The second wave of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, algae and others bypass the food vs. fuel controversy and are on the cusp of commercialization. This webinar will review the latest developments in the advanced biofuel space with leading companies more...
Join Intelligent Utility managing editor Kate Rowland, along with a panel from PHI including Rob Stewart, manager of technology evaluation and implementation, and Todd McGregor, AMI director, for an interactive discussion about this company's work to build a more intelligent more...
Join industry leaders and Marty Rosenberg, Editor-in-Chief of EnergyBiz magazine, for an interactive discussion about the critical relationship between transmission and distribution (T&D) investment and smart grid success. As the energy enterprise gets smarter toward the consumer end with smart more...
This webcast should be attended by those individuals that are responsible for identifying, planning and evaluating Smart Grid solutions, including those that empower and engage consumers and are easily assimilated with existing or new technology and business processes. more...
ACI's Smart Grid Revolution February 18-19, 2010 A two day strategic event bringing together utility professionals, government & state officials & consultants involved in deployment of the smart grid. To learn strategies which will improve energy efficiency programs & operations, more...
In 2009, a global economic meltdown collided with an energy crisis to turn the world on its ear. In the United States we've witnessed an unprecedented spending on energy resource development and infrastructure. As a result, a new energy architecture more...
CERAWeek, IHS CERA's 29th Executive Conference, is recognized as a leading forum offering insight into the energy future. Each year senior policymakers, energy and power executives, and financial and technology leaders from over 55 countries engage with CERA experts in more...
The conference will provide a comprehensive analysis of the thin film industry and its key challenges in an interactive manner. Leading companies will share their experiences through panel debates and high-level presentations. A great opportunity to network with the whole more...
Gas and Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the natural gas and electric industries. Position yourself for career success by gaining a solid understanding of how each business works, including key physical, market and regulatory aspects, as well more...
Gas Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the natural gas industry. Position yourself for career advancement by gaining a solid understanding of how the gas business works including key physical, market, and regulatory aspects and how market participants navigate more...
Electric Business Understanding provides a comprehensive overview of the electric industry. Position yourself for career advancement by gaining a solid understanding of how the electric business works including key physical, market, and regulatory aspects and how market participants navigate this more...
Gas Market Dynamics offers participants an in-depth understanding of North American natural gas markets and how they function. Enhance your career by furthering your knowledge of market structure, supply and demand, services offered in gas markets, and how various participants more...
We know you have something to say!
There is an immediate need for articles on
the hot topics in the Power Industry!
EnergyPulse, like no other publication,
also provides a means for our readers to
immediately interact with experts like you.
Interested in this topic? Need more information? Energy Central has created a complete information service focused only on Wind Energy. There is no better way to stay informed. Get more information on Wind Energy today!
Peruse a magazine, turn on the television or surf the web and it's likely you'll see them: wind turbines used as a sign of progressive thinking in everything from banking ads to car commercials. National surveys show overwhelming public support for increasing wind power. Governments are demanding utilities obtain more of their power from renewables. Yet spend time on the ground actually working to get wind farms permitted -- as we do -- and you see a different picture emerge.
At a local public hearing we attended not long ago on whether to permit a proposed wind farm in upstate New York, a woman stood up and related the following story. She said that she had recently attended a public forum where a man from the Midwest had stood up and told how a dairy farmer he knew had agreed to have a wind turbine sited on his land. He said that the farmer had originally been very supportive of wind power, but that after the turbine was commissioned, he noticed that his cow's milk production had dried up.
At the same time, this farmer's elderly father, who lived with him, developed symptoms associated with Parkinson's disease. Angered at this dual misfortune, and positive it was the turbine's fault, the farmer grabbed his ax and went outside and chopped in two the line that carried the turbine's electrical energy to the power grid. To his great relief, the man reported, the farmer found that cutting off the turbine caused his cows to produce again and his father's Parkinson's symptoms to nearly completely subside.
Not to be trifled with, the man said, the wind energy company that was originally so friendly to the farmer, brought him to court and forced him to allow the power line to be re-connected to the turbine. At this, the farmer's father's symptoms returned and his cow stopped giving milk. It was a tragic story. The woman who related all of this concluded by saying that this episode was but a glimpse of what was to come if the town approved the proposed wind farm before them.
What seems like an outrageous story morphed through the repeated telling not dissimilar from the children's game "telephone," is in fact the type of misinformation we hear more and more often these days at project permitting events. Seeing nodding heads at these types of tall tales can be sobering when you are trying to get a wind farm sited.
Another disturbing development in the field is a soon to be released book self-published by a pediatrician who posits to scientifically expose the evils of wind farms. While the book claims to be 'peer reviewed' by other doctors, the book is more anecdotal than scientific in nature. A quick review of the 'research' by anyone with even minimal familiarity with statistics or medical research reveals that no base case was established, no causality between wind farms and any health risks is proven, and the area 'studied' falls outside the training of the author and the expertise of the peer reviewers. Notwithstanding this lack of scientific rigor, stories about the forthcoming work are already appearing in the news media across the country and giving people pause about supporting wind projects near them.
Mark Twain once observed: a lie makes it halfway around the world before the truth has time to put its pants on. As public outreach professionals who have worked on siting more than a dozen wind power projects since 2003, we are increasingly witnessing rumors and misinformation such as referenced above winning the race of public opinion and stunting or killing the development of many wind farms. Aside from tight financing markets and unavailability of turbines, public opposition based on misinformation is clearly one of the major fatal flaws facing wind farm developers today.
Even more troubling than the random individuals who parrot bad information, is a growing national cadre of organized, technologically savvy, anti-wind organizations who amplify and disseminate misinformation to meet their own agenda of preventing the development of wind power. Wind power opponents have networked over the years to achieve an anti-wind power "movement" and appear nationwide at symposiums on wind power. Their voice pressures town boards to oppose projects.
President Obama has called for a doubling of U.S. renewable energy production within the next three years. However, despite the many benefits of wind power, people still have many misconceptions, ranging from wildlife impacts to human health issues which have been spread by the anti-wind groups. Confounding the problem is the fact that most people have very little understanding of how we get our electrical power today and what the impacts are from traditional means of electric generation. This emerging dynamic of individuals and groups opposing wind farm development, and public misunderstanding about the benefits and impacts of wind power, is the Achilles heel which could cause us to stumble in our renewable energy mission.
Many of the easiest sites for projects have been 'picked over' and now developers must further penetrate areas that are either remote and face transmission challenges, or are relatively densely populated and face siting opposition. So how are we to achieve our aggressive goals of siting another 20,000 megawatts of wind power during the next three years when available locations dictate that wind farms will need to be sited closer and closer to populated areas? The answer is early and intensive outreach and education programs.
In many instances, how a developer communicates with the public most directly impacted by a wind farm will make or break the success of that project. This is particularly true in most of the highly populated regions of the country. Based upon our experience in the field with wind farm development, we have distilled the following principles on which effective outreach efforts must be built.
Start Outreach and Education Efforts Early Within the Development Process. New ideas and technology take time for people to synthesize and digest. Commencing outreach and education efforts early within the development cycle significantly increases the odds of public support for a project.
The Public Must Be Educated about Electric Systems. It's hard to convince people that renewable energy is superior when people don't even understand potential drawbacks of our current energy system. It is imperative to proactively educate people on the basics of electricity, and sources of power before discussing the economic, energy and environmental benefits a project offers a community.
Describing Life Cycle Impact of Energy Sources Generates Enthusiasm for Green Power. Here is where the public receives education on efficiency, climate change, extraction costs, and energy security. Engaging public health and environmental professionals is the best way to highlight the effect of different energy generating activities on local habitat and well being. After fostering trust, conversations around energy security and the long term benefits of renewable power projects on a town's economy have a greater impact.
Myth Debunking. Often the reasons communities are resistant to host renewable energy facilities are based on rumor and not fact. Common objections include the perception that the intermittency of a power source requires the addition of an equivalent amount of dispatchable back-up generation to the grid. The threat to birds is a common fear that is often grossly exaggerated. However, overcoming these barriers is necessary to gain traction on the benefits including raising the economic base of a town, providing school tax revenue, saving local farms and even preserving property values.
Public Awareness and Educational Efforts Must Utilize Local Advocates. Engaging local stakeholders from the bottom up increases attendance at and the efficacy of outreach efforts including bus tours, open houses and public education forums. Key success factors for grassroots outreach hinge on identifying local advocates early on and empowering them to foster support.
For information on purchasing reprints of this article, contact Tim Tobeck ttobeck@energycentral.com. Copyright 2010 CyberTech, Inc.
Sounds an awful lot like all the nuclear myths that many so called environmentalists lob at the nuclear industry. Two-headed cows, explode like an atom bomb, running out of Uranium fuel to name just three. Nuclear power plant operators have been dealing with it for years So welcome to the club folks. Maybe you can learn from the nuclear business as to how best to deal with it. Malcolm
Frida Payle 1.29.09
When an industry sells itself by exaggerating benefits and downplaying adverse impacts, it eventually has to face reality. People can read a prepublication copy of Dr. Pierpont's work on "wind turbine syndrome" at http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com .
Frida Payle 1.29.09
It is also a bit outrageous for people whose business it is to profit from selling wind energy to imply an "agenda" behind citizens spending their own time and money to make sure their rights are protected and sharing their experiences with others facing the same onslaught. In contrast, the need for the authors to discredit critics is rather transparently self-serving.
Fergus Ferguson 1.29.09
Wind salesmen mimic the memes of environmentalism to sell their industry, often in ways so deceptive or contrary as to mock the very movement they claim to promote. Current policy of unlimited consents for wind power stations is tragically flawed, will never be the answer to climate change issues, cannot fulfill the national energy supply requirements expected of it and inflicts an extensive and unjustifiable environmental cost.
Len Gould 1.30.09
Frida: I presume you're proposing that the story of the farmer's father contracting Parkinsons from a wind turbine should be taken as factual? If the engineering community reverts to that level of scientific evidence then society is on a track back to horse and buggy days, though no doubt there's someone else whose emphysema was caused by wheels, and another whose allergic to leather footwear on persons walking in front of their property.
I AM being serious.
Len Gould 1.30.09
IMHO, the bottom line is society must develop a concensus means of relative risk evaluation, and re-instate some system where common good can override individual loss. For example, my opinion is that even IF installing 1,500 wind turbines were to provably cause one farmers father to die of Parkinsons, their installation is still preferable to having a 1,000 MW coal generating plant emitting particulates and heavy metals which will very likely cause 1.33 deaths per thousand per year , and whose carbon dioxide emissions may cause increased risks of societal damage in future.
A lot of persons take a position that, since both options above cause harm to one or more individuals, then neither can be implemented, but deeper analysis proves that in that case, the complete lack of energy supplies for society will cause a much greater rate of deaths from lack of medical care and food availability.
Point is, many people don't analyse risk well, or even at all.
Malcolm Rawlingson 1.31.09
Len,
Sounds like a strong case for building nuclear plants to me. Plenty of energy for society for hundreds of years, no heavy metals in the air, no CO2, no hauling millions of tons of coal about, no one dying of radiation exposure, or Parkinsons or anything else.
And of course you are correct that people don't analyse risk at all. Numerous studies have shown that the most risky activities (such as driving an automobile) are ranked low on the risk scale by most people but as we know is a very high risk activity killing thousands and thousands of people per year regularly. Nuclear power on the other hand is considered very risky but is in fact orders of magnitude safer than driving.I saw one study some years ago that placed smoking 20 cigarrettes a day as being safer than nuclear power plants. Go figure that one out.
The location where I am the safest is at work in a nuclear power station. The most risky location is in my car driving there.
Malcolm
Tom Tanton 1.31.09
Len and Malcolm, you're both correct that relative risks need to be better analyzed scientifically. At the same time that cannot be done without an overlay of individual value sets. First, is a chronic situation (say low level consequence/high probability) significantly different than a high consequence/low probability.) Most folks that engage in these types of discussion have no concept of the definition of "risk" much less the relative magnitudes and a-scientific aspects necessary to quantify them. Second the deaths you cite from coal are actuarial probabilities, not real mortalities. Further the 1500MW wind install versus 1000 MW coal install is NOT a valid comparison, if only for the fact that wind provides near-zero cpacity. Dr. Pierponts studies, while not wrt Parkinsons, are well documented and serious. Finally, since wind developers receive significant tax payer dollars (more per KWH than ANYTHING) wouldn't you think it appropriate that they have some burden of proof on their claims? As it turns out, they don't. They do not have to prove so-called offsets, even though their fluctuating (in 15 minute or less time scales) in some grids can actually INCREASE total fuel consumption and greenouse gasses. If they demand scientific proof from those claiming health symptoms or bird kills or property devaluation, shouldn't society also demand proof--something, anything?--from those taking our tax dollars?
Malcolm Rawlingson 1.31.09
I totally agree with you Thomas. It is indeed peoples value sets that change the perception of risk. How else can one explain why people drive cars every day? The value derived from driving a car is high and the perceived risk is low. The actual mathematical risk of course is extremely high. Real people die in cars every day...tens of thousands per year. Hundreds of times more than all the poor souls that died from asbestosis.The same for smoking. The value (pleasure from a cigarette) outweighs the future risk of dying from cancer. Add to that the underlying optimism of human beings that "it cannot happen to me" and there you have the explanation.
Most people have no concept of electricity generation which is why many consider a few windmills will do the job of a large nuclear plant when in fact many tens of thousands are required.
The windmill folks of course like to play on these weaknesses in peoples understanding. You often hear the phrase "will supply 5000 homes". Sounds like a lot and of course what they do NOT say is "will supply 5000 homes only when the wind is blowing not too strongly and not too lightly and when it is not blowing nuclear and coal pick up the slack"
No scientific proof is required because for politicians (who understand even less than the public about electricity generation) it means votes. My goodness the politician that proves windmills are entirely useless and a waste of public money will lose all the "green" votes. Now THAT would never do would it.
Of course in the long term these policies are disastrous for an industrial society and will lead to its eventual demise if continued. But politicians, being the devious creatures that they are, always like to hedge their bets. So while all the public bafflegab is going on about renewables, quietly in the background plans are being made for a massive increase in nuclear power. Old plants are being refurbished and new plants are being constructed.
That way the politicians get the votes AND they get the electricity society needs.
Malcolm
Thomas Stacy 2.2.09
Nice misdirection and irrelevance, Malcolm, trying to divert the discussion away from sound accountability of benefit vs. cost impact of wind energy. Reasonable people tire of shell games and houses built of leaning cards. My bet is that truth will win out before wind energy gains much more support.
Len Gould 2.2.09
Makcolm: I agree that 1500 wind generators aren't equivalet to a 1000 MW coal plant from the POV of the grid operator because they're still going to leave unfilled gaps in the demand curve. I chose that number based on an estimate that 1500 x 2.5 MW = 3,750 MW of wind installation ($6.56 billion + transmission) will likely provide about the same amount of net power out as a 1000 MW coal plant ($1.8 billion + much less transmission) or, as you say, 1000 MW nuclear ($2.0 billiion + much less transission) or 1,250 MW 83% capacity solar thermal ($3 billion + moderate transmission). Of course, for any but the coal plant to directly pick up a new 1,000 MW of load on an existing grid, a new real-time-market metering system will need to be installed onto the 1 million new customers, at an additional cost of $0.5 billion.
Please note my leaving Nat. Gas out of the discussion, as IMHO NO new Nat. Gas generation should be built anywhere, two reasons. 1) the huge volumes of natural CO2 commonly retrieved from underground, separated and released are never accounted for in calculating Nat. Gas CO2 emissions (eg. Indonesian gas fields release about 1 cu meter CO2 for every cu meter natural gas recovered, just at the separation plant). 2) Known reserves and resources are barely sufficient to cover present uses for any rational planning timeframe, and we need to start planning substitutes soon.
Thomas Stacy 2.2.09
Len:
If not natural gas, what generation is employable now that can adjust to the kinds of system wide load following (aka wind following) increases necessitated by striving to rival the wind energy penetration levels Germany has supported?
Len Gould 2.2.09
Further re: Raw Natural Gas containing CO2: "Natural gas that is transported in pipelines can only contain 2 percent carbon dioxide, yet often comes out of the ground with higher levels of the gas, requiring this separation step. " New Membrane Strips CO2 From Gas -- We never see any references to this in comparing CO2 outputs of various fuels.
Len Gould 2.2.09
Thomas: Future adjustable generation, IMHO, should be distributed micro-CHP units (SOFC, stirling engines, etc.) installed in place of home and commercial space and water heating units, Natural Gas fired as long as that lasts, then with some alternative source of methane or hydrogen. Biomass, coal with CO2 sequestration, etc.
Darby Hanson 2.3.09
Tha author is clearly a shill for Big Windpower. If he and others in that industry were more honest about the potential adverse effects of their projects, such as from the low frequency noise emitted by thier machines, then maybe the dialogue with the public would be improved. I am not necessarily against wind power, since it can serve a purpose. I am against people like the author that refuse to admit any adverse effects from their huge projects.
Being negatively impacted by such projects, folks like me and my wife have to search the internet for whatever information we can find regarding the subject. And, no, I don't believe the Parkinson's story. Being from a rural area and familiar with cattle, I can believe that dairy cows will become anxious, and the result will be lower milk production.
The noise most certainly casues an increase in anxiousness around our house. We live about a mile from several strings of large wind turbines with many more soon to be located much closer. We are very concerned, since we do not know what impacts this may have on our 2 young children. My wife does exhibit many of the symptoms of the so-called "wind turbine syndrom". We must have real information!
Therefore, we have been waiting for the above mentioned book to be published. Hopefully it has been properly researched and contains factual information - we'll review the draft as soon as possible. Meanwhile, we'll continue to experience restless nights due to the incessant "thrumbing", other noise, and unheard pressure fluctuations you can feel in your chest and eardrums whenever the wind blows.
And yes, I am fully aware of how electricity is generated, since I work in a power plant for the local utility. I am also fully aware that on the hottest and coldest days of the year, those wind turbines generally sit idle due to a lack of wind. It is purely an opportunity fuel that cannot be relied upon to serve the needs of the public, but we sure provide a lot of tax credits for the priviledge.
Scott Greenbaum 2.3.09
Len,
You shoudl check you calculator. The last estimate I saw for the cost of a 1000 MW nuclear plant was close to 10 Billion not 2 Billion.
I have not seen a modern coal plant estimate as low as $1,800 per kW installed. That estimate seems low to me also.
We have to admit that each kWh generated by wind is a kWh of fossil fuel that does not have to be burned and the resulting CO2 emitted into the atmosphere minus some idiling charge at a back up facility like a coal plant.
William Quaintance 2.4.09
I was glad to see Mr. Hanson's response. He sounds like an intelligent, logical person without much motivation to put down the wind industry. And yet he seems to have some issues living near a wind farm.
As a wind industry supporter, I would like to see the facts. I would like to see sufficient scientific research on the effects of wind turbines on nearby residents. Crazy Parkinson's claims don't help, but neither do complete denials by the industry.
In practical terms, how can a 2,500,000 Watt device be completely benign? Let's figure out the issues, and address them.
Michael Wilson 2.4.09
I agree! The discussion should center around RISK. I am sure the "farmer" in the story and others stories found at windturbinesyndrome dot com (looks a lot like a way to sell books to me) use an automobile on a regular basis and fly in airplanes occasionally. These high risk, high pollution (proven to hurt humans in an overwhelming number of ways) activities seem to us less important in addressing than something with little or no verifiable data as the health threat associated with wind turbines. Therefore, even if there were proven health hazards like the ones suggested we would accept them the same way we accept the risk of filling up our tanks even though the fumes are toxic - says so right on the pump and the risk is scientifically verified....Why do people continue to do this?....because the reward is far greater than the risk...nuff said.
Len Gould 2.5.09
Scott: "The last estimate I saw for the cost of a 1000 MW nuclear plant was close to 10 Billion not 2 Billion. " -- You've obviously been getting bids from the wrong people. Mr. Policyn, quoted below, is a senior executive with Atomic Energy Canada's USA branch. Naturally, the client of such a contract will also need to invest somewhat more in transmission (though less than wind), and MAY also be subject to some costly court battles from anti-nuclear zealots.....
"Mr. Policyn said AECL anticipates having standardized piping, valves and components throughout the plant, not just the nuclear reactor, to simplify spare parts and inventories. He indicated that the first unit would cost $1255 U.S./kW and a final cost of $1055 to $1075/kW for follow-on units. The first unit would take 44 months to build, with subsequent units taking 36 months to complete. Mr. Policyn said AECL would offer fixed price contracts to prospective buyers, based on the company's success in delivering projects on or ahead of schedule with its CANDU 6 program in China, Romania and South Korea."
Kent Wright 2.6.09
Whether to accept $2B or $10B as the cost of say a 1500 MW nuke is largely a matter of faith in your favorite propagandists. Which “experts” do you wish to believe? The highest estimates are typically quoted by cynical obstructionists, whereas the lows are the favored by cockeyed optimists. But what everyone seems to ignore is the VALUE of a baseloader that is capable of delivering billions of kilowatt hours of electricity due to capacity factors exceeding 90%. A proposed 1500 MW nuke making upwards of 8000 kwh per kw of capacity can produce 12B kwh per year or 480B kwh in a 40-year licensed lifetime. Of course there is no reason to limit a lifetime to 40 years. Current plants are routinely being relicensed for 60 years and 80 years is not ruled out.
Even if we take the most cynical cost estimates and spread them out over the most minimal (least optimistic) lifetime, it amount to adding 2¢ per kwh to a monthly bill. Obviously if the years can be doubled or the costs reduced by half by better control through standardization we could conceivably produce juice at around a penny per kwh for baseloaders. Of course the cynics will say it takes too many years to build a nuke to do any good, while ignoring that raising 8000 kwh per kw of capacity by any combination of renewable/intermittent sources + the yet-to-be-determined storage capacity + extra miles of transmission lines will also be costly to the extreme and will also take a similar amount of time to build and place into service.
And to the author.... speaking of myths, how about the myth that intermittent sources such as wind and solar are alternatives to strong baseloaders? Even the most die-hard enthusiasts of W&S invariably admit that intermttency is a monumental problem that can be overcome ONLY by a heluva lot of storage and/or extra generating capacity that we do not presently have. Just because you say that wind capacity and backup capacity do not have to be exactly matched is not exacty a myth-buster. I'm not saying W&S + storage don't belong in the mix. They do. But the overt advocates tend to be well distributed among shameless obstructionists, energy-illiterate idealists and industry shills.
Len Gould 2.9.09
Ken: By my own estimate, your above has kicked me in the shins twice, and I'm getting sore. I am NOT either a "cockeyed optimists" or a "shameless obstructionists, energy-illiterate idealists and industry shills."
I think you need to actually learn a bit about that on which you pontificate.
Well, Mr. Len “ad-hominem-attack-dog” Gould, I’m not sure what got you spun up so badly, but I said absolutely nothing in my message to negate your particular stand on anything nor did I attack your character. I did chuck a rock at the extreme cost estimates of nuclear, actually on both ends of the spectrum, mostly because the vocal extremists in both camps are, well, extremists. You say you are in neither camp so I will take you at your word and believe you, but for that same reason, I do find it odd that you jumped in with a “rebuttal” that has nothing do with the message and odder still that you would take it so personally. Normally it’s just the hit dog that yelps when a rock is thrown into the pack. You say your shins hurt?! !? Obviously, you can’t see what you won’t see, so my message can’t be all wrong just because you say it is. If it is wrong, refute it, but don’t please don’t shoot the messenger.
And to all the cockeyed optimists out there, please don’t take offense just because it’s fun. I happen to be one myself, although I seriously doubt that the long dreamed-of $2000 per kw of capacity (or $2B per 1000 MW) will ever come to pass. Nevertheless, I am hopeful that a cost somewhere in the low to middle of current estimates will come to pass because I believe that nuclear costs can be controlled much better than they have been historically. For one thing we don’t need to be ratcheted into building a new nuke, or fleet thereof, on borrowed money and then having to change major designs in the middle of construction. Paying out of the rate base for a pre-certified design as it is constructed would peel several tons of money off the overall cost basis. Other factors which could also help are passive safety systems, advanced designs, standardization, higher power densities, great fuel burnouts, etc., etc. Also, optimist that I am, I try to see the value of things, not just the price tag. The ability to make >8000 kwh per kw of nuke capacity per year is not to be ignored in any cost comparison. As for my solar-as-baseload comment, by now we should all be aware that several studies have validated that Concentrated Solar and its variations + thermal storage can be of greater significance, even tipping toward supplying a greater portion of the base load in some of the off-peak hours, that is, IN THE GREAT SOUTHWESTERN DESERTS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT. Barstow, Bakersfield and Albuquerque will no doubt start seeing a benefit around the year 2020 and later. Of course if you want a piece of that baseload somewhere else, say in Toronto, there is the matter of a several thousand miles of new transmission lines at a cost NOT included in the reports by Sargent & Lundy, et al.
To take a quote from the conclusions of the S&L Executive Summary, page ES-2 “Trough and tower solar power plants can compete with technologies that provide bulk power to the electric utility transmission and distribution systems if market entry barriers are overcome….” [….as it also goes on to say:] “Analysis of incentives required to reach market acceptance is not within the scope of the report.”
Evidently it’s not within the scope of any other study either although early last year Scientific American published a rather well documented report (The Grand Solar Plan) that at least tried to get a handle on the cost, including T&D, and admitted that it was impossible to pin down. I lost track to the number of zeroes, but I think it could have been simplified to integer multiples of the gross domestic product.
So you see, you are pumping a cost comparison with not a clue as to what the ultimate cost of a baseloader will actually be regardless of whether it is nuke or solar/thermal/wind + storage + T&D. At least most nuclear sites are already embedded within the envelope of the existing grid, but even from the nukes, we are not seeing good estimates. So who gets to be the best guessers, the optimists or the pessimists? Actually, I don’t even see it as a contest, but I do contend that all costs must be faced as honestly and as accurately as humanly possible (Ooops! ….runaway optimism again). The cost of a vast array of new T&D lines MUST be included in the scoping of any attempt to make intermittent generators become a significant part of the North American baseload. That is a monumental missing piece in the press releases of the W&S industry shills. Of course I know you are not one of those either.
And just for the record, Len, ol’ buddy, I have enjoyed a long career in naval and commercial nuclear power, starting as an operator and ending as a degreed engineer, simulator specialist and trainer of SROs and plant managers, in which time it was my job to know a LOT about that which I “pontificate.” How goes it in the computer simulation biz?
Len Gould 2.10.09
Ken: The "kicked in shins" "pontificate" characterizations arose from your portraying me as a "cockeyed optimists" for taking AECL's 2004 public statements on cost, referenced and quoted above (and I've known of these figures since 2004 when they were working with Dominion electric to sell ACR's in the US actively seeking to sign real delivery contracts at those prices, so am not simply depending on one web quote), adding a rational inflation factor and $500 / kw for siting, licensing and transmission (my estimate), and arriving at $2000 for new nuclear. If you have data which refutes those figures, please link it. Otherwise cut the lame bird stuff.
And regarding transmission for solar in deserts, today ITC Transmission (formerly part of Detroit Edison) proposed the Green Power Express transmission project to bring wind power from Dakotas into Chicago area. From their published data, they propose approx. 3000 miles of 768 kw transmission to haul 12 GW of wind generation for $12 billion (apparently dual 6 GW lines), from which I conclude that transmission costs about $667 / MW capacity mile. At that rate, given some eminent domain assist from feds, transmission from eg. Las Vegas or Phoenix to LA would cost about $186 / kw capacity, hardly the showstopper you make it out to be. Go ahead, declare them "cockeyed optimists" too, but even doubling that is not significant. So, once you get all of California, Arizona and Nevada's peaking requirements serviced, c'mon back here and we can discuss how DC will be cheaper for really long hauls "ol' buddy".
Len Gould 2.10.09
(that's 768 kv transmission, obviously)
Kent Wright 2.10.09
That’s OK Len, maybe you are not cockeyed, but you sure have thin skin. And maybe if you were not so focused on one-ups-man-ship you would have noticed that I was making the point that the costs of new nuclear construction are to date unknown, and perhaps unknowable, until the first one is finished and running --- but they could indeed be very low. Of course even the high end of nuke estimates actually COULD be trivial (relatively speaking) if we really knew what the cost of intermittent generators + storage/backup + T&D + land acquisition will be in comparison --- but we don’t really know those costs either.
You say that costs estimates of nuclear made in 2004 by AECL were around $1500/kw and I will even grant you that they COULD be that low, but will that ever happen? I sure hope so, but only time will tell. Actually, the estimates of coming in under the $2000 per kw mark and 5 years to completion have been with us since the late 70’s and have never come to pass in the United States. Optimistically, if all costs were left to the control of nuclear industry and the utilities, new nukes could be built on time and budget. On that point I totally agree and I will cheer them on. To clear up another point, realistic estimates of nearly anything upon which there is wide disagreement tend to fall between the extremes. I learned that from several of my engineering professors so there’s your documentation.
Another point I made which you seem to have missed is the relative bargain in the cost of nuke construction amortized over the lifetime of a unit in $/kwh, or make that a few ¢/kwh. I also made the case that even the most pessimistic cost estimates add only a few more pennies per kwh of deliverables when taken over the licensed lifetimes. Optimistically, that could easily be 80 years given the high quality and durability of nuclear construction --- the bargain being so much the better.
I will further assert that anyone who thinks the anti-nukes in the United States are going to roll over and let that happen has not been paying attention. Just as in the ’80s there are many variables which are outside of control of the nuclear industry and which your AECL & customers did not take into account. These range from trivial lawsuits to overtly hostile legislation, unfavorable court judgments, and PSC rulings which can be targeted to prevent completion at reasonable cost. Anyone who remembers the ’80s can tell you that some courts of law were turned into public forums to allow the anti-nukes to have the upper hand. Optimistically, I think the NRC and the federal & state governments got fed up with those antics, so maybe that will be history. Again, time will tell.
As for costs of new transmission lines, I was going by statements made as late as 2008 by wind industry reps themselves that T&D cost is one million $$ per mile so I took them at their word. I believe that figure was quoted as an average mile over average terrain, which is low-balling new networks of towers that will spread into remote mountain ranges, e.g., in the Appalachians. Your estimate of $667/MW-mile MAY be true, but as it stands, that is only guesswork at this point as well AND it is only projected for the relative smooth terrain between Dakotas and Chicago. Nevertheless, I am well aware of the cost benefits of high voltage DC and I am further optimistic that high temperature superconductors will make it even better.
Len Gould 2.11.09
Kent: I would just point out that your "rational default" of averaging the lowest estimate and the highest estimate actually gives enormous leverage to the irrational anti's. Example, five years ago knowledgeable engineeres on this site were hotly debating whether the cost of new nuclear (after first build) would be closer to the $1500 / kw mark or the $2500 / kw mark. No-one in the discussion was estimating anything anywhere near $10,000 / kw, but now, apparently "out of nowhere", we suddenly see that figure being taken seriously though I've never seen a knowledgeable reference for it. Perhaps the AREVA first-of-kind in Finland is approaching half that but there is definitely no reason for it to be so other than incompetence.
Kent Wright 2.11.09
Those extreme cost projections for nukes have a historical basis and are proudly touted by the more radical and highly organized anti-nukes for making it so, and the figures are taken very seriously by politicians, editorialists and other molders of public opinion. From a technological view, there is not a VALID reason for costs reaching extreme highs.... but the historical fact is, many did. Costs went far beyond the projects of the experts largely due to outside factors such as those I previously mentioned. Lastly, incompetence is the last thing I would accuse the radical anti bunch of having (among the leadership anyway). They carved out some very long and well-paid careers from their efforts.
Mathew Hoole 2.11.09
"Myth Debunking. Often the reasons communities are resistant to host renewable energy facilities are based on rumor and not fact. Common objections include the perception that the intermittency of a power source requires the addition of an equivalent amount of dispatchable back-up generation to the grid."
---------
OK I want to nip this in the bud. How can wind energy be reiliable for baseload generation? How? How! HOW!!!! I want to know, and I want to know now! If it is not reliable and there can be prolonged periods of low output, then there needs to be backup generation.
The fact is wind energy is not reliable for baseload generation, even if distributed widely on the grid. I have seen nothing on the internet nor have I seen any evidence by experts and supporters of wind energy that I am off the mark.
Peak energy produced and average energy produced are not the critical factors to determine if an energy source can be used for the baseload grid. What is important is the minimum energy produced.
In a recent article about the wind farms in Germany, over a 5 month period the monthly average of the nations windfarms was 8% of capacity. There were even days where the wind output was less than 2% of capacity. Now tell me, how can a nation run with these figures. Wind energy for baseload generation is not just bad, it is hopeless. Wind energy should not even be considered for baseload generation. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthcomment/3347925/When-the-wind-stops---the-other-side-of-the-wind-turbine-argument.html
This website shows the day to day output of Germany's wind farms. You will need to change the language to english, and you will need to explore the website. However once you find the raw data, you can see wind energy as the disgrace it is.
If my opinion is so wrong, then I challenge Wind Energy as Baseload Supporters to provide an evidence based defence using laymans terms.
Then of course there is the issue of increasing the demands on land use. Wind farms need land, and lots of it. This competes with urbanisation, agriculture and forests. But that can wait another time.
If wind as baseload generation is so good, then I want to hear how the intermittancy issue is solved. I don't care about anything else on the matter, at least for the moment. I want this issue nipped in the bud.
Cheers
Jeffrey Anthony 2.12.09
Wind energy is not a capacity resource, thus you would not rely on it as a "baseload resource". Wind power is best veiwed as an energy resource. Knowing that, critics can stop trying to pretend that wind energy is "unreliable" since it is not counted on as a capacity resource. (And maybe Mathew can relax a bit as a result).
Jeff Anthony American Wind Energy Association
www.20percentwind.org
http://www.awea.org/utility/reliability.html
Mathew Hoole 2.12.09
Thanks Jeffrey
If I may borrow a little more of your time.
I have no problem with using wind for energy where demand is not a big issue eg pumping water or supplementing a hydro system where water use is under stress.
However the perception of the community is that wind advocates lobby wind farms to be used to replace or supplement other baseload power stations eg coal.
As wind energy on some days, and even for extended periods can be very poor it is a bad idea for wind energy to replace or even "supplement" other more reliable energy sources.
I also believe to to be wrong for wind energy to dictate terms to other energy producers based on the intermittancy of wind energy. Is it wrong that if in a windy period the wind industry can tell the neighbouring coal plant that it only needs to operate at 20% of capacity because it can supply the rest of the energy? Likewise is it wrong on a windless day for the wind industry insist the coal plant can operate at 100% but only for a limited time?
To me these examples display a power imbalance, needless redundancy and unnecessary inefficiency.
Of the wind energy farms that are sprouting up in my country, none of them seem to dedicated to a specific purpose but are instead connected to the grid, being used in conjunction with our coal and hydro power stations (there are no nuclear power stations in my country).
So if the wind farms are not being used for a specific purpose off the grid, but are instead being used on the grid in conjunction with other energy providers, then isn't describing Wind Energy a mere energy resource a bit of a furphy.
The mere fact that wind farms are on the grid generating revenues creates an unnecessary redundancy. If an energy source is to be effective on the grid then it must be able to meet demand. Wind farms can never do this reliably or even close to reliably.
A minor stake but a controlling influence is also wrong.
So my question to Jeffrey or any other is what I am I missing? What niche can the wind energy industry fill that I have missed?
Cheers
Jim Beyer 2.15.09
Mathew,
I had to look up furphy. So why are all of the philosophers in Australia named Bruce?
Anyway, to wear the pro-wind advocacy hat for a minute, one could argue that wind displaces used resources, such a natural gas, or more likely coal. Now coal is not very expensive, but it does have a fairly extensive logistic tail, even in the states. So what does it mean if a lump of coal, dug up in Wyoming and burned in Chicago, is displaced due to wind? Well, probably not very much, but there is also the CO2 avoided. This will likely have some value in a world with carbon taxes (hopefully) or carbon trading (unfortunately, probably).
I actually think it is accurate to describe wind as an energy resource, but I also think that really doesn't mean very much. Wind can be made more useful by adding sheddable or opportunistic loads (such as PHEVs) but these also work well with conventional sources, and can serve an even bigger role in plateauing the daily demand peak.
Again, if I was a big pro-wind person, I'd point out that peak coal might be not that far off, some say less than 20 years or so. I'd also say the best place for wind farms is probably off-shore, out of sight and out of earshot.
Removing the advocacy hat, I'd say that the main problem with wind (second place even to the NIMBY factor) is that it really just displaces the cost of the coal fuel that would otherwise by used. This is a pretty low value unless and until CO2 emissions from said coal are accounted for.
(There is a lot of NG used for power generation in California, but this is a dumb idea in its own right, and shouldn't be used to economically justify the addition of wind.)
So, I guess a furphy is a rumor or falsehood. As opposed to a Furby, which is a small talking, and mimicking gremlin-like doll.
