Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea
Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...
Decommissioning has started at the 26-year-old Vindeby offshore project.
The 4.95 MW Vindeby offshore project was installed in 1991
It was located 1.5 - 3.0 km off the southern Danish coast.
.
1991 Vindeby Offshore Wind Turbine System – Denmark
Years of operation: 1991 - 2016 (25y)
Capital cost: 75M Danish Kroner = $13M (1991$) = $23M (2017$)
Number of turbines: 11 @ 450 kW
Lifetime generation: 243,000 MWh in 25 y, or 9720 MWh/y
Nameplate capacity: 4.95 MW
Average power output: 1.1 MW
Cost: $13 million/4.95 MW = $2,627/kW (1991$); $4,700/kW (2017$)
Lifetime capacity factor: 1.1/4.95 = 22.2%
Those wind turbines should have had a CF of about 0.30, but significant downtime, due to breakdowns/increased maintenance caused electricity production to be much less.
1) Levelized capital cost, including financing is $53/MWh (1991$), $95/MWh (2017$)
2) Levelized variable operation and maintenance cost, VOM: $68/MWh (2017$), or 6.8 c/kWh
The calculation is using VOM at $130/installed kW-y, per industry data for 2015. See URL
The installed wind turbine capacity in operation was 4950 kW for one year.
VOM was $130/installed kW-y in 2015, or $134/installed kW-y, in 2017, after adjusting for inflation
Annual maintenance of turbines and cabling to shore is 4950 x 134 = $663,300/y (2017$)
Annual electricity production is 9720 MWh/y, as above stated
Levelized VOM is 663,300/9720 = $68/MWh (2017$)
3) Levelized miscellaneous cost, including Owner return on investment: $39/MWh
Total levelized cost = 53 + 68 + 39 = $160/MWh (2017$) See Note
NOTE:: Not included are the following:
The levelized cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
The levelized cost of any onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about $20/MWh
The levelized cost of a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract/balance the ups and downs of wind output, 24/7/365, about $20/MWh
2015 Industry Performance Data for Offshore
Wind (http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/global-costs-analys...).
Cost: $5,000/kW
Capacity factor: 40%
This factor is greater when the system is new, but become less as the years go by, due to increased downtimes for maintenance
Variable operation and maintenance cost, VOM is $130/kW-yr, per industry standard for 2015
Total levelized cost is $150/MWh (2015$), $154/MWh (2017$)
The total levelized cost is reduced with government subsidies by about 40 to 50%.
This enables the Owner to sell his electricity at about 8 c/kWh, or $80/MWh.
This creates the PR appearance of wind being competitive with the levelized cost of fossil fuel and hydro power plants.
Conclusions:
1) Whereas, turbines are getting larger, and able to operate at lower wind speeds, and have greater capacity factors, the total levelized cost, $/MWh, has hardly decreased from 1991 to 2015, 24 years.
Longer cabling from turbines to shore, and higher costs of VOM for larger turbines located farther from shore likely
consumed savings from higher capacity factors.
2) Because wind power is weather dependent, offshore wind generation remains uncompetitive with gas and coal power plants, which have:
- Half the cost (about $70/MWh) and
- Are steady and fully dispatchable, and
- Have much higher value to the electric grid.
Here is an example of off-the-charts Offshore energy cost per kWh.
The Offshore project consists of wind turbines and cabling to shore.
Amortizing a bank loan for 50% of the project at 6%/y for 20 years will cost about 4.36 c/kWh.
Paying the Owner for his investment of 50% of the project at 9%/y for 20 years will cost about 4.74 c/kWh (9% because of high inflation).
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, is at least 6.5 c/kWh.
Total energy cost at least 16.33 c/kWh
After subsidies, and accelerated depreciation, and deduction of interest on borrowed money, etc., the ANNOUNCED energy cost is at least 8.17 c/kWh (what a bargain!)
Plus at least 2 c/kWh for grid ONSHORE grid expansion/augmentation
Plus at least 2 c/kWh for a fleet of counteracting /balancing plants and curtailments
Here is some corroboration for the 2 c/kWh for curtailment/counteracting/balancing
Wind/solar became 28.4%, or 88.6 TWh, of the 312 TWh of electricity loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports
The curtailment/counteracting/balancing costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion, or 1.9 c/kWh) in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, 2023.
The US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, on a pro-rated basis, if 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/
Those costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
CAVEATS REGARDING COSTS AND CO2 REDUCTION
For most people, the above analysis would be the "final word" regarding levelized cost. But there are four major items, usually not mentioned by wind/solar proponents
1) Wind/Solar Curtailment/Counteracting/Balancing Costs
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a fleet of quick-responding, counteracting/balancing power plants, usually combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, and hydro plants, with adequate nearby fuel supply to cover all circumstances, fully staffed, kept in good working order, ready to perform service, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, as demanded by the independent grid operator, such as ISO-NE, especially during:
1) Days with variable cloudiness
2) Days with panels covered with snow and ice
3) Days with foggy conditions
4) Late afternoon/early evening to mid-morning the next day.
5) Peak demand hours of late afternoon/early evening, when wind and solar usually are minimal
6) Simultaneous wind/solar lulls, when the output of both is minimal for up to 5 to 7 days, sometimes followed by another multi-day wind/solar lull. These URLs provide examples of multi-day, simultaneous wind/solar lull conditions in Germany and New England
http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-lulls-energy-storage-in-germany
Without the fleet of counteracting/balancing plants, variable wind/solar power could not be fed into the grid.
That means, wind/solar power cannot ever function on its own.
The more wind/solar fed to the grid, the greater the fleet capacity, MW, in counteracting/balancing mode.
The counteracting/balancing costs are almost entirely due to wind/solar output variations and intermittencies.
The fleet has to operate far from its preferred/more economical modes of operation. These plants experience:
1) More up/down production at lesser efficiencies; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
2) More wear-and-tear, due to up/down production and more starts/stops; more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more c/kWh
4) Increased hot, synchronous (3,600 rpm), standby plant capacity, MW, to immediately provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.
5) Increased cold, standby plant capacity, MW, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.
When wind/solar were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto the NE grid, those counteracting/balancing costs were minimal, i.e., “buried in the data noise of the grid”
Wind/solar became 28.4%, or 88.6 TWh, of the 312 TWh of electricity loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports
The curtailment/counteracting/balancing costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion, or 1.9 c/kWh) in 2020, likely even more in 2021, 2022, 2023.
The US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion, on a pro-rated basis, if 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/
Those costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
2) Wind/Solar Grid Extension/Reinforcement Cost
Variable/intermittent wind and solar requires a significant extension/reinforcement of the grid.
The estimated capital cost of upgrading the UK grid for Net Zero by 2050 is about £200 Billion, which would be at least $2.0 TRILLION for the US, on a pro-rated basis, such as based on grid load or GDP.
A significant portion of those costs should be charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they will be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
Those costs are in addition to the various government wind/solar subsidies, which will also be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.
3) CO2 Reduction, due to Wind, less than Claimed
Ireland: In Ireland, with 17% wind loaded onto the Irish grid in 2012, the officially claimed CO2 reduction of grid CO2/kWh was 17%
However, analysis of 15-minute grid operating data, and corresponding fuel consumption data of each power plant connected to the grid, showed, it was only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, due to inefficient operation of the other power plants, when counteracting/balancing the variable output of wind, as above described.
The only reason the Irish government finally had to admit to the lesser CO2 reduction, is because public pressure forced the government to hold hearings on why Irish gas imports had not decreased with increased wind; “the smoking gun that did them in”
After 2012, Brussels gave money to Ireland to put in major capacity connections to the much large UK and French grids. The Irish wind output variations were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto those grids, i.e., “buried in the data noise of the grids”
The UK: The UK, with 28.4% wind/solar in 2020, has a CO2-reduction factor significantly less than 0.526, because even more counteracting/balancing is required.
Ireland, the UK, US, Germany, Spain, etc., have been over claiming CO2 reduction from wind/solar for decades, with connivance from Brussels. See explanation in URL
4) Germany, Denmark, etc., Using Nearby Grids to Counteract/Balance Their Variable Wind/Solar
Germany and Denmark have been doing that for decades, as they increased their wind/solar buildouts.
Germany has strong connections to the grids of nearby countries, including Norway, which is connected to Norgrid, which has lots of hydro in Sweden and Norway and nuclear in Sweden, all steady, traditional sources of electricity.
There was quite some panic in 2021, well before Ukraine events, which started in February 2022, when, because of low water and low wind in Europe, Norway and France could not export electricity to Germany.
Germany had to restart coal plants and keep its 3 remaining nuclear plants in service longer than intended.
Germany cannot counteract/balance its own wind/solar, and when wind was lacking, it did not have a sufficient fleet of traditional counteracting/balancing plants, staffed, fueled, and with adequate fuel storage to provide 24/7/365 electricity.
Germany had to impose rationing measures on its industry and households.
NOTE: Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
APPENDIX
People performing studies invariably engage in:
- Overestimating capacity factors and utilization of wind and solar
- Underestimating turnkey capital costs per installed kW
- Overestimating useful service lives
- Underestimating O&M cost/installed kW-y
- Underestimating inflation and interest rates
- Underestimating energy and raw material requirements for mining and refining
- Overestimating grade quality of mined material
Views: 292
Comment
Maine as Third World Country:
CMP Transmission Rate Skyrockets 19.6% Due to Wind Power
Click here to read how the Maine ratepayer has been sold down the river by the Angus King cabal.
Maine Center For Public Interest Reporting – Three Part Series: A CRITICAL LOOK AT MAINE’S WIND ACT
******** IF LINKS BELOW DON'T WORK, GOOGLE THEM*********
(excerpts) From Part 1 – On Maine’s Wind Law “Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine if the law’s goals were met." . – Maine Center for Public Interest Reporting, August 2010 https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/From Part 2 – On Wind and Oil Yet using wind energy doesn’t lower dependence on imported foreign oil. That’s because the majority of imported oil in Maine is used for heating and transportation. And switching our dependence from foreign oil to Maine-produced electricity isn’t likely to happen very soon, says Bartlett. “Right now, people can’t switch to electric cars and heating – if they did, we’d be in trouble.” So was one of the fundamental premises of the task force false, or at least misleading?" https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/wind-swept-task-force-set-the-rules/From Part 3 – On Wind-Required New Transmission Lines Finally, the building of enormous, high-voltage transmission lines that the regional electricity system operator says are required to move substantial amounts of wind power to markets south of Maine was never even discussed by the task force – an omission that Mills said will come to haunt the state.“If you try to put 2,500 or 3,000 megawatts in northern or eastern Maine – oh, my god, try to build the transmission!” said Mills. “It’s not just the towers, it’s the lines – that’s when I begin to think that the goal is a little farfetched.” https://www.pinetreewatchdog.org/flaws-in-bill-like-skating-with-dull-skates/
Not yet a member?
Sign up today and lend your voice and presence to the steadily rising tide that will soon sweep the scourge of useless and wretched turbines from our beloved Maine countryside. For many of us, our little pieces of paradise have been hard won. Did the carpetbaggers think they could simply steal them from us?
We have the facts on our side. We have the truth on our side. All we need now is YOU.
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
-- Mahatma Gandhi
"It's not whether you get knocked down: it's whether you get up."
Vince Lombardi
Task Force membership is free. Please sign up today!
Hannah Pingree on the Maine expedited wind law
Hannah Pingree - Director of Maine's Office of Innovation and the Future
"Once the committee passed the wind energy bill on to the full House and Senate, lawmakers there didn’t even debate it. They passed it unanimously and with no discussion. House Majority Leader Hannah Pingree, a Democrat from North Haven, says legislators probably didn’t know how many turbines would be constructed in Maine."
https://pinetreewatch.org/wind-power-bandwagon-hits-bumps-in-the-road-3/
© 2024 Created by Webmaster.
Powered by
You need to be a member of Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine to add comments!
Join Citizens' Task Force on Wind Power - Maine