Hi Max,

The Willmar turbines were built in 2009 and are now believed to be near the end of their economic lifespan. They were expected to last 20 years.

Does the hype in the glossy sales brochures match reality? According to this economist who studies wind farm data in great detail, the economics of wind generation are marginal at best.

https://www.ref.org.uk/ref-blog/365-wind-power-economics-rhetoric-and-reality

Hi Fester,
Please note from your own article this is NOT an industry wide issue!
“Commissioner Cole Erickson asked if the situation is unique or if it is an industry-wide issue.

“We’re alone, I would say, because of the manufacturer that no longer exists,””

Please also note that unlike the way you’re reading it – they founded the breakers and ordered them in!

“The breakers were ordered, but they come from Germany and are expected to take nine to 12 weeks to arrive after the order "gets in the queue."”

Please also note that they ARE still operational, and ARE still performing right in the middle of their performance bell curve!

“Over the five-year average, that generation of power landed right in the middle of what is expected.”

Please note that any mention of having to close the farm early was hypothetical still hypothetical. Also, while individual turbines might die early - the whole wind farm won't. LCOE's are based on actual data wind farm performances.

Please also note that IF this WAS a more industry wide problem (it isn’t – YOUR article admits that!) – regulators would demand industry standards. We’re Homo Sapiens Sapiens – and learn from our mistakes.

Please note that your REF link should not just reference a massive paper from a dodgy group and say “Take that – it’s the vibe of the thing.” Rather quote a specific idea or paragraph from the summary you find convincing.

Please note I don’t find the REF credible, but I DO quote relevant bits against it!

“The question of who supports and/or funds REF is also intriguing. First, we have the former chairman Noel Edmonds, who became a high-profile anti-wind campaigner when his north Devon home was threatened by a windfarm development…

…It also said his firm's clients included an "anti-turbine campaign in Somerset". …

The problem with the Renewable Energy Foundation is that their name is misleading. It suggests they are in favour of renewables when actually the opposite is true.“

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/may/18/renewable-energy-foundation-wind-farm

https://www.desmog.com/renewable-energy-foundation/

Hi Max,

Here is a link to an independent report on some wind turbines in Minnesota showing them to be uneconomic even if they last 20 years:

http://www.mnsu.edu/globalassets/university-life/university-services/student-government/wind-screening-study.pdf

Not surprising really when the Willmar turbines have a capacity factor of a bit over 20%.

Lcoe is a boring conservative metric, unlike the glossy brochure wow factor metrics used by Andy B and his CSIRO All Stars. But with lcoe you know what you are getting, and the long term value of high capacity factor and long service life become apparent.

Max,

Clearly, you are not an engineer.

Large pumps/turbines are at best 75% efficient, and motors/generators at best 93% efficient, transformers 99% efficient and power lines 98%.

So MWhr of stored hydraulic energy becomes 1x0.75x0.93x0.99x0.98 = 0.67 MW of electrical energy or 67% efficiency. When you return the water to the dam you get roughly the same efficiency, so the whole cycle gets 0.67x0.67 = 45% efficiency. Note that this does not include hydraulic friction in the pipes or the loss of energy due to dam levels.

Hi Fester,
Um - that looks like a feasability report from 2006 about a specific set of campuses in a specific location - and deciding the local wind resource would not be economic? Dude - that's NORMAL. No one ever said wind is a viable resource in every single particular location on the entire planet! Far out - talk about a strawman. But here's the thing. That was 2006! Wind turbines have grown enormous since then, capturing higher winds. The cubed law of wind turbine size means they might be viable now. Have you googled those sites to see if they've built any since? This particular case study is yours - so it's YOUR responsibility to do that.

I'm not sure what you mean by LCEO being boring. It has one job, showing how much a technology will cost a utility. Blakers then uses the term LCOE to show how much wind and solar and PHES would cost the CONSUMER under particular case models - which confuses the issue. But it's levelized according to the best real world data, and competitive.

Hi Max,

Every time I start doing calculations for renewable energy I stop after a short time as I realise how expensive it is. As an example consider how much electricity would cost to provide a continuous output using solar generation and closed loop pumped hydro. Let's assume an average daily capacity factor of 25% and a minimum daily capacity factor of 15%. Cost of solar generation is $15 US per mwh. Cost of storage is $70 US per mwh and efficiency of storage is 45% as per SM's knowledge.

Using this I would calculate the average cost per mwh as follows.

Solar generation units needed: a little under 13 (six mwh per day per unit), but lets round down to 12. That makes the hourly cost of solar generation $45 US. Storage is required for 18 hours, which makes the cost per mwh:

(45*24 + 70*18)/24 = $97-50 US per mwh

The cost by a very generous estimate is over three times the lcoe of Swedish nuclear, yet you maintain that nuclear power is four times the cost of renewables.

My reason for saying that lcoe is boring and conservative is that it is very hard to con people with it. Had you an interest in it Max you might not have swallowed the renewable energy con, nor would you have made completely false claims like nuclear being four times the cost of solar.