become apparent. The removal or even lessening of government support witnesses the collapse of large scale Wind and Solar industries.
This doesn’t mean these industries don’t have a future, or that the technologies won’t continue to improve. Nor does it mean that Wind and Solar don’t have an important role to play in certain localized areas or applications. But it does mean it’s time for a realistic appraisal of the value of these industries before committing even more taxpayer funds to create more white elephants.
Had the US Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 not extended the very generous subsidies, the Wind industry would have immediately gone into sharp decline. The PTC is only one of a huge raft of complex, often hidden, subsidies and regulatory incentives, granted to this industry.
Federal subsidies for Wind have grown from $476 million to more than $4.98 billion per year under Obama. That’s an increase of more than 900 percent. In the next two years this figure will grow to 6.70 billion.
The Wind industry contributes very little in the way of positive tax revenue.
The idea that “save the planet” justifies any grandiose scheme no matter how uneconomic and impractical, is irresponsible.
If, as you claim, the “oil companies own Congress” how is it that this bill was extended ? If the Oil Companies do “own” Congress, how does the Ethanol industry remain in existence ?
As I get older, I try to spend less time in the UK and more time in the warmer climate of Australia. Recently, I helped defeat a Wind farm proposal for the Shire where I own a farming property.
My valley is an area of exceptional natural beauty. The area is already well serviced by hydro-electric power, and solar panels are in proliferation due to an overly generous subsidy by a previous government that saw an explosion of imported, cheap, inferior Chinese panels, subsidized by the PRC government. This ill-conceived ideologically driven scheme Australian market destroyed the local high quality solar industry, and contributed to national debt. (sound familiar ?)
It wasn’t easy defeating the rabid ideologues who live in the capital city more than 150 miles away, but we achieved success because of the unselfish decision by a group of not so affluent landowners, who courageously refused financial inducements from the huge multi-national conglomerate promoting the wind farm.
In 2000 the then Labour government of the UK introduced the Utilities Act (2000) this was followed by the Renewables Obligation Order (2006), which without any vote in Parliament, saw the beginning of a huge regulatory system guaranteeing the subsidization of the Wind industry.
As a result,just as in the US, UK Wind producers generate more profits from subsidies than from the energy produced.
The debate is not really about creating clean renewable, usable energy, ( everyone wants that ), but the best technology to achieve that goal. It’s counter-productive to invest vast sums of private and public money in technologies that have inherent defects, and will always be dependent of public subsidies.
Your viewpoint on the morality of government subsidies doesn’t qualify you as unique, but it’s certainly does cordon you off into a very small group of extremists in that regard. I would simply say a) that legitimate governments derive their rightful powers from the consent of the governed, and b) the vast majority of American voters think that “the United States should rely more on solar energy (80 percent of respondents) and wind power (73 percent of respondents), while relying less on energy from coal and oil in the next five years.” See: https://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2015/01/15/104581/release-cap-poll-finds-fossil-fuel-interests-dominate-agenda-of-new-congress-but-americans-favor-renewable-energy-environmental-protections/. Most people think this is pretty straightforward stuff; it doesn’t require an advanced degree in ethics to see the logic here. (This is the reason I wonder who you are; you seem far too intelligent to argue folly like this.)
Also, if you (other other readers) simply Google “LCOE wind coal nuclear” you will come up with hundreds of articles on this subject, like this one: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/WEC_J1143_CostofTECHNOLOGIES_021013_WEB_Final.pdf, and you’ll realize that I am correct re: what I wrote on the costs of energy from wind. The actual data here directly refutes the notion that subsidies for renewables will always be required.
Craig,
Actually, we both agree that the power of governments derives from the electors, within the remit of constitutional convention.
Were we differ is I understand modern democracies are really “representative” governments, where “the will of the people” is expressed by electing representative legislators through the ballot box. You seem to favour a more ancient Athenian concept where the ” will of the people” is educed from opinion poll’s and vociferous pressure groups.
Your argument that “most people agree”, depends on what people, how well informed, and the phrasing of the question !
Just because hundreds of earnest advocates, write articles agreeing with each other, doesn’t make anything right or wrong. All it means is that the concept has a popular, or at least very vocal, following.
What we don’t share is your tendency to portray everything in the terms of a “moral” crusade. “Good and Evil”. I don’t share that missionary zeal. In fact, although I admire your passion, I believe it makes you less objective, and analytical.
Nor do I think that my views on the government subsidies are extreme. If you asked the majority of people in the western world how they think their taxes should be spent, tax incentives, subsidies and government grants to industry, come pretty far down the list ! Even less so if you asked whether government expenditure should be without monitoring, scrutiny, or accountability.
Frame the question this way “do you agree you should pay more tax, higher power bills and the government spend less on hospitals and education, so that wealthy people can get a subsidy on solar panels? ” …see the response you get !
Taxpayers accept governments have a duty to manage the economy. Sensible taxpayers also accept governments use of tax credits and subsidies as a method of providing incentives to new industries,stimulate the economy, create employment or soften the effect of dying industries.
But governments have a duty to taxpayers to ensure that subsidies and incentives don’t get misused to prop up inefficient industries or feather bed political supporters and failed ideologies.
Claiming that the majority of Americans would prefer Solar or Wind to oil or coal, is pointless. It’s like asking “Do you think we should cure cancer?” Of course no one will disagree !
But that doesn’t mean we can cure cancer !
If the US ethanol industry proved nothing else, it proved that really well intentioned ideas, with the best of motives, if not rigorously monitored can quickly grow into giant industries becoming a more malovent problem, than the problem they were originally developed to remedy.
I’m also familiar with the report you cite by the the folk in Regency House. While an excellent study, the authors concede that their conclusions are speculative, and quantified by changes in government policies. Nor do they address the issue of “power on demand” , simply speculating that future ESD technology will be invented to address the issue.
The report also relies heavily ( and accepts without question), information supplied by the PRC and other nations not noted for accurate reporting.
As I say, it’s just as important to be rigorous in analyzing reports and articles that agree with your position, as those which oppose you.
Your belief in the more extreme consequences of the effects of climate change, coupled with seeing energy technology from a “moral” perspective, has (in my opinion) a drawback. The drawback is (as I see it) you tend to justify anything that isn’t fossil fuel as being “good” and justified because you believe it replaces “evil”.
But technology is neither “virtuous” or “Evil “, it’s just technology and should be assessed with pragmatic objectivity.
The effectiveness of most technologies depends on circumstance. We all got spoiled during the golden age of fossil fuels, with all purpose, easily transportable,highly potent sources of energy. It will take many types of future energy technologies to replace fossil fuels. Each technology will find its place in the mix depending on application. Some will prove very important, others blind alleys.
Likewise, oil and to an increasingly lesser extent coal, will still continue to play a part for decades to come.
Not an exciting disruptive revolution, but an arduous evolution.
But by
Whilst I am based in the UK, I do not usually write specifically about the UK without declaring the fact. In this case, my writing was general rather than geographically based.
The article I drew attention to was discussing the possibility of very large scale wind turbines up to 50MW per turbine – which are highly unlikely to be built on land, but might have advantages off shore where the cost per kW installed is most heavily influenced by the cost of foundations and cabling.
Regarding costs and subsidy, in the UK, the amount of subsidy per kWh is steadily reducing offshore, and subsidy has now been abolished for onshore wind farms.
At the best onshore sites, wind is now in a position to compete head to head with fossil fuels in terms of cost per kWh,and even more so if externalities are taken into account – For example, I am sure the people of Beijing would be willing to pay slightly more for their power if it meant the air they breath is significantly cleaner!
Regarding the intermittency factor, this only really becomes an issue at high penetration as all power grids already need substantial flexibility to cope with changes in demand through the day, between seasons, and between week days and weekends. At more modest penetration, there is only a small additional cost incurred in achieving the greater flexibility required, and in areas with a lot of hydro power, very high wind penetration is possible at minimal flexibility cost as the output of hydro plant is adjusted counter to wind power output.