Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.  (Read 7029 times)

TerryM

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6002
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #50 on: April 24, 2018, 05:34:24 AM »
When a wind turbine is not in use, for say 17% of the time, wouldn't maintenance, repair and replacement cost be lowered by very close to 17%?


To overbuild x10, the initial costs would be ten times higher, but the subsequent operating costs would be considerably less than ten times greater.
If the initial cost /KWH was $0.02, but half of that figure represented capital expenses and the other cent was due to maintenance & replacement, then overbuilding by 10 times wouldn't result in an electricity cost of $0.20, but rather a figure > $0.11 but <$0.20.


I obviously pulled these figures out of thin air, but there must be real savings at least when a mechanical system is simply left at rest. There is no fuel cost with these systems, but maintenance and replacement costs must cycle with their usage.
Terry

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #51 on: April 24, 2018, 06:02:21 AM »
Seems like there would be some savings.  Routine maintenance might occur less frequently if it's based on hours of operation.

Turbine life might be extended if use was lower.  More years of 'opex' only electricity after the plant had paid for itself.  I'd assume the wind farm/turbine would still make as much per year, just get paid more per kWh delivered.

Some costs such as keeping a tech onsite and land leases probably wouldn't decrease.  Lease contracts might have to be written differently.  I think some  payments are now based on MWh produced.

Maybe, with a lot of wind overbuilding, some of the turbines might be fitted out with really large blades so that they could make extra electricity in low wind conditions.  Engineer a portion of all turbines to kick in at very low wind speeds and feather them out as wind get strong.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #52 on: April 24, 2018, 06:39:04 AM »
I thought it might be interesting to see when "underserved days" might turn up.  Here's what 2017 would have looked like for the last half of the year with 15x solar and 15x wind.



Almost all underserved days would have fallen within two weeks plus/minus New Year's Day.

Here's an enlargement of only the underserved days for the entire year.



Remember, while the amount of overgeneration looks large a lot of that is going to EV charging.  These graphs are 15x S/W and grid demand.  EV charging and other dispatchable loads could soak up overproduction for what the grid needs.

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #53 on: April 24, 2018, 02:59:44 PM »
Being idle is apparently rough on these towers (there was a wind farm in PR that survived Maria but then couldn't start up for a few months, and they were worried about damage from being idle so long). Surely you could design them to handle that use case better, but I'd expect a fair bit of the maintenance to be time-based rather than use-based.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2018, 03:40:16 PM »
If not running for weeks/months is a problem then just use those turbines from time to time and let others take a day off.

If we go the overbuild route then there will need to be some intelligent design in how we use various parts.  Of course, whatever route we take requires intelligent design....

numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #55 on: April 24, 2018, 05:30:33 PM »
No matter what, things rust, rot, or otherwise fall apart just from the elements beating on them over time. And the accountant needs to count them every year, etc. That's true of fossil fuels plants as well, but for wind and especially solar it's going to be a larger fraction of the operating cost.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2018, 05:46:58 PM »
We really do not know how long solar panels will last.  Our oldest installed array is now about 40 years old and at age 35 was putting out about 96% as much electricity as when new.

The NREL has stated that panels manufactured after 2000 should lose between 0.1% and 0.5% per year.  A 50 year old panel should produce 75% to 95% of new.  A 100 year old panel should produce 50% to 90% of new.

Panels mounted where they undergo a lot of wind/snow loading and/or high UV levels will lose the most.  Unless there's some sort of 'solar panel cliff' over which panels plunge we might see panels in mild climates lasting hundreds of years. 

Tunnelforce9

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #57 on: April 24, 2018, 08:04:39 PM »
What about the co2 footprint of that many windmills, concrete and steel production are some of the biggest co2 emissions in the world.


gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9108
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3598
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2018, 09:20:48 PM »
What about the co2 footprint of that many windmills, concrete and steel production are some of the biggest co2 emissions in the world.

The arithmetic has been done. Even with the currently rather low percentage of electricity produced by renewable energy, the CO2 footprint of installing renewable energy facilities is far less than that of installing fossil-fuel powered electricity generation plants (over the complete life of construction, operation and decommissioning).

As the percentage of electricity from renewables increases, the CO2 saving difference naturally increases. The statement in your post is one of the many arguments against renewables that just do not stand up to rational analysis by logic and arithmetic.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #59 on: April 24, 2018, 09:59:59 PM »
What about the co2 footprint of that many windmills, concrete and steel production are some of the biggest co2 emissions in the world.

We have limited low carbon emission choices for electricity.  There are renewables and there's nuclear.  All have low lifetime carbon footprints but none are zero.



The lifetime carbon footprint of wind and solar is lower than the lifetime carbon footprint of nuclear.

Tunnelforce9

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #60 on: April 24, 2018, 10:38:01 PM »
The thing is : They expect world power consumption 48% higher in 2040 (conservative estimate).

I fear that even when switching to wind we would still emit far to much c02
I don't think wind will safe the world but sequestration to the tune of 10 billion metric tonnes of CO2 a year will...


Can we ban crypto-currencies now please, they're the climates worst enemy atm.
And while we are at it, ban all high energy usage consumer electronics, who needs a 1KW power supply in his computer anyway ??

https://www.cnet.com/news/australian-coal-power-plant-reopened-blockchain-bitcoin-applications/

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #61 on: April 24, 2018, 10:46:53 PM »
The thing is : They expect world power consumption 48% higher in 2040 (conservative estimate).

I fear that even when switching to wind we would still emit far to much c02
I don't think wind will safe the world but sequestration to the tune of 10 billion metric tonnes of CO2 a year will...


Can we ban crypto-currencies now please, they're the climates worst enemy atm.
And while we are at it, ban all high energy usage consumer electronics, who needs a 1KW power supply in his computer anyway ??

https://www.cnet.com/news/australian-coal-power-plant-reopened-blockchain-bitcoin-applications/

It would please me if you would take this conversation to a more appropriate thread.  I started this one to discuss overbuilding.

But I'll reply to your concern here.  The world is going to use the energy the world uses.  We'll cut a considerable amount moving from ICEVs to EVs but at the same time we'll use more energy for other purposes as populations increase and standards of living increase.

There are two things we can do:

a) Pick low lifetime carbon footprint electricity sources.
b) Continue our work to find more efficient ways to fulfill our needs more energy efficiently.

Crypto currency is likely the Cabbage Patch dolls of this decade.

Tunnelforce9

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #62 on: April 24, 2018, 11:46:30 PM »

" 18 years, 255 days, 1 hrs, 36 mins, 4 secs
Until we will exceed the IPCC's 2C carbon budget, if our emissions stay as they are now "

Together with the estimate that the world needs about 48% more electricity in 2040 is it really feasible we can produce THAT many windturbines like you are suggesting, within the limited amount of time ?





numerobis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 837
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #63 on: April 25, 2018, 12:33:06 AM »
Is it really feasible we can produce THAT many coal-fired plants, or THAT many nuclear plants, or THAT many unicorn-fart plants?

If any of those is feasible, then increasing wind and solar that much is definitely feasible. It's cheaper for a reason.

Tunnelforce9

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2018, 02:44:16 AM »
We are talking about millions of windturbines world wide, would it be possible to design a hybrid wind turbine system which produces energy while at the same time sequesters the passing air ?

That could be a game changer i think.



I'll leave you guys with that.

gr TF9

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2018, 04:39:01 AM »
It would be a game changer.  We could remove the air from the Earth's atmosphere and the game would be changed.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #66 on: May 03, 2018, 04:49:18 PM »
(See the disclaimer below)

Working further with my CAISO 'wind and solar only' model I've added in enough storage to create a reliable 24/365 grid where the only inputs are from wind turbines and solar panels.  If California had 20x as much solar and 10x as much wind capacity (20x as many PV panels and 10x as many turbines) it turns out that one terawatt hour (TWh) is enough.

I envisioned using pump-up hydro because CA already has, or will soon have about 2 TWh of PuHS.  (That much energy storage, but not the ability to create power from that storage rapidly enough to meet demand.)

Here's the pattern of storage use for the year.



Now, let's remember that this is a 'thought piece' and not a grid design for CA.  I'm ignoring CA's hydro and geothermal.  And I'm assuming all CA cars and light trucks are battery powered.  In my model every one of these vehicles gets recharged daily based on their daily use.

In their 2016 paper on storage Lazard calculated the cost of PuHS to be about 17.5 cents per kWh.  3.5 cents of that is "charging cost", the cost of the electricity input.  Since in this case charging would be done with electricity already paid for we can dial the cost down to 14 cents which would be fine.  But Lazard's cost is based on the facility cycling once per day.  And it's easy to see from the chart that the facility would sit idle most of the year.

That's left me without a solution.  Perhaps the solution would be to use biomethane in paid off CCNG plants.  Perhaps it's to find enough load that could be closed down during the infrequent down spikes.  Ideas?
--

Disclaimer.  I'm on my fourth version of the model.  And I'm not sure that I've purged any bugs that might be distorting the results.  So do not regard this chart as 100% reliable.

If someone is willing to be a second set of eyes and look over my spreadsheets I would be highly appreciative.  Just drop me a message.



Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #67 on: May 07, 2018, 09:51:51 PM »
A way to cover the 'need spikes'.  Someone on another forum suggested V2G.  If somewhere between 1 and 2 million California EVs were available to feed part of their charge back to the grid that would cover the 2017 spikes.

That should be a low cost way to cover those few extreme events. 


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #68 on: May 17, 2018, 08:12:09 AM »
Continuing my overbuilding work...

While V2G would probably work at 20x solar and 10x wind using only 2 million of California's 30+ million cars and light trucks there's the possibility that robo vehicles might to a large extent wipe out the number of cars plugged during all hours of the day.  The V2G resource may disappear because most cars would be in service during busy parts of the day.

Moving to 20x solar and 20x wind would increase penetration to 89% while increasing the post-EV charging cost of electricity by only one cent, four to five.  On only four days out of the year would direct supply from PV panels and wind turbines failed to have provided enough input to cover demand.



On the very worst day demand (with no EV charging) would have been 618,390 MWh.  20x solar plus 20x wind would have generated 568,340 MWh.  A shortage of 50,050 MWh.  On the worst day of the year solar and wind would have provided 92% of grid demand.

California could provide that amount of electricity from existing hydro.

Of course this is only one year.  A multi year study would be needed to see if there are more severe supply stresses.

I'm working on getting offshore wind data for California.  If so, I can probably model offshore which I think will lower the overall amount of wind and solar needed.

Tunnelforce9

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #69 on: May 23, 2018, 04:55:04 AM »
Why use car batteries ?


"The four-turbine project, announced by General Electric this month, stores energy from the spinning blades by pumping water about 100 feet up inside the turbine structure itself. Basins around each base will store another 9 million gallons. When the wind stops, water flows downhill to generate hydroelectric power. A man-made lake in the valley below collects water until turbines pump the water back up again."

https://qz.com/823054/germany-wind-turbine-hydroelectric-batteries/


Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 43
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #70 on: May 23, 2018, 05:38:32 AM »
Why use car batteries ?


"The four-turbine project, announced by General Electric this month, stores energy from the spinning blades by pumping water about 100 feet up inside the turbine structure itself. Basins around each base will store another 9 million gallons. When the wind stops, water flows downhill to generate hydroelectric power. A man-made lake in the valley below collects water until turbines pump the water back up again."

https://qz.com/823054/germany-wind-turbine-hydroelectric-batteries/

A couple of things. 

First what is being described is a closed-loop pump up hydro storage system.  A cheaper approach is to take an existing dam, put in a cofferdam long enough to drill and line a tunnel to a site hundreds of feet below the dam reservoir's bottom.  Install a pump/turbine hybrid at the end of the tunnel and you've got more power (hundreds of feet vs one hundred feet) without the expense of building a 100' high steel tower.



Next, with enough overbuilding the number of times per year storage is needed is very low.  The down-spikes are when there would not have been enough input directly from wind turbines and solar panels to cover each hour's demand.  Four out of 365 days.



Because the need is so infrequent what is really needed is a source that's already serving some other function and that function is paying the bill.  EV batteries fit that need.  They're already being used to power the cars daily and there's likely enough spare capacity to fill in the few times per year that wind and solar fall short.

Pmt111500

  • Guest
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #71 on: May 23, 2018, 05:56:40 AM »
Who would build with the expectation of earning no money?

Those who want a roof over their heads?? Sorry out of context here.