John K. Sutherland demolishes the economics of wind power.

By John K. Sutherland.

Those, who believe that wind power is a key to any rational social
energy strategy in the twenty first century should take a close look
at recent publicity concerning several recent projects slated for
Canada, as well as historical data from Denmark, Germany, California
and elsewhere. But first, Canada. Developer information on a planned
wind development in the Tantramar marshes of SE Canada, noted that 19
wind turbines will be erected in the Amherst Wind Energy Project.
There is a planned total of 31 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity,
and the total cost is estimated by the developer to be about CAN$60
million. It was described as likely to produce about 100 gigawatt
hours (GWh) of electricity each year - or enough to supply about
10,000 homes, but omitted to say that this might happen only when the
wind actually blows. We should examine the fine details of this and
other comparable wind projects so that there is no misunderstanding of
what is really being accomplished, and at what cost. The installed
cost works out to about $3.1 million, for each 1.6 megawatt windmill.
If each windmill were to operate at full power for the entire year,
then each would produce 14 million kWh (14,000 MWh or 14 GWh), and all
of them would produce about 266 gigawatt hours (GWh) of electricity.
Thus, the operators are obviously assuming that these windmills will
spin for an average of about 37% of the year at full capacity to
produce the estimated 100 GWh (or 5.3 GWh per windmill).
The Tantramar marshes - close to sea level - are a windy place, but
even the 5,000 plus windmills in the Altamont pass, high in the hills
of California, can only manage to operate at about 20% of their
capacity on average, so the assumption of 37% may be over-optimistic.
Operating data from Denmark, Germany and Spain suggest that less than
20% (about 15%) is more likely. Germany had long believed that 39%
coud be expected.

However, let us assume for now that the 37% is correct, until actual
operating experience provides better data. If one scales up this power
output to match that of New Brunswick's operating 680 MW nuclear
reactor at Point Lepreau, which has operated at a lifetime factor of
about 83% for the last 23 years (and allowing for only 630 MW of net
capacity, as 50 MW of the 680 MW station, supplies the in-station
needs), then Point Lepreau generates an average of 4,580 GWh each
year. The equivalent output from the Amherst Project windmills
operating 37% of the time, would require 864 of them, costing close to
$2.7 billion of capital cost, or about twice the projected cost of
Lepreau re-furbishment of about $1.4 billion! If, as is more likely,
the average operating time of these windmills is about 20%, then the
equivalent windmill cost (1600 of them) becomes about $5 billion, or
almost four times the cost of Lepreau refurbishment for the same power
production. Unfortunately when the wind is not blowing in this region,
the 1600 windmills are ALL landscape decoration, and the $5 billion is
dead money that needs to be backed up with $1.4 billion of reliable
nuclear or coal, or hydro.

Significantly, the Tantramar coastal marshes are on the migrating
routes for many protected species of waterfowl. Another large Canadian
project, The Melancthon-GH project, to be constructed by Canadian
Hydro Developers, will cost $126 million in Capital Cost to erect 45
windmills each of 1.5 MW, for a total of 67.5 MW capacity. The maximum
theoretical output (100% operation) from these windmills, and which
cannot be achieved anywhere in the world, is 591,300 MWh. With a more
likely operation of about 20% of capacity in the year, the output will
be about 118,000 MWh (118 GWh, costing $120 million) - the company
assumes 190GWh.
Similar projects with similar very high costs relative to nuclear
power are planned and under construction in Manitoba (Schneider
Power), and at Grey Highlands in Ontario, as well as at Tabor in
Southern Alberta.

Gigawatt for gigawatt, the existing wind farm projects demonstrate
that wind project electricity, typically costs at least three times
more than nuclear electricity. The proposed projects will only confirm
this. The over-riding problem with wind power is that it occurs on an
intermittent, unreliable, uncontrollable, and unpredictable basis that
requires dedicated standby operation of a reliable and controlled
source of power (nuclear, coal, or imports) that must be constantly
available within seconds. This logically requires that the assumed
costs of wind should also include the costs of the needed standby
generation. As one must build and have, the necessary reliable
replacement power on hand - along with all of its costs - for those
times when the wind does not blow, the obvious question should be
asked: why bother with wind power at all? It is a surplus and un-
needed environmentalist dream that causes capi It is a surplus and un-
needed environmentalist dream that causes capital costs of electrical
energy derived from it, to be a factor of three to five and more,
higher than the cost of electricity from the reliable 'standby'
assets; coal, hydro, or Nuclear Power. If it is from coal or other
fossil fuels, then having such stand-by power ticking over at a low
level, as in Germany, Denmark, and Spain, also contributes much more
to air pollution; pollution that should also to be chalked up against
wind energy operation, but rarely is. Not surprisingly, nuclear power
relicensing, refurbishment, and new-build, look like great
investments, and wind power doesn't. Nuclear begins to look even
better when one looks at the other environmental impact of windmills.
Not for nothing are they called the cuisinarts - blenders - of the
bird and bat world.

The Los Angeles Times tells us that the 'biggest wind farm' in the
world, at Altamont Pass in California, consisting of more than 5,400
windmills, generated 820 million kWh of electricity (2004?), operating
at about 20% of rated capacity. Each windmill thus produced about 17
kilowatts each hour throughout the year!

Clearly, few people could figure out that 820 million kWh, is the
amount of electricity that a single, small 100 megawatt (electrical)
fossil fuel or nuclear plant could also generate in 1 year, if it
operated at about 94% capacity. With windmills costing at least $0.5
million each and more to buy, install and connect, this means that
Californian tax payers paid in excess of US $2.5 billion for the
equivalent of a single small 100 MW reliable facility, while the canny
private owners pocketed hundreds of millions in tax write offs and
other massive benefits. Now the owners are also facing up to shutting
many of these windmills down on bird migration routes, for two months
of the year during bird migration episodes, because of the major kills
of endangered bird species. I bet they will be generously compensated
for not producing power at government request!
You may not have heard of the 'Save the Flint Hills Kansas' where
there are more than 200 anti-wind environmental groups.

The General Accounting Office of the US Congress just finished a study
of bat kills at windmills, and regards them as disturbing, as bats are
slow to reproduce and are major consumers of pestiferous insects like
mosquitoes and moths. The raptor bird kills in California are now
associated with a significant explosion in the rat population.

Invariably, all wind power projects clearly demonstrate that they are
not only unjustified and unnecessary, but that they are too expensive,
grossly unreliable, and environmentally damaging to an unacceptable
degree. The British recently estimated the costs of their various
options. Onshore wind costs are 5.4 pence/kWh (about 12 cents Canadian/
kWh). Offshore wind costs are 7.2 p/kWh (these also include the
fractional costs of the essential standby backup energy sources for
when the wind does NOT blow and the reliable alternatives must be
brought on line), and nuclear power, whose costs are 2.3 p/kWh.
Without an assured and guaranteed electricity supply there is no water
supply; no sewage pumps to dispose of sewage; no elevators to serve
tall buildings; no industry; few jobs; no frozen and unspoiled food in
supermarkets; no quality to life. Welcome back to the age of wind.

As one astute contributor to Energy Pulse recently noted; with regard
to Wind energy: 'sometimes even 'free', can be too expensive'

Most rational and qualified environmentalist have known all along that
the greenest and most reliable energy of all is nuclear power.

.

Relevant Pages

  • FIGHTING FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
    ... Fighting for America's Energy Independence ... The so-called wind production tax credit Dorgan was ... with power capacity equivalent to that of roughly six ... Costs and True Costs ...
    (sci.physics)
  • FIGHTING FOR ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
    ... Fighting for America's Energy Independence ... The so-called wind production tax credit Dorgan was ... with power capacity equivalent to that of roughly six ... Costs and True Costs ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: John K. Sutherland demolishes the economics of wind power.
    ... who believe that wind power is a key to any rational social ... If each windmill were to operate at full power for the entire year, ... nuclear or coal, or hydro. ... Similar projects with similar very high costs relative to nuclear ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Norwgeian taxpayers
    ... second largest oil company in Norway) estimate the cost of wind ... average of 1MW or power. ... This also costs quite a bit. ... retrieval as well as the cost of the energy storage medium itself. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Windmills and energy input
    ... The PPL Susquehanna nuke plant is a 2.4 MW facility. ... wind power capacity in the US is 22.0 MW -- almost ten times as much as ... I go buy some windmills about twice a week and they arent always turning. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
Loading