That's exactly the question the study was answering
> The study reviewed current literature on wind farms, as well as using real construction data to take into account everything from the manufacturing of individual turbine parts, to transporting them into place, to decommissioning the entire wind farm at Harapaki – which comprises 41 turbines.
> if it was a negative return on investment, energy wise
Unfortunately, cost does not track emissions that closely. People do all sorts of things that cause emissions all the time, and usually their choice is dictated by which option is lowest cost.
For example, if one wanted to maximize profits, energy wise, there are better options than wind turbines and batteries. The choice to go with wind seems politically motivated due to optics of the alternatives.
I'm not familiar with this metric but does it at least account for the cost that non-wind sources must incur to keep their facilities running? For example, if you have a wind farm you will prioritize using that energy when available, but the natural gas facility still needs to employ people for low wind situations right?
So the natural gas facility is not generating very much most of the year, but still needs quite a bit of people with the expertise to keep it operational despite that in addition to land lease costs, equipment maintenance etc. Does LCOE turn the cost of the natural gas facility cost into $0 during those situations to be fair?
-
Edit:
Just glanced at the Wikipedia article and the variables involved in the LCOE equation. Seems to unfairly benefit wind and solar.
"One of the most important potential limitations of LCOE is that it may not control for time effects associated with matching electricity production to demand."
"In particular, if the costs of matching grid energy storage are not included in projects for variable renewable energy sources such as solar and wind, they may produce electricity when it is not needed in the grid without storage. The value of this electricity may be lower than if it was produced at another time, or even negative."
I thought wind was often quoted as the cheapest per MWh compared to everything else?
(I realise that profit in $ might differ in that the wind doesn’t blow on demand while eg gas might - but even then businesses will spring up to fill every profitable niche).
It's not either or, it's both and. Of course there are different options that have better results in some axes. Building wind does not mean not building nuclear, solar, hydro, tidal, biomass pyrolysis, etc.
Yes, but due to the nature of wind being fickle, we have to keep these other energy facilities running and people employed. This adds to the costs of these other energy solutions while they are doing very little while wind is blowing. This messes all these metrics up.
Exactly right. Government subsidies makes a lot of things appear viable and/or affordable, when in reality they are not. Subsidies are bolstered by politics.
Wind farms appear as ridiculous as they are. Yet... they keep getting built because there's government money to be made. There's government money to be made because they give the appearance of "doing something, anything" while in fact doing almost nothing. Follow the votes...
Wind farms generate substantial quantities of power at like $0.04/kwh unsubsidized - they're in no way ridiculous. California generates well over 10% of their total electricity demand via wind, Texas is closer to 25% of their total demand (more than coal and nuclear combined). Hundreds of thousands of cheap, carbon-free GWh produced is an odd definition of "doing almost nothing".
ERCOT is generating 28.6% from wind in 2023. It is getting so high, that for the late night hours, demand is so tiny that some 5-10% of the wind energy goes nowhere -- a phenomenon called 'curtailment. The occurs because the baseload nuclear and the combined heat and power thermal generators are already operating at minimal levels, and supply way outpaces demand (usu. early in the wee hours of the morning).
EIA indicates that this curtailment will likely increase. For now, its about as much as a typical nuclear power plant generates.
They are ridiculous for a number of reasons, including the quantity needed and the storage problem. Neither are trivial issues to solve - making any stand-alone production numbers meaningless.
The obvious answer has been staring us in the face for decades. Yet... underinformed electorate continues to be unrationally scared, making it politically infeasible.
We could have been 100% "green" energy decades ago. Let that sink in... follow the votes.
Texas power has gone negative, CA has dropped to zero. That means power flowing on to the grid either has no where to go or is only being charged transmission fees (and those in CA are gonna be excessive).
Transmission and storage are big issues. But they are solvable ones. Storage can be localize and the grid can be upgraded (and needs to be).
Candidly we need to look for ways to decouple energy creation, storage and transmission from each other. How do I buy enoung fractional shares in creation and storage so I only have to pay the cost of transmission? How do I make my utility into an asset!
They can be built much more quickly than nuclear plants and they take coal and oil out of furnaces right now, which is exactly what we need. That's nothing but good.
Seriously did nobody read the article?! The article was specifically about this question, windfarms generate all the energy they needed to make them in 2 years time. This is completely unrelated to government subsidies.
Couple of days ago I tried converting Britain's wind energy into equivalent barrels of oil per day.
Raw energy it's 130,000 barrels per day. But available energy it's around 350,000 per day. Britain's share of the North Sea oil is something like 1 million barrels/day. Excluding nat gas. That's down from 3 million/day 25 years ago. Notable oil production will continue to decline but wind energy will not.
I also calculated energy in watts per person and it's 130W/person.
Scotland is microscopic in relation to the landmass and population that is the US. Yet... look at the sheer volume of wind turbines Scotland has to operate to get anywhere between 10% - 80% of their power generation, depending on the day and wind conditions.
You cannot build a reliable grid based on wind. It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?
If you look at that chart - you'll notice Nuclear takes over the heavy lifting when necessary. So... why not just have a couple more nuclear plants and forgo the unreliable sources?
Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green. People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable... and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.
No one's suggesting 100% wind or solar but we can still improve the system with more. Plus both are incredibly quick to build compared to nuclear and fossil fuels, so if you're a country dependant on those (like the UK) it's one of the best ways to quickly improve your energy security.
" In 2022, almost 28 TWh of zero carbon electricity was generated by renewable wind in Scotland, representing 35% of all wind generation in the UK. This could power the equivalent of approximately:
a. 10 million households - over a third of the total households in the UK.
b. 85% of total Scottish annual electricity demand."
It requires other non-temperamental energy sources to be available when the wind isn't blowing. Solar? What if it's an overcast day?
Using wind and/or solar does not automagically make your system better or more green.
Why not?
People have pigeon-holed themselves into a reality where only wind and solar are acceptable...
Says who?
and then we hide away the actual sources that provide the necessary backfill.
What does this mean? People are happy that there are economically viable and scalable sources of electricity that don't burn oil and gas. Who is 'hiding' anything away?
I'm not sure the linked study has accounted for the energy required to acquire and operate the batteries used alongside these wind farms. But it would be interesting to see what percentage batteries factor into this equation. I would imagine it's massive.
The main reason for subsidy is that the costs are all upfront and electricity prices are unpredictable. That is not a problem that is unique to wind, particularly in the climate change era. Systems like strike prices can be competitively priced and avoid overpayment.
Arguably the main problem is that countries take a natural monopoly and then try and treat it like a market. When a well run state company could invest with more certainty.
> The study reviewed current literature on wind farms, as well as using real construction data to take into account everything from the manufacturing of individual turbine parts, to transporting them into place, to decommissioning the entire wind farm at Harapaki – which comprises 41 turbines.