Desperate Tesla owners , in and around Chicago, were seen trying to charge their vehicles with no luck, amid frigid temperatures that have gripped the Midwest.
"Nothing. No juice. Battery still on zero percent after three hours," Tyler Beard, who had been trying to recharge his Tesla, at an Oak Brook, Illinois, Tesla supercharging station, since Sunday afternoon, told the news outlet. "And this is like three hours being out here, after being out here three hours yesterday."
.
.
Someone pushes a Tesla at a Chicago-area vehicle charging station, where many of the EVs have been forced to sit amid freezing temperatures.
Many of the EVs failed to charge at stations around Chicago amid the cold weather.
.
Mr. Beard, and several other Tesla owners, were trying to charge their cars, amid long lines and abandoned cars at other Tesla charging stations in the Chicago area, the news station reported.
.
"This is crazy. It’s a disaster. Seriously," said Tesla owner Chalis Mizelle.
Mizelle said, she abandoned her EV and got a ride from a friend after hers would not charge.
.
.
Multiple Teslas, immobilized at an Oak Brook, Illinois, Tesla supercharging station.
"We got a bunch of $50,000 dead robots out here," one man said.
.
A visibly frustrated man stands near a Tesla that failed to charge at a Chicago-area charging station on Monday.
.
One expert told the news outlet that cold weather can impact the ability of electric vehicles to charge properly.
"It’s not plug and go".
You have to precondition the battery to about 40 F, meaning that you have to get the battery up to the optimal temperature to accept a fast charge," said Mark Bilek of the Chicago Auto Trade Association.
FOX Business, part of the lame-stream Media, has reached out to Tesla, but has not yet heard back.
.
All this was highly predictable
.
HERE IS AN EXCELLENT EXPLANATION REGARDING EV CHARGING AT 32F OR LESS
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/here-is-an-excellent-e...
Explanation by Expert
'Cold temperatures' is awfully vague. First, let me actually specify some real, hard numbers.
Do not charge lithium-ion batteries below 32°F/0°C. In other words, never charge a lithium-ion battery that is below freezing.
Doing so even once will result in a sudden, severe, and permanent capacity loss on the order of several dozen percent or more, as well a similar and also permanent increase in internal resistance. This damage occurs after just one isolated 'cold charging' event, and is proportional to the speed at which the cell is charged.
But, even more importantly, a lithium-ion cell that has been cold charged is NOT safe and must be safely recycled or otherwise discarded. By not safe, I mean it will work fine until it randomly explodes due to mechanical vibration, mechanical shock, or just reaching a high enough state of charge. See URL
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...
Now, to actually answer your question: why is this?
This requires a quick summary of how lithium-ion batteries work. They have an anode and cathode and electrolyte just like any other battery, but there is a twist: lithium ions actually move from the cathode to anode during charging and intercalate into it. The gist of intercalation is that molecules or ions (lithium ions in this case) are crammed in between the molecular gaps of some material's lattice.
During discharging, the lithium ions leave the anode and return to the cathode, and likewise intercalate into the cathode. So, both the cathode and anode act as sort of a 'sponge' for lithium ions.
When most of the lithium ions are intercalated into the cathode (meaning the battery is in a fairly discharged state), the cathode material will expand slightly due to volumetric strain (because of all the extra atoms wedged in between its lattice), but generally most of this is intercalation force is converted to internal stresses (analogous to tempered glass), so the volumetric strain is slight.
During charging, the lithium ions leave the cathode and intercalate into the graphite anode. Graphite has is basically a carbon biscuit, made of a bunch of graphene layers to form an aggregate biscuit structure. American biscuit structure.
This greatly reduces the graphite anode's ability to convert the force from the intercalation into internal stresses, so the anode undergoes significantly more volumetric strain - so much so that it will actually increase in volume by 10-20%. This must be (and is - except in the case of a certain Samsung phone battery anyway) allowed for when designing a lithium-ion cell - otherwise the anode can slowly weaken or even ultimately puncture the internal membrane that separates the anode from the cathode, causing a dead short inside the cell. But only once a bunch of joules has been shoved into the cell (thus expanding the anode).
Ok, but what does any of this have to do with cold temperatures?
When you charge a lithium-ion cell in below freezing temperatures, most of the lithium ions fail to intercalate into the graphite anode. Instead, they plate the anode with metallic lithium, just like electroplating an anode coin with a cathode precious metal.
So, charging will electroplate the anode with lithium rather than, well, recharging it. Some of the ions to intercalate into the anode, and some of the atoms in the metal plating will intercalate later over 20+ hours, if the cell is allowed to rest, but most will not. That is the source of the capacity reduction, increased internal resistance, and also the danger.
If you've read my related answer on stack exchange to the question 'Why is there so much fear surrounding lithium-ion batteries?', you can probably see where this is going.
This lithium plating of the anode isn't nice and smooth and even (like chrome plating). It forms in dendrites, little sharp tendrils of lithium metal growing on the anode.
As with the other failure mechanisms which likewise are due to metallic lithium plating of the anode (though for different reasons), these dendrites can put unexpected pressure on the separating membrane as the anode expands and forces them into it, and if you're unlucky, this will cause the membrane to one day fail unexpectedly (or also immediately, sometimes a dendrite just pokes a hole in it and touches the cathode).
This makes the cell vent, ignite its flammable electrolyte, and ruin your weekend (at best).
However, you might be wondering, "why do below-freezing temperatures cause lithium metal plating of the anode?"
And the unfortunate and unsatisfying answer is that we don't actually know. We must use neutron imaging to look inside functioning lithium-ion cells, and considering there are only around ~30 (31 I think?) worldwide active research reactors (nuclear reactors that act as a neutron source) that are actually available for scientific research at a university rather than used for medical isotope production, and all of them booked 24/7 for experiments, I think it is just a matter of patience. There have only been a few instances of neutron imaging of lithium-ion batteries simply due to scarcity of equipment time.
The last time this was used specifically for this cold temperature problem was 2014 I believe, and here is the article.
Despite the headline, they still haven't really solved exactly what it is that causes plating rather than intercalation when the cell is below freezing.
Interestingly, it is actually possible to charge a lithium-ion cell below freezing, but only at exceedingly low currents, below 0.02C (a greater than 50-hour charge time).
There are also a few exotic cells commercially available that are specifically designed to be chargeable in cold temperatures, usually at significant cost (both monetarily and in terms of the cells' performance in other areas).
Note: I should add that discharging a lithium-ion battery in below freezing temperatures is perfectly safe. Most cells have discharge temperature ratings of -20°C or even colder. Only charging a 'frozen' cell has to be avoided.
See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...
.
.
LEGISLATOR's CHEVY BOLT CATCHES FIRE WHILE CHARGING ON DRIVEWAY IN VERMONT
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/chevy-bolt-catches-fir...
THETFORD; July 2, 2021 — A fire destroyed a 2019 Chevy Bolt, 66 kWh battery, battery pack cost about $10,000, or 10000/66 = $152/kWh, EPA range 238 miles, owned by state Rep. Tim Briglin, D-Thetford, Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Technology.
He had been driving back and forth from Thetford, VT, to Montpelier, VT, with his EV, about 100 miles via I-89
He had parked his 2019 Chevy Bolt on the driveway, throughout the winter, per GM recall of Chevy Bolts
He had plugged his EV into a 240-volt charger.
His battery was at about 10% charge at start of charging, at 8 PM, and he had charged it to 100% charge at 4 AM; 8 hours of charging.
Charging over such a wide range is detrimental for the battery. However, it is required for “range-driving”, i.e., making long trips. See Note.
NOTE: Range-driving is an absolute no-no, except on rare occasions, as it would 1) pre-maturely age/damage the battery, 2) reduce range sooner, 3) increase charging loss, and 4) increase kWh/mile, and 5) increase the chance of battery fires.
Charging at 32F or less
Li-ions would plate out on the anode each time when charging, especially when such charging occurred at battery temperatures of 32F or less.
Here is an excellent explanation regarding charging at 32F or less.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...
Fire in Driveway
Firefighters were called to Briglin’s house on Tucker Hill Road, around 9 AM Thursday.
Investigators from the Vermont Department of Public Safety Fire and Explosion Investigation Unit determined:
1) The fire started in a compartment in the back of the passenger’s side of the vehicle
2) It was likely due to an “electrical failure”. See Note
NOTE: With a crushed gasoline car, you just put it in a melting pot to make new steel
That cannot be done with EVs
You have to partially disassemble, and put the parts in a hazardous waste facility, which has not been built yet, even in China, and the rest gets molten down. All a lot more expensive
I hear, the cost of insurance for an EV is about 2 to 3 times the cost of a gasoline car.
If an EV is in an accident, the battery may be jolted, which may damage cells, which may cause a future fire, in your garage.
Insurance companies are not stupid. Your house insurance may increase as well. The loser is YOU, not THEM
NOTE: Regarding the Chevy Bolt, it likely was one or more battery cells shorting out, which creates heat, which burns nearby items, which creates a fire that is very hard to extinguish. See Appendix
https://www.vnews.com/Firefighters-put-out-blaze-in-car-of-Vt-State...
https://www.engadget.com/gm-chevy-bolt-fire-warning-215322969.html
https://electrek.co/2020/11/13/gm-recall-chevy-bolt-evs-potential-f...
GM Recall of Chevy Bolts (later, it became no longer in production)
In 2020, GM issued a worldwide recall of 68,667 Chevy Bolts, all 2017, 2018 and 2019 models, plus, in 2021, a recall for another 73,000 Bolts, all 2020, 2021, and 2022 models.
GM set aside $1.8 BILLION to replace battery modules, or 1.8 BILLION/(68,667 + 73,000) = $12,706/EV.
https://insideevs.com/news/524712/chevrolet-bolt-battery-recall-cost/
https://thehill.com/policy/transportation/568817-gm-expands-bolt-ev...
Owners were advised not to charge them in a garage, and not to leave them unattended while charging, which may take up to 8 hours; what a nuisance!
I wonder what could happen during rush hour traffic, or in a parking garage, or at a shopping mall, etc.
Rep. Briglin heeded the GM recall by not charging in his garage. See URLs
https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2021/09/16/electric-social-distancing/
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...
NOTE:
- Cost of replacing the battery packs of 80,000 Hyundai Konas was estimated at $900 million, about $11,000 per vehicle
https://insideevs.com/news/492167/reports-lg-chem-cost-hyundai-batt...
- EV batteries should be charged from 20 to 80%, to achieve minimal degradation and long life, plus the charging loss is minimal in that range
- Charging EVs from 0 to 20% charge, and from 80 to 100% charge:
1) Uses more kWh AC from the wall outlet per kWh DC charged into the battery, and
2) Is detrimental to the battery.
3) Requires additional kWh for cooling the battery while charging.
- EV batteries must never be charged, when the battery temperature is less than 32F; if charged anyway, the plating out of Li-ions on the anode would permanently damage the battery.
https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/how-does-lithium-ion-battery-work
APPENDIX 2
See section Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions in URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/some-ne-state-governme...
Charging Electric Vehicles During Freezing Conditions
A 3-layer tape (cathode, separator and anode) is wound on a core to make a battery cell.
An EV battery pack has several thousand cells. The cells are arranged in strings, i.e., in series, to achieve the desired voltage
The strings are arranged in parallel to achieve the desired amps.
Power, in Watts = Volts x Amps
EV Normal Operation at 32F and below: On cold/freezing days, EVs would use on-board systems to heat the battery, as needed, during daily operation
EV Parking at 32 F and below: When at home, it is best to keep EVs plugged in during periods at 32F and below, whether parked indoors or outdoors.
When parking at an airport, which may not have enough charging stations, it is best to fully charge EVs prior to parking, to enable the on-board systems to heat the battery during parking, as needed.
Charging at 32F and below: Li-ion batteries must never be charged when the batterytemperature is at 32F or below. Do not plug it in. Turn on “pre-conditioning”, to enable the battery heating/cooling system (which could be a heat pump) to very slowly heat up the battery to about 40F. After the battery is “up to temperature”, normal charging can be started, either at home, or at a fast-charging rate on the road.
If the battery does not have enough charge to heat itself at about 40F, it needs to be heated by an external heat source, such as an electric heater under the battery, or towed/driven to a warm garage. All this, while cumbersome, needs to be done to safeguard the expensive battery.
Pre-conditioning can be set to:
1) Preheat the cabin and/or seats
2) Defrost windshield wipers, windows, door handles and charge port, etc., in case of freezing rain conditions; newer Teslas have charge port heaters. See URL
3) Pre-heat the battery, before arriving at a fast charger.
https://getoptiwatt.com/news/tesla-extreme-weather-considerations-h...
Power Outage, while parked at 32F and below: During a power outage, partially charged batteries, connected to dead chargers, could use much of their remaining charge to keep the batteries at about 40F.
If the power is restored, and the EV is plugged in, charging must never begin, unless the battery temperature is 35 to 40F
See URLs.
During charging, Li-ions (pos.) are absorbed by the anode (pos.) at decreasing rates as the battery temperature decreases from 32F
Any excess Li-ions arriving at the anode will plate out on the anode and permanently reduce the absorption rate.
The plating is not smooth, like chrome plating; it is roughish and may have dendrites, which could penetrate the thin separator between the anode and cathode, and cause a short and a fire.
A similar condition exists, if charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%; the more often such charging, the greater the anode resistance to absorbing Li-ions, and the greater the likelihood of plating.
The plating condition is permanent, i.e., cannot be reversed.
Also, frequently charging from 0 to 20% and from 80 to 100%, increases the charging percentage, increases kWh/mile of travel, and reduces range.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/06/12/electric-bus-inferno-in-hano...
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/263036/why-charging...
https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/charging_at_high_and_lo...
NOTE:
- EV batteries have miscellaneous losses to provide electricity to on-board systems
- On cold/freezing days, an electric bus should be ready for service as soon as the driver enters the bus
- On cold/freezing days, the bus driver would need at least 70% charge, because travel would require more kWh per mile
NOTE:
If the battery temperature is less than 40F or more than 115F, it will use more kWh/mile of travel
The best efficiency, charging and discharging, is at battery temperatures of 60 to 80F.
Batteries have greater internal resistance at lower temperatures and at high temperatures.
Pro-bus folks often point to California regarding electric buses, but in New England, using electric buses to transport children would be a whole new ballgame, especially on colder days. See URLs
https://www.wired.com/story/electric-cars-cold-weather-tips/
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1127610_keep-your-parked-elect...
EV Electricity Supply: Where would the electricity come from, to charge and protect from cold, expensive batteries during extended electricity outages/rolling blackouts, due to multi-day, hot and cold weather events, with minimal wind and solar, as occur in New England throughout the year?
Would charging electricity be supplied by emergency standby diesel-generators, or emergency standby batteries?
APPENDIX 1
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind...
World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021
During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW
Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%
At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo...
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:
1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and
2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in specialized ships, also designed and made in Europe, then unloaded at the about $400-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, also designed and made in Europe, for erection of the floating turbines
About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase
The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 20 c/kWh, with subsidies, the wholesale price at which utilities would buy from Owners (higher prices after 2023)
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...
The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies
The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government
The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024
The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.
The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment
Floating Offshore Wind in Maine
Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital-costs-losses-and-aging
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid.
The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People
Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.
Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.
APPENDIX 2
Floating Offshore Wind in Norway
Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company
Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.
On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.
The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.
The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL
That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher
The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites
https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/arti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine
The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies
In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.
Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.
Floating Offshore Wind in Maine
If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:
1) The additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus
2) The additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to erection sites
3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.
.
.
APPENDIX 3
Offshore Wind
Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article
World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...
US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals
1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government
Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
NOTE: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable”
That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus
The commentator should have said: Wind and solar are never, ever reliable
US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost
Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.
Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.
Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar on the grid:
Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh
Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh
In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid
Cost of curtailments, 2.0 c/kWh
Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
APPENDIX 4
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.
.
.
APPENDIX 5
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
EXCERPT:
Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing
Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2
Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y
Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)
Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million
Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)
Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss
(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh
At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh
At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh
Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80% full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging
NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.
COMMENT ON CALCULATION
Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment
If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.
According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.
A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.
They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations
Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.
A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.
APPENDIX 6
Solar is in a Downturn, Similar to Offshore Wind
SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand.
Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...
SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-s...
The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-...
APPENDIX 7
Miscellaneous Sources of Information
World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...
BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...
Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow...
Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-ec...
Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-proje...
EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soari...
U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plan...
Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plu...
Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catc...
The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debac...
Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...
Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...
IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...
UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-proje...
CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...
AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-...
.
IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...
APPENDIX 8
Nuclear Plants by Russia
According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW
Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england
Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.
The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.
Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each
.
In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW,
The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.
As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU
.
In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom
.
In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.
Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed
In Bangladesh: 2 VVER-1200 reactors = 3400 MW at the Rooppur Power Station
Capital cost $12.65 billion is 90% funded by a loan from the Russian government. The two units generating 2.4 GWe are planned to be operational in 2024 and 2025. Rosatom will operate the units for the first year before handing over to Bangladeshi operators. Russia will supply the nuclear fuel and take back spent nuclear fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooppur_Nuclear_Power_Plant
.
Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures
Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions
They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years
Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France
.
Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a
mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places
They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3) a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced
Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.
American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.
Tripling Nuclear? During COP28 in opulent Dubai, Kerry called for the world to triple CO2-free nuclear, from 370,200 MW to about 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.
https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html
Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants
That means, plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.
New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would be 11% of the 2050 world electricity generation. See table
Existing nuclear: If some of the older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, that nuclear would be about 5% to the world total generation in 2050
Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation.
Total nuclear would be about 16%, and would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050.
Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-202....
.
Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022 |
370200 |
|
Proposed tripling |
3 |
|
Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050 |
1110600 |
|
New Nuclear, MW |
740400 |
|
MW/reactor |
1200 |
|
Reactors |
617 |
|
New Reactors, rounded |
620 |
|
Reactors/site |
2 |
|
Sites |
310 |
|
New nuclear production, MWh, 2050 |
5841311760 |
|
Conversion factor |
1000000 |
% |
New nuclear production, TWh, 2050 |
5841 |
11 |
World total production, TWh, 2050 |
53000 |
APPENDIX 9
Electricity prices vary by type of customer
Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.
In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1
The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:
Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh
Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh
Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh
Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh
Electricity prices vary by locality
Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from 39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2.
Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.
1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.
Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.
See URL
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...
In the US, the cost of electricity to ratepayers ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.
US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y
With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,
US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented
NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars
APPENDIX 10
LIFE WITHOUT OIL?
Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.
Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.
The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.
If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.
Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.
Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.
There is no escaping of this reality, except in green la-la-land.
.
.
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