"Decommissioning" of a Wind Farm 3

[SnTMan]

Interesting video, if you haven't seen it. I haven't found any real info about it. End of life (functional of just economic?) I guess. Anyone seen anything on it?

(Sorry for any ads)

Regards,

Mike

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[1503-44]

For sure. If they were 20yrs old, probably they were of 0.75 to 1.5 MW capacity. If they are upgrading, then figure probably 2.5 to 3 or maybe 5MW range. The existing tower height will be too short and the OTM of the old foundations will not be anywhere near what the new towers will have given the much greater blade radius, so surely the existing foundations would be insufficient.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

One of the concepts that this post inherently brings to my mind is "life-cycle" costs.

I feel like we (the public) sometimes get hoodwinked by overly optimistic life cycle costs for green energy. By that I mean that, in order to justify their government subsidies, these companies paint a nice picture of how little the maintenance costs are and how long the technology will last and generate power.

 

[SnTMan]

...overly optimistic life cycle costs...

Well, that's one way to put it

The problem with sloppy work is that the supply FAR EXCEEDS the demand

 

[1503-44]

One of the the greatest advantages of wind and solar is that you can just about get as much of it installed as you want very quickly. No long arduous and expensive permit process, nor lengthy construction schedules and upgrading a wind turbine site is even easier, as the bulk of those costs and time schedule are avoided. The time clock starts ticking well before the first shovel of dirt is turned, so renovation is a great way to acquire higher value per MW.

Everything has a design life and project feasibility is very much based on that life cycle cost. Wind turbines may have a life shorter than a nuclear plant,however the life cycle cost of each reflect in their value per MW-h and shares of cost billed to the consumer. The lifecycle of each method is well known and based on justifiable experience, not overly optimistic at all. If they were running for 15yrs, I'd say they hit spot on. Many heavily mechanised assemblies, engines, pumps, etc are rebuilt within 10 years with an eye on scrapping and total replacement in another 10. Speaking of scrapping, wind turbine dismantling costs are absolutely nothing when compared to others. A small nuclear plant will run you a min of $300MM, and that certainly is overly optimistic.

If it is the subsidies that worry you, think about the avoided costs. When, not if, oil and gas prices rise again, the avoided cost of fuel alone will more than pay for any subsidy, not to mention the usual social costs that, sooner or later, will become more and more apparent as the big clock (yes the environmental clock) ticks down. Cheap oil and gas has dampened that fuse, but its now getting shorter again, even as we speak. Spain just changed the electric cost rate for which the maximum rate has risen 20%, averaging to an expected 8% overall increase to align with the price rise of fossil fuels over the past two years, once again steadily approaching $70/bbl. Avoided fuel costs to the economy, especially to those that do not have home country supplies, can be enough to affect currency value and severely restrict future growth, if not its continued existence. Subsidies, usually just really tax avoidence schemes, have relatively little impact at such a scale. Its just another way that large companies manage to pay little tax. Close that loophole. Did you know that at one time JW Marriott (hotel chain) was one of the biggest wind turbine investors? Why? Yes, a tax avoidance scheme. Are you upset that the tax scheme happened to be connected to wind turbines? If it wasn't that, they could have just as easily avoided tax by investing in some Irish Leprechaun monument. What's the difference?

BTW, a google showed on page #1 that those wind turbines above were indeed old, small units, 1MW each, that were installed in 2002. Lifespan of 18yrs, which hit my midrange estimate exactly. I'm not in that business yet managed to easily figure that out, definitely not being overly optimistic at all. I will bet they used a 15yr life cycly and "economically speaking" got 3yrs of "free power" out of them as well. So, Where's the problem? You want to wait until rust brings them down?

 

[SuperSalad]

But they aren't supposed to be 15 years and then the are garbage. The presented idea (though I don't know of any projects successfully carrying this out) for wind turbines was that they would need no major maintenance for those 15 years and then might require overhauling to continue to generate. I am a big proponent of wind power, but the technology has never really lived up to the promises yet.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[1503-44]

Not realistic IMO for anything with moving parts.

That may apply more to gird connected solar. Apart from inverters and tracking motors, there isn't that much else to do, other than keep the panels clean. They generally have a guaranteed production of 25 yrs typical project life at 95%, then decline to 80-85% over the next 10, but can continue in service in position, or sold off to a second hand market. Minimal moving parts make a huge difference.

 

[rb1957]

"I feel like we (the public) sometimes get hoodwinked by overly optimistic life cycle costs for green energy."

no way ! say it isn't so !!

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[rb1957]

@SS,

we don't know that the structure had reached it's life limit. We only know that after subsidies were removed the turbine was no longer economic to operate.

Maybe it did need some overhaul, and could've kept operating. Maybe it wasn't designed to be "future proof". Maybe the local council authority could've bought the land and continued operating (uneconomic as it may be) 'cause that's the sort of thing governments do (uneconomic things, 'cause they are "right" to do ... like operating mail service to places that couldn't afford it). Maybe the owner is making a statement ... I wanted to sell the land (and turbine) to the council but they wouldn't buy it, so "eff" them.

another day in paradise, or is paradise one day closer ?

 

[SuperSalad]

We only know that after subsidies were removed the turbine was no longer economic to operate.

Where did you find that info? I wasn't able to find any information regarding the reason for demolition when I looked originally.

Andrew H.

http://www.MotoTribology.com

 

[1503-44]

That just might be a to be a difficult question to answer.

I dont need to know anything more than they were 1 MW (outdated) units, probably not direct drive with large drive train planetary gearing, that were also approaching 20yrs service. Do you expect your car to operate without any maintenance for 10yrs, 15yrs? Why then a wind turbine? It seems like they did quite well with site selection and have found a good place to continue to make money from wind, which is not as easy to do today as it was 20 yrs ago, since now most of the best wind onshore sites have been occupied and there are few remaining to choose from. The time is perfect for some 2 to 3MW machines to take their place.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Wind turbines may have a life shorter than a nuclear plant,however the life cycle cost of each reflect in their value per MW-h and shares of cost billed to the consumer. The lifecycle of each method is well known and based on justifiable experience, not overly optimistic at all.

I brought it up only because of the reference to subsidies and what happens when those dry up.... I'm not claiming any special knowledge here.

That may apply more to gird connected solar. Apart from inverters and tracking motors, there isn't that much else to do, other than keep the panels clean. They generally have a guaranteed production of 25 yrs typical project life at 95%, then decline to 80-85% over the next 10, but can continue in service in position, or sold off to a second hand market

I've read the opposite. The solar guys were getting huge subsidies for rooftop solar arrays (at least here in California) and their estimated efficiencies and life span were way, way, way more optimistic than solar panels had ever demonstrated in the past. When I read more about it, every one of those companies was saying, "those were the OLD type of panels that were used, the new ones are much more efficient with much longer life spans". Except that they'd only been around for a couple of years and there was no way to validate their claims. Granted, that was probably 5 years ago that I delved into these claims.

This isn't an argument against solar, just the methods used to "sell" the technology to the public and to earn their subsidies. Gosh, look at Solyndra. It was all smoke and mirrors by sales / marketing folks to con the government into funding a "green energy" technology that was totally unproven. That one was arguably fraud.

Now, there is another (probably better) example of overly optimistic projections: The Ivanpah solar plant in California off the 15 on the way to Las Vegas.
This is actually the type of solar plant that I'm a strong proponent of. However, it spent years operating at a fraction of it's estimated (and contracted) capacity. Only after it was allowed to burn about 4 times the natural gas that it had be previously limited to has it reached the contracted amount of power (but, still somewhat less than the estimated capacity).

Granted, I still believe the 1.6 billion in load guarantees from the US government was probably money well spent in comparison to most of our 'green energy' government expenditures.

 

[1503-44]

Solar power purchase rates by the grid in Spain were good and guaranteed 10% ROI until 2008. After that they've had to make do with almost equal parity. Some discounts at initial purchase, but since Spain's fossil fuel production is hardly measurable, it is well worth not buying the equivalent amount of gas from Algeria. Renewable power now accounts for just over 50% of total, if I'm not mistaken. I haven't seen the most recent stats, so could be more or less.

If I consumed more electricity, I'd think about it, but we don't. Since one does not pay sales tax on self-generated power, that's enough to make solar actually 1 or 2 cents cheaper than grid power and that was before the 20% raise in price that happened last week. In fact, maybe I need to see if its worth it now to start selling all I would not use into the grid. As it is now, I pay more for 2 mobil phones, 300 MBPS fibre and MoviStar-Netflix than all our energy consumption combined, including car gas. My carbon footprint does not even flatten the grass. The temps here are always between 54 and 83°F all the whole year. HVAC consists of opening, or closing the window.

Is Ivanpah a focused solar array? Maybe still experimental, or too far away from consumers?

 

[EdStainless]

My hunch based on another wind farm that I know of is that they got too the point that it isn't economical to do maintenance on them any longer since they are so small. The newer units require less maintenance, and will be longer lasting.
They may have salvaged some in order to keep part of the field running. It costs less to referb one of these on the ground that to just do a basic inspection in the air. They have data to tell them which units are running the best so they know which ones to save.

The recycle value of these is high. The blades are the only trash, just about everything else has value.

I have seen some work on new units (5kW) that talk about how many years they have to run just to offset the C from the concrete in the foundation. I believe that for the last couple of years wind generation is up to about 32% of nameplate (equivalent to full output for 7.7hrs/day).

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[1503-44]

32% is very high. Must be a good location. Averaging all turbine output over an area the size of Spain for a year seldom passes 20% of nameplate, although in more localized areas it can get to 50% or so, but there are not many areas that are so good. Lowest average I've calculated was 12% in 2006.

I dont know, but the guts of a used 1MW units here wouldn't be worth another can of oil.

 

[EdStainless]

That was US total for 2019 using EIA numbers.
104334 MW capacity and total generation of 295,882,000 MWhr.

https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.php

In the early years 15% was considered good. It has gotten better over time.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed

 

[dauwerda]

So what is the cost of installing a foundation (and possibly tower) As well as all of the conductors and controls for gathering/collecting to a central collector station compared to the unit itself? Even though larger units are available now, would there be no merit in replacing the units with something that could reuse the exiting foundations and possibly the towers? If for no other reason than not having to offset the carbon that would be required for the concrete in the new foundations? Maybe the cost of the foundation compared to the overall cost is much smaller than I have imagined and the numbers simply don't support this.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Is Ivanpah a focused solar array? Maybe still experimental, or too far away from consumers?

Focused mirrors to generate steam and spin a conventional steam turbine to generate power. However, it needs to use natural gas for the first hour (or more) of the day to generate the steam. Then lets the sun's energy take over.

Not entirely experimental as there have been other such plants. However, I hear of lots of advances with the technology in recent years. Being too far from consumers, however, is definitely an issue. But, that's partly politics. California has a goal of continuously increasing the amount of power that is "renewable" over the years. For this reason, Ivanpah (I believe) mostly supplies power to the San Francisco bay area which is hundreds of miles away.

Note: California defines renewables as Solar, wind primarily. Might also include biomass and geothermal. But, it doesn't include hydro-electric. If that were included California would already have some 60% of its power from nearly carbon free sources. Though, this may have taken a step back after the decommissioning of the San Onofre nuclear power plant.

 

1503-44:

Everything has a design life and project feasibility is very much based on that life cycle cost the election cycle.

Fixed it for you.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

 

[1503-44]

Yes 2002. A Bush-Republican tax scam. What a surprise.

 

[EdStainless]

There are some long running focused solar thermal plants in Spain and N Africa.
Some of these have been built with two salt loops, one that directly makes steam and the other that makes steam and then passes through storage tanks. The start with the short loop in the morning and then transition to the steam+storage loop during the day. The stored heat lets them make power a few hours after sunset. The furnace and salt loop require a fair amount of maintenance work, but the rest of the plant is very standard.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
P.E. Metallurgy, consulting work welcomed