Also Shadow,

Why are you exaggerating the losses from pumped hydro?

It's 19% loss.

"Energy storage in pumped hydro
The energy storage capability of a pumped hydro energy storage system is the product of the mass of water stored in the upper reservoir (in kilograms), the usable fraction of that water, the gravitational constant, the head (in metres), and the system efficiency. By way of example, a pumped hydro energy storage system might comprise twin 20-hectare reservoirs, each 20 metres deep, with a usable fraction of 85%, separated by an altitude difference (head) of 400 metres, and operating with a round-trip efficiency of 81% (90% for each of the pumping and generating cycles). This equates to a usable mass of water (when the reservoir is full) of 3.4 GL. Accounting for pumping and generating losses, the effective energy storage capacity is about 3 GWh (or 300 MW of power for ten hours). Roughly speaking, 1 GWh of energy storage requires 1 GL of stored water for 400 m head."

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp2021/AustralianElectricityOptionsPumpedHydro

Hi Hasbeen - before we start chatting are you:-
1. Ready to admit most energy scientists are now saying renewables + storage are cheaper than coal or nuclear? You have STUDIOUSLY ignored every one of the sources I referenced in this post.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9984#341296

2. Ready to admit that the Swiss might ration EV charging this winter because of this little problem called a RUSSIAN WAR WITH UKRAINE!?
It's got nothing to do with EV's and everything to do with a NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS brought on by - oh the IRONY - being addicted to gas and oil! (DERP! Facepalm!) If they were already living off home-grown renewables and had "Electrified Everything" (which is the renewables mantra for efficiency reasons) - then there would BE NO energy crisis! Got it?

"Europe is not coming back to coal or to gas to ensure security, it's the actually the opposite. Countries are accelerating renewables," Ember senior analyst Pawel Czyzak said.

http://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/ukraine-war-pandemic-set-speed-europes-green-energy-transition-report-finds-2022-06-01/

Either find reasonable objections with strong scientific backing, because I LOVE being proved wrong or at least pushed to do more reading. It's exciting when the world gets bigger and more complicated. Either that - or MAN UP and admit you were wrong! I can respect both.

But don't unman yourself and cry about it like Armchair. Waaaa - Hasbeen wants respect everyone! It's NOT FAIR that I keep finding sources. Waaaaaaa! What's next - calling me poo-poo-pants?

Hi Max,

What you don't seem to understand is that real life is rarely as it is depicted in the glossy brochures. A key to long term energy security and prosperity is to have your power generators last a long time. That is why lcoe is the gold standard for tried and tested technology. Untested energy sources might sound wonderful, but time might reveal some nasty problems.

http://stopthesethings.com/2020/06/15/how-long-do-wind-turbines-last-10-years-or-until-the-subsidies-run-out-whichever-occurs-first/

Hi Fester,
Dude - if that's all they're talking about - I'm HAPPY to admit it! I mean, I've already admitted solar loses 10% efficiency at 25 years. So wind? 3.6 after 10 years? Give that another 10 years and call it 7% - meaning it's still 93% as efficient as when it started? Another 10 years and call it RETIRED? They only have 25 to 30 year lifespans!

Also, solar may have overtaken wind as the cheapest form of power ever invented. Solar may come down in price more. Solar may be mass produced and over deployed as per Blakers and Seba above.

From the study PDF:

"Unique to the United States, we find a significant drop in performance by 3.6% after 10 years, as plants lose eligibility for the production tax credit. Certain plant characteristics, such as the ratio of blade length to nameplate capacity, influence the rate of performance decline. These results indicate that the performance decline rate can be partially managed and influenced by policy."
http://docs.wind-watch.org/performance-age-us.pdf

Your link also admits it's NOT AS BIG a problem in newer turbines. What's newer? Last year? NO! 2008 - so they've had plenty of time to study them for at least a decade.

"Newer wind turbines, or those built after 2008, have also proved more resilient during their first decade of life. Longer blades have allowed turbines to operate at full capacity under less windy conditions.

However, those might also see a drop-off in performance after a decade, said Millstein. “Hopefully, we get to do the research in a few years, once we have data,” he said."
http://stopthesethings.com/2020/06/15/how-long-do-wind-turbines-last-10-years-or-until-the-subsidies-run-out-whichever-occurs-first/

So that's studying them after ANOTHER decade - or 20 years - when they're only meant to last 25 years? Dude - talk about a storm in a teacup. They're SO cheap - this is shaving a few percent off the profits.

Next please.

Hi Max,

A long life for your generation components ultimately means cheap energy. 24/7 wind and solar power supply is not tried and tested. Wind in particular might not last long:

http://www.wctrib.com/news/local/willmars-wind-turbines-may-be-nearing-end-of-their-useful-life

Given the payback period of wind turbines is 10 to 15 years, they may not break even. In contrast, nuclear power utilities are costly to build but they function reliably and at full power for may decades, which is why they ultimately provide very cheap electricity.

Hi Lester,
First of all the wind industry has DECADES of deployment and testing. I mean, YOU'RE the one that just referenced a decades old study into the older turbines - and now the "newer" ones (2008 and beyond) already seem to be performing better.

Secondly, thanks for that input. I posted it on another renewables forum where I made some of the following points requesting standards.

Don't get me started on industrial standards! I wish technology and science were more open-sourced, so that any Worker's Co-op in the free market could whip up a part for the old X2000 turbine doover. (I'm not a Communist but am Ordo-Liberal - and prefer more democratic Worker's Co-ops than Corporations beholden to the stock market. Corporations are too short sighted in their focus.)

It's why I love the EU. Back in the day each brand of phone had bespoke power cords and bespoke data cables for every bespoke model of phone. So the first Nokia had one type of data cable and one type of charger, then the second Nokia would have different standards, LET ALONE asking another brand to be compatible. The EU said "No more! Choose a standard and stick to that if you want to sell in the EU!" And micro-usb was born.

This sounds less like a problem with the technology of wind, and more like a problem with the regulation and ISO. (International Standards Organisation.) It's a teething issue - not insurmountable - but definitely annoying and something I'll watch going forward. Thanks!

PS: You sound like you're going off Weissbach's lower EROEI for wind with storage built into the assumptions. That's not a great way to do it - and as much as a former social worker as myself can understand these things - there are significant flaws in the Weissbach paper.
http://energytransition.org/2014/09/renewables-ko-by-eroi/