Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.  (Read 785 times)

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3174
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #50 on: Today at 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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2852
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #51 on: Today at 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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2852
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #52 on: Today at 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

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 663
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #53 on: Today at 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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2852
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #54 on: Today at 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

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 663
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #55 on: Today at 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

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 2852
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 10
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Build, Baby, Build. In Fact, Overbuild.
« Reply #56 on: Today at 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.