Spinning offshore wind: science and renewables propaganda

Advocates of offshore wind are confronted with significant difficulties. The levelized cost of electricity from offshore wind is simply not competitive with nuclear power. Any objective observer, and scientists are certainly suppose to be objective observers, would conclude that the case against off shore wind is extremely powerful.

A review of a recent report from The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), "Large-Scale Offshore Wind Power in the United States: ASSESSMENT OF OPPORTUNITIES AND BARRIERS," suggests a willingness on the part of the NREL to cross a line between science and propaganda, in support of renewable energy enterprises.

The report acknowledges,

Currently, capital costs for offshore projects are nearly double those for land-based wind projects. These higher costs accrue from, for example, the offshore turbine support structures, offshore electrical infrastructure construction, the high cost of building at sea, O&M warranty risk adjustments, turbine cost premiums for marinization, and a decommissioning contingency. These costs can be partially offset by increased energy production. In comparison with land- based wind, however, offshore wind is also immature and its costs are higher because less deployment and experience has not allowed for full realization of the learning curve, by which product costs in new industries are known to decline as a function of production quantity. Further cost uncertainty and upward cost pressure may be introduced because of U.S. dollar/euro exchange rates. High cost is one of the primary deterrents for would-be developers of offshore wind. Current projects in the United States depend on policy incentives to offset some of the high costs, but there are no guarantees that the necessary incentives will be available when a project is approved and permitted.

Although the report holds out the hope for lower future offshore wind costs, it also acknowledges,

Capital costs for offshore wind plants are analyzed using data from European deployments and projected costs for potential U.S. projects. The costs have been trending up over time, as have the costs for land-based installations. Although water depth is expected to have a significant effect on capital cost, and larger wind plant sizes should lead to lower overall capital costs, these effects have been overshadowed in the data by recent jumps in the cost of energy from all sources and other energy market dynamics. The wind turbine itself contributes approximately 44% of the total capital cost. Capital cost trends are presented for year of installation, water depth, distance from shore, and project size. Year of installation is the most significant variable in the capital cost, with a sharp rise in price (56%) indicated between 2006 and 2008. Other trends such as decreasing cost with project size may show some correlation, but consistent data are not yet available to quantify this trend.

The LCOE of offshore wind plants is about double that of comparable land-based plants using 2009 market prices. This increase in the cost of energy can be attributed to higher O&M costs as well as the previously described higher capital costs. O&M costs can account for as much as 30% of the total life-cycle cost for an offshore wind plant. Three offshore wind projects in the United States have now signed PPAs (see Table 6-3). The reader is cautioned about making direct comparisons between these PPAs because the terms are complicated and several factors may not be obvious under a casual analysis.

Thus the report tells us that offshore wind is very expensive and appears to be getting even more expensive, quite rapidly. Indeed the cost of the heavily subsidized Cape Wind Project, not discussed in this report, would appear to be significantly higher that the reports highest offshore wind estimates. Any attempt to objectively compare nuclear power costs, with offshore wind costs, would conclude that in most and perhaps all instances the cost of nuclear power would be significantly lower than the cost of onshore wind generated electricity.

The recommendation to policy makers then would be that nuclear power is the lower cost option, and should be preferred to offshore wind. Needless to say the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, is not interested in science, objectivity or low energy costs. Thus rather than acknowledge the dismal realities confronted by offshore wind developers, "Large-Scale Offshore Wind" attempts to spin the facts in order to justify huge government subsidies to the offshore wind industry. Electricity from the offshore Cape Wind project, despite large Federal and State subsidies, and additional subsidies from Federal stimulus programs, will still cost,

18.7 per kilowatt hour in its first year of operation, 2013

"Large-Scale Offshore Wind," which manages to avoid a discussion of the real cost of Cape Wind electricity, no where suggests a cost comparison between the cost of offshore wind and nuclear power. So rather than focusing on questions related to the economic viability of wind, "Large-Scale Offshore Wind," focuses on potential wind supply, as if the relative cost of tapping that supply was inconsequential.

Renewable propagandists often focus on the decontextualized nuclear cost estimates, while disguising the fact that renewable energy sources cost more. But there are limits to the ability of propagandists to spine adverse facts, and in a report that acknowledges to some measure the cost problems of offshore wind attempting to suggest that nuclear costs more without a direct comparison, would be a bit to much in addition to being very overtly dishonest. So the NREL spin doctors are forced to ignore the cost issue. Instead they focus on risk. Paradoxically their risk spin ends up being almost as dishonest as a cost spin would be.

Among the risks which offshore wind generators face, non is more violent than major storms.

In many sites, the 50-year storms will be category 4 and 5 hurricanes that can have gusts greater than 80 m/s. Even though it is possible to develop structurally adequate designs using the existing standards, the process may require a more integrated design approach in cooperation with the turbine manufacturers or a Class S turbine (hurricane resilient) that exceeds the Class 1 requirements. It is possible to implement turbine design modifications for existing turbine designs that would resist or reduce the extreme loads resulting from these conditions. Such modifications could involve changes to blades and towers. Some of these changes may require compromises that might diminish the energy capture potential for a wind turbine installed at those sites to ensure survivability. For example, although the extreme winds are higher, hurricane sites have typically lower annual average wind speeds that would normally warrant a larger rotor. At hurricane sites, larger rotors may be prohibitive due to requirements for resisting extreme hurricane gusts. This may dictate a new design strategy. . . .

Understanding of extreme loads on wind turbines generated by hurricanes is important for reducing the uncertainty about survivability of the primary structure. The methodology for determining the probability of a hurricane at a particular site and the magnitude of its winds is not fully established. . . . .

In shallow water, hurricane-generated breaking waves may also create an extreme load case that has not yet been properly evaluated, especially in the Atlantic . . .

Hurricanes present unique external conditions that could require turbine design modifications. The turbine’s protection system may need specific upgrades to withstand hurricane conditions. This could include not only extreme winds that could impose high instantaneous loads, but also sustained wind speeds, high wind/wave frequency, rapid direction changes, impulsive gust loading, breaking and slamming wave loads, and multidirectional wind/wave spectra.

A second serious problem would involve a collusion between a ship or an aircraft and a Wind generator tower. "Large-Scale Offshore Wind" acknowledges this possibility but then discounts it.

Measures will need to be taken to prevent collisions (e.g., navigation exclusion zones, distance requirements for routes, mapping on navigation charts, and warning lights) or to respond rapidly to them (e.g., emergency response and rescue). . . .

Overall, collision risks are generally well understood and are unlikely to present a significant obstacle to offshore wind energy, provided these interactions and risks are considered carefully in the siting process and reasonable precautionary measures are taken to avoid the perceptions or realities of national security risks

In a discussion of socioeconomic risks, "Large-Scale Offshore Wind" observed a supposed benefit,

• Improved electric price stability

In fact rate payers can expect a significant electrical price increase as a partial payment for the Cape Wind Project.

"Large-Scale Offshore Wind" concludes its discussion of risks

A new paradigm is needed for thinking about the range of environmental and social risks of offshore wind developments, and it will need to be embodied in forward-looking state and federal energy policies. A diverse portfolio approach to energy development will include both land-based and offshore wind energy as important components in the energy mix. This new analytical paradigm is framed in the context of comparative sector risks with other energy technologies and is not limited to sector-by-sector risk analyses.

An integrated and comparative risk framework can serve as a comprehensive assessment of the costs and benefits of deploying an offshore wind farm as opposed to proceeding with some other energy choice. Rather than the sector-by-sector approach, an integrated risk framework begins to give federal, state, and local decision makers and their stakeholders a common ground for analyzing and managing risks and devising public policies and effective siting strategies . . .

So far so good, but then we learn,

Comparisons with other energy sources (such as fossil fuels and nuclear) indicate that the overall risks of offshore wind are relatively benign and not catastrophic (such as breached coal ash ponds, nuclear waste impacts).

We are also told

the life cycle of nuclear power production, albeit not generating carbon emissions during operation, involves long-term, large-scale, known impacts associated with extraction, transportation, heating and cooling, and disposal of nuclear wastes, notwithstanding the potential for catastrophic risks from accidents and terrorism. Offshore wind has a different and likely a more benign set of impacts. The reduced impacts of offshore wind should be weighed against these more significant potential life-cycle effects.

Spin away, Spin, spin, spin! We are also told,

Comparisons with other energy sources (such as fossil fuels and nuclear) indicate that the overall risks of offshore wind are relatively benign and not catastrophic (such as breached coal ash ponds, nuclear waste impacts).

It should be first noted that there has never been a casualty producing reactor accident in an American civilian NPP. There have been casualty producing accidents directly related to the operation of wind generation facilities. If history is the key to the future, the prospect of a catastrophic casualty producing accident is higher at offshore wind facilities than at Nuclear Power Plants. The worst case accident for a wind facility is pretty horrific. A collision between an oil tanker and a wind tower could produce a large oil spill with a very large environmental damage. The risk of a catastrophic accident involving a large oil spill and an offshore wind facility is probably far higher that the risk of a major accident involving nuclear waste. If large numbers of wend generators are deployed at sea, how long would it take before oil tankers would start running into them.

As we have seen large Category IV and Category V hurricanes pose serious threats to wind generators. A hurricane of that magnitude would not simply take out one generator, it might take out whole offshore wind farms, which represent billions of dollars worth of investment.

the overall risks of offshore wind are relatively benign and not catastrophic

Where dies that come from? Certainly not the discussion of offshore wind risks in "Large-Scale Offshore Wind." Once again we see the National Renewable Energy Laboratory playing propagandist for the renewable energy industry at the expense of objectivity, at the expense of science.

Finally, he risks of post carbon renewable energy include risks related to cost. The Cape Wind Project demonstrates that even with huge federal and state subsidies, electricity produced by offshore wind generators will not be cost competitive with conventional nuclear power, and still less cost competitive with Generation IV molten salt nuclear technology. When is the National Renewables Energy Laboratory going to face this unpleasant reality? When is the NREL going to stop spinning the truth about renewable energy?

Texas Wind Still More Expensive with CAES than Nuclear

When I presented my cost study of "reliable Texas wind using batteries, several of my critics complained that alternative energy storage systems, for example pump storage or Compressed Air Energy Storage (CAES) . My analysis of the cost of Pumped Storage indicates that the capitol costs were comprable to those of batteries once uncertainties were taken into account.

However, CAES does appear to lower the cost of energy storage, but at the cost of a considerable inefficiency in the use of wind generated electricity, CO2 emissions, and a surprising environmental issue. CAES increases the reliablity of wind generated electricity, but may not greatly increase the value of off peak hours generated electricity to the producer, despite the delivery of more hours of electricity during day time and peak demand hours. Even with its ability to deliver electricity at times when utilities pay for it at optimal rates, CAES systems appear to only bring a modest return to their owners. I will presently argue that CAES could be more profitable without its coupling with wind using an alternative post-carbon energy stratigy.

This assessment is based on "The Economic Impact of CAES on Wind in TX, OK, and NM," by Ridge Energy Storage & Grid Services L.P, for the Texas State Energy Conservation Office. in 2005 .

The Ridge Energy study focused on atwo alternative hypothertical projects invloving the use of CAES thenology coupled to several wind generating facilities in West Texas, Western oklahoma, and New Mexico. These facilities have some of the most reliable wind in the United states, with average capacitiy factors of around .40. In addition, wind generation does not take place symultaniously at all of these facilities, thus coupled together they produce electricity with greater reliability than their average capacity factor might suggest. The use of CAES would enable the ability to guarantee the dispatch of both base electricity, and 16 hour a day week day electricity. The use of CAES would enable wind producers to sell electricity produced at night at day time prices, but with some fairly significant inefficiencies.

A significan amount of heat energy is lost during the air storage of the operation that aas the air decompresses, it comes out of the ground at below 0 C (32 F). Moisture in the decompressed air condensed and freezes. The resulting ice would damage generation turbines, necissitating the heating of the ait by burning natural gas to melt the ice. 40% of the energy converted into electricity in conventional CAES systems comes from burning natural gas. Energy output of CAES systems is .80 of energy inputs. This suggests that there are considerable in efficiencies in the use of wind generated electricity by the wind CAES system, and that 30% of the electrical input is lost to system inefficiencies.

Ridge energy stimatrd that the capital cost of a CAES system would run @$765 per KW, an exceedingly modest sum, but one which should be examined. The capital cost for electricity produced by the Wind cAES system is in fact much higher. Last week I discussed recent wind costs as reported by Bryan Layland, a electrical systems engineer from New Zeeland. Some commenters rejected Leylands cost figures on the wholely irrational grounds that he was a global warming skeptic. Looked for cost figures for North American Wind projects, in order to evaluare Leyland's numbers, and found 4four projects costing between $2200 and $3200 per name plate wind KW. For the sake of simplifying the argument I will stipulate a cost for new West Texas wind of $2250 per name plate KW in 2009. Since the capacity factor of West Texas runs around .40, the adverage output West Texas wind producer can expect to pay $5625 produce KWs of electricity his windmill will average producing. Since only 70% of the electricity entering the CAES facility reaches the consumer, the wind producer must add 30% more capacity to compensate for the energy loss. Thus the price of the wind generated electry entering the CAES facility must compensate the wind producer for something like a $8000 capitol investment for every average KW sold to the CAES facility. When added to the $765 per KW Capital investment in the CAES facility, we get a very ugly picture, of the cost of wind generated electrity. but one which is still less than our battery based system, about which I made some slightly different stipulations, Since the 2008 cost oh nuclear power is somewher between $4000 and $5000 per KW (as opposed to an estimated $8000 to 12,000 figure during the middle of the next decade).

I would next like to turn to what might be considered a suprising consequence of the use of CAES technology, that is a radiation problem. The same problem also exists, largely unrecognized with all gas fired electrical generating systems. The origin of the problem comes from the more or less uniform pressence of U238 and Th-232 isotopes in more or less uniform amoumnts in crustal rocks. Both isotopes are slighltly radioactive, and as they breakdown through alpha partical radiation, they under go nuclear mutations that eventually leads to the production of radsio-active radon gas. Radon present in rocks is known to escape with natural gas, and wiyh other gases, trapped underground, Salt is known to be relatively impermniable to the transportation of radioisotopes. And there is no uranium or thorium in salt domes. Thus air drawn from sali caverns should not posae radiation danger, as long as the salt has not been evaculated to the rock walls of the cavern. However there would be some question of radon pollutionof stored air in natural caverns, or in mines. There is an even more significant radon danger in deep underground aquifers, which have also been proposed for CAES. Greens, of course, will not see the sligest danger from radon escaping through the operation of CASES fascilities even though they would see far less radon escaping from reactors as an extreme and very dangerous environmental hazard. Radiation is not radiation if it comes from "natural" sources in the Green propoganda. Of course green advocates of CAES technology, all of whom are total hypocrites on radiation issues, have totally ignored the radon problem with natural gas and with many proposed CAES systems.

It is possible to recover at least some of the waste hear usually lost to cavern walls in CAES storage. Compressed air can be run through heast exchanges, just like air from super chargers is sometimes run through intercoolers to cool it before it enters an engine. Heat storage systems using rocks, mineral oil, or molten salt would have to be fairly masive, and would add complexity to the CAES system. While they might lesson the amount of heat lost to cavern walls, heat storage systems do not repeal the second law of thermodynamics, and at least 25% of the energy used to compress the air, is still lost in the process. It is not at all clear that the added capital expense of heat capture and release systems would cost less than the cost of the added wind capacity necessitated by CAES inefficiency.

Finally, it ought to be noted that a potential day carbon free power system for producing day time power with CAES without windmills is possible. It seems to have escaped the notice of most CASE advocates that CAES casn be teamed with nuclear power plants in innovative ways. Since it is more economical to keep reactors running at full power all night, suplus electricity produced at night could be used to store compressed air. During the day, compressed air can be used to expand the reactors daytime power output by as much as 40%. The air does not have to be heated with natural gas. Indeed the compressed air can be heated from the reactors waste heat, killing two birds with one stone, and conserving the water used for daytime reactor cooling, and the use of compressed air in cooling the reactor, would creat significant water use savings, allowing reactors to run even during drought conditions.

Are Nuclear Costs Unreasonable?

We are in the middle of an energy paradigm shift about.

Old assumptions are no longer true and even the outlines of the new world is not clear to most people. They were however, clear to a few far sighted people long ago. Both M. King Hubbard and Alvin Weinberg (see numerous posts in Nuclear Green) foresaw the transition form fossil fuels to nuclear energy over a generation ago. We can call this the nuclear energy paradigm.

A second post fossil fuel paradigm has been offered the renewable energy paradigm The Gore Plan and the Google Clean Energy 2030 Plan might be considered as poorly thought out examples of the renewables paradigm. My argument is that when the renewable paradigm is well thought out it falls apart.

The recent objection to Nuclear power is its cost. The overnight cost of nuclear power was around $2000 Per kW in 2002. It has been estimated that the cost will have risen to $4000 this year, and that it will rise to as much as $8000 by the middle of the next decade. Some authorities suggest that the cost of Nuclear power will rise even higher with the figure of $12 Billion per GW being offered. In time that figure is plausible. The cause of this rapid cost escalation is the Asian construction bomb. The rapidly expanding economies of India and China demand construction commodities and finished parts for energy plants. This demand has doubled the cost of building new power generation facilities and is expected to continue the rapid inflation of new power plant production for the foreseeable future.

The materials inflation is expected to impact the price of renewable power generating facilities even more than it will impact the cost of new nuclear pants. One of the flaws about the renewables paradigm is that it is rather vague about the source of base electrical generating capacity. Base capacity is those electrical plants that are producing power all of the time. I have recently argued that renewables generated base electricity required by a fully implemented renewables paradigm would be very expensive, perhaps as much as $25,000 per kWh in the middle of the next decade. This would be two to three times as expensive as nuclear generated base power.

Other factors come into play. For example the cost of both fossil fuel fired power electrical generating facilities is rising, and fuel costs are rising as well. Last winter the price of Appalachia coal peaked at $300 a ton on the spot market. Asian demand for coal fired electrical energy is pushing the price of coal as well as the price of other commodities. The price of natural has risen. New gas supplies have been tapped, but they are expensive to recover. And of course the cost of building replacement coal and gas fire power plants also has to be considered. Although some advocate the clean coal paradigm, in fact, at least 57% of the useful energy produced in a coal fired CO2 sequestering power plant, and possibly as much as 75% of it, will be used to power the sequestering and other gas cleaning operations. Thus a heavy fuel cost would be added on to the very expensive cost sequestration related equipment.

In 2007 the Tennessee Valley Authority put a reactor back into service after having been mothballed for two decades. The Browns Ferry Unit 1reactor had been refurbished at the cost of $2 billion dollars. During the first year the Browns Ferry Unit 1 reactor was in operation, it saved TVA $800 million. That was the ammount that TVA would have had to pay, Thus the Browns Ferry reactor will pay for its rebuilding in 2 1/2 years. It will pay for its rebuilding and interest in a little more than 3 years. Encouraged by such how quickly the Browns Ferry reactor is paying for its rebuilding, TVA has decided to complete an old partly completed reactor, Watts Bar Unit 2. In addition TVA has two other partially built reactors, Bellefonte 1 and 2, that it is now considering completing. In addition TVA is planning two new more reactors at the same spot.

If we look at the cost of new coal fired generating facilities and add on top of those costs the cost of fuel, then even the $8 billion nuclear plant no longer seems so expensive. Compared to the new renewable bade electrical generating facilities, the cost of nuclear facilities is quite a bargain. This does not mean i am entirely satisfied with the present form of nuclear power, i am not. i am satisfied that the new Generation III+ reactors are very safe, and that they will produce electrical power for a very long time, perhaps as long as 100 years. I am not satisfied that the Uranium fuel cycle, with once through fuel technology is the best possible approach. I am not satisfied that once fuel leaves a Light Water Reactor it becomes waste. I am not satisfied that light water reactors are the lowest possible cost nuclear power generating reactors, clearly they are not. I am not satisfied that proposed storage solutions to the problems of nuclear waste are a resonable approach, and I am not satiasfied that no nuclear solution to the probl;em of load following or peak power reserve has been offered for the nuclear market.

At the moment the Light Water Reactor is the best technology on the market for post-carbon fuel electrical generation. But the shift to the nuclear paradigm will not be completed with Light Water Reactor technology. Because we have no other choice, we must begin to replace coal fired power plants with Light Water Reactors. We must begin to do this quickly, and with considerable numbers. This would be the case even if we were not concerned with global warming. The triple concerns of glonal warming, peak oil, and demand forced inflation of coal, makes it urgent that the shift to nuclear power be made quickly.

We out also to move quickly to improve the nuclear option. To decrease the cost of new nuclear facilities, to make them even safer. To solve once and for all the problem of nuclear waste, and to create new energy from spent reactor fuel, and useless nuclear weapons that only represent a danger to civilization.

The shift to the nuclear energy paradigm will talk place. There are very serious flaws in the renewable paradigm even if Al Gore and Google like it. We would be entering an early stage of the nuclear paradigm during the next few years. The final form of the nuclear paradigm is beginning to take shape in the minds of a few dreamers.

In honer of the 10,000th post on Energy from Thorium.