Subtitle: A Positive Viewpoint
By Roger Sowell (1)
 |
Figure 1 Artist's Depiction - Hywind Scotland
credit Statoil ASA Environmental Statement |
Background
This article is the result of a request by Charles
The Moderator (CTM) for me to write a more in-depth piece on my views of wind
energy systems. About one week ago,
WUWT had an article bashing the Hywind Scotland wind farm (7/28/2017, see
link) on which article I offered a few comments. I also added a link on the Tips and Notes
page to the Hywind Scotland project’s Environmental Statement (ES). That ES is the rough equivalent to an
Environmental Impact Report in the US. Many technical details are included in the
ES. That note in Tips and Notes prompted
CTM to ask me to write this article.
Having withstood for several years the slings and
arrows (including libel) of many commenters and guest bloggers at WUWT, I was
reluctant to write a positive piece on wind energy. I
reserve such articles for my own blog.
But, CTM is a persuasive and charming fellow, and I agreed to write
this. I have attempted to use plentiful
references and citations throughout, and those only from reputable sources. For example, Statoil’s claims to 40 years
offshore experience, built and operated more than 40 offshore oil and gas structures,
some of those offshore structures are powered from shore by undersea cables,
and the details of their Troll platform, are from Statoil’s own documents
online. If those facts are in error, the
fault is theirs. However, those facts
also align with my memories of working with Statoil guys over the years.
Forging ahead, it should be remembered that another
article of mine is online at WUWT (and my own blog), on the serious consequences
of breaking the libel laws online. See
link to “Climate Science, Free Speech and Legal Liability -
Part 1.” In plain
English, it is OK to disagree, but argue your points with facts, and argue
politely.
Introduction
This
article’s overall topic is part of the questions, what should a modern
civilization do to look to its future electrical energy needs? Then, what steps should be taken now to
ensure a safe, reliable, environmentally responsible, and cost-effective supply
of electricity will be available in the future? These questions have no easy answers; they
occupy a very great deal of time, energy, and written words.
More
to the point, what should an advanced society do in the present, when it is
very clear that two of the primary sources of electric power will be removed
from the generating fleet with 20 years, and half of that removed within 10
years?
Two
scenarios are discussed: first the world electric generating situation, then
that in the United States.
The
basic facts are these: at present, worldwide electricity is provided by six
primary sources: coal burning, natural gas burning, nuclear fission,
hydroelectric, oil burning, and a mix of renewable energy systems. Of the renewables, most of the power is from
wind turbine generators (WTG), second is solar power, and the rest is from a
few other sources that include geothermal, biomass, biogas, and others. (source: EIA and other reputable
entities). For approximate percentages,
in 2012 the world’s electric power was provided by Coal 39.6, Natural Gas 22,
Hydroelectric 17.6, Nuclear 10.7, Oil 5, Wind 2.4, Solar 0.5, and Other 2.1. Figures for different countries are available
from various references.
In
the United States, however, the mix of energy sources is changing rapidly over
the next two decades. The essential
facts in the US are a great number of nuclear plants will retire; many
coal-fired plants will retire, many natural gas plants will be built; and a
great number of wind turbine generators will be built. Within 20 years, almost every one of the 98
nuclear plants in the US will retire.
Half of those will be shut down within 10 years. That
is most significant, because coal plants produce 30 percent and nuclear plants
produce 18 to 19 percent of all the electricity in the US. With most of those shut down in 20 years, the
US is facing a deficit of almost one-half of the electricity supply. In energy terms, coal and nuclear provide
approximately 2,000 million MWh per year. (EIA for 2016). For
the shorter term, ten years from now, one-half of those shutdowns will occur,
leaving a shortfall of 1,000 million MWh per year.
An
aside to look more closely at coal burning power plants and their rapid
closures in the US. Coal is no longer
king, no matter what anyone says about the matter. The fact is, as I have long stated and
written, that coal burning power plants were intentionally given a pass on
environmental issues. They were not
forced to comply with many of the environmental requirements of the US Clean
Air Act. Instead, the coal industry
found ways to “perform maintenance” that added capacity, while retaining the
grandfathered status. Only a few coal
burning power plants were required to comply with the pollution laws. Recently, that all changed. Now, coal burning power plants are closing in
record numbers because the owners cannot afford to install the expensive
pollution control equipment. (Reference:
MIT paper, 2016, MITEI-WP-2016-01; also see http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/2016-ELI_Grandfathering.Coal_..Power_.Plant_.Regulation.Under_.the_.CAA_.pdf ) I am
aware that this is a controversial statement at WUWT, having made this
statement before and receiving blistering comments on that. Yet, facts are very stubborn things; they do
not care one bit what anyone thinks of them.
Facts just are.
The
facts of US nuclear power plants are just as plain: the fleet of 98 plants is
aging. Almost half, 47 out of 98 still
running, are between 40 and 47 years old. (reference:
https://www.eia.gov/nuclear/spent_fuel/ussnftab2.php ) Within
10 years, it is almost certain that all of those reactors will be shut down
permanently and retired. Many of the
nuclear plants are losing money and have done so for a few years. Some have received direct government
subsidies recently to keep running.
These direct payments are in addition to the numerous other subsidies
that US nuclear plants receive, such as for indemnity from radiation releases,
federal guarantees on construction loans, softening of safety regulations, laws
prohibiting lawsuits during construction, and others. .
In
the arena of electricity generation at grid-scale, conventional and new
technologies contend for market share. Over
the past decade, new technologies that use renewable energy as the motive force
have become more prevalent. Wind and
solar technologies are two that are presently at the forefront of market share
and development effort. As the
traditional mix of generating technology changes in the next two decades, wind
energy will certainly play a greater and greater role. In early 2017, combined output from
hydroelectric and renewable sources slightly exceeded nuclear power plant
output (Figure 1 from EIA, figures in billion kWh per month). Also notable from Figure 2 is the almost
complete absence of energy from wind (dark green area) before 2010.
Figure 2 US Renewables with Hydro v
Nuclear
The growth of wind energy has been substantial in
only 7 years, from almost zero percent to 7.5 percent of US total electricity. The growth in wind energy is shown also in
Figure 3, where wind energy, for the first time, was the same as the output of
hydroelectric plants in 2014-2015. As an
aside, Figure 3 is the real hockey stick.
The data is from EIA, but the graph is my own. This graph made quite a splash on Twitter on
5/2/2016 among the #windenergy crowd.
(@rsowell is my handle)
Figure 3 US Hydro v Wind Energy
The US has more than
adequate wind resources and natural gas resources to fill the generating gap
from retired nuclear and coal power plants.
Onshore wind capacity at present stands at a bit more than 84,000 MW,
(windexchange reference) with another
25,000 MW under construction. Natural gas power plants of 190 GW could
easily be built to meet the need. Wind
turbines of 170 GW could be installed and remain well below 20 percent of all
electricity generated annually. The
added 170 GW of wind is well below the estimated 11,000 GW of wind capacity that
exists onshore in the US.(Lopez, A. et. al. Technical Report
NREL/TP-6A20-51946, July 2012) These
figures, 190 GW for natural gas, and 170 GW for wind energy are found as
follows. The need is for new natural
gas power plants to generate 1,000 million MWh per year. By dividing 1000 million by 8766 hours per
year we obtain 114,076 MW (and multiply by 1 million). By then dividing by 0.6, the natural gas
power plant capacity factor, we obtain 190,127 MW or 190 GW to install.
The 170 GW of wind
capacity to install over the next decade is found similarly, but using 0.35 as
the capacity factor. The desired result
is to have wind energy make up 20 percent of the total electricity in the US
annually, the “penetration” as it is known.
With existing wind energy already at 7 percent penetration, the need
then is for 13 percent from new wind turbines.
Multiplying 0.13 times 4,000 million MWh/y we obtain 520 million MWh/y. As before, we divide by 8766 and multiply by
1 million to obtain 59,320 MW. This
divided by the capacity factor of 0.35 gives 169,486 MW, which is rounded
nicely to 170 GW of new wind capacity.
The
nice result here is that total installed natural gas power plant capacity would
exceed wind plant capacity. Therefore,
when wind speed declines below generating speed, the natural gas power plants
have plenty of capacity to make up the power deficit. Wind generating capacity at present is
approximately 84 GW, and the new capacity to install is 170 GW. The total of 250 GW is less than existing
natural gas power plant of approximately 260 GW. When the new natural gas power plant is
added, there is 260 (old capacity) plus 190 (new capacity) which yields 450 GW of
natural gas power plant capacity.
This
gives a viable solution for the first ten years. Natural gas capacity would be 450 GW total,
wind would be 250 GW total, and wind penetration would be a nice, round figure
of 20 percent.
The
second decade would require similar added capacity. An
additional 170 GW of wind capacity would add 13 percent more to the
penetration. That would then be 20 plus
13 for 33 percent total. That would
present almost zero problems on the national grid. Total wind capacity would then be 250 GW
plus 170 GW, which yields 420 GW. (reference DOE Wind Vision site states
slightly more than 420 GW can be added by 2050 in their analysis. https://energy.gov/eere/wind/maps/wind-vision ) Natural gas capacity would be another 190 GW,
for a total then of 450 plus 190 to yield 640 GW. With 640 being comfortably greater than 420,
there is adequate natural gas power plant capacity to take over when the wind
speed declines.
One
question arises, then; can wind turbine generators be added at a rate necessary
to achieve 170 GW over ten years? That
is an average of 17 GW per year. From
actual history, it is noted that in 2012, US wind capacity of a bit more than
13 GW was added. Also, 10 GW was added
in 2009. It is clear, then, that 17 GW
per year should be no problem. The US
wind energy supply chain would be required to increase output by 4/13 or
approximately 30 percent.
A
second concern sometimes is expressed, as the land area required for a large
number of wind turbines. That is not a
problem, however. Studies of actual,
modern, efficient wind farms found that on average, total land required is 85
acres per MW installed capacity. (Reference:
Land Use for Wind Farms Technical
Report NREL/TP-6A2-45834, August 2009 http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy09osti/45834.pdf ) The study used hectares, giving 34 h per
MW. Converting appropriately, we obtain
85 acres per MW installed. The total land area, then, for 420 GW or 420,000 MW
of wind capacity is 85 multiplied by 420,000 and divided by 640 acres per
square mile. The result is then 55,800
square miles when rounded up a bit. For
perspective, that is almost exactly the area of the state of Iowa, which has
56,272 square miles. Of course, the
wind parks would be spread out over the states and not all concentrated in
Iowa. Another consideration is almost
all of the land with wind turbine generators can and would be used for its
original purpose.
Why
the focus on wind and natural gas? One
might prefer to build sufficient nuclear plants or more coal power plants instead
of wind and natural gas power plants.
Nuclear and coal power plants are discussed below.
It would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible to build a sufficient number of nuclear power
plants – 40 to 50 of them – in the next decade to replace those that retire. Recent news (7/31/2017) shows that the two new
nuclear plants under construction in South Carolina at the V.C Summer plant
have been halted with no intention to finish building them. (see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-31/scana-to-cease-construction-of-two-reactors-in-south-carolina
) The South Carolina plants are
approximately 35 percent complete, many years behind schedule and several
$billion dollars over budget. The
projects were halted when the revised estimate to complete showed $26 billion. In
order to start up 40 to 50 nuclear plants ten years from this date, the 40 to
50 plants must be approved and under construction today also. Clearly, that has not happened. New nuclear plants also have a very high
price for electricity produced.
It would also be unwise to build new
coal-burning power plants since the remaining amount of US coal that can be
mined at a profit is limited to 20-30 years or less at current prices. (Reference: Luppens, J.A., et al, 2015, Coal
geology and assessment of coal resources and reserves in the Powder River
Basin, Wyoming and Montana: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1809, 218
p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/pp1809
) If coal prices rise, perhaps
by increased demand or subsidies, more coal can be mined. However, high coal prices require a coal
burning power plant to have higher electricity sales prices. That simply would not occur with natural gas
and wind power at such very low prices as today. New coal-fired plants would lose money, just
like the new nuclear plants would.
World-wide, the numbers
are similar. Coal production is limited
to no more than 50 years, unless some force increases the price at the
mine-mouth. (Rutledge, David, "Estimating
long-term world coal production with logit and probit transforms," International Journal of Coal Geology, 85
(2011) 23-33 http://www.its.caltech.edu/~rutledge/DavidRutledgeCoalGeology.pdf
)
Why
onshore wind?
Why, then, the big push
for wind technology? Below are listed a
few reasons in support of wind power.
Following that is a description in some detail the new 30 MW Hywind wind
park being installed off the northeast coast of Scotland by Statoil.
Onshore wind farms have
benefited greatly from private and public funding over the past decade. The wind turbine generators are already
low-cost to install and operate. Projects
are profitable in the Great Plains region of the US where the sales price for
power is 4.3 cents per kWh. (source: 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2015-windtechreport.final_.pdf
) The federal subsidy is to end in 3-4 years. Most
importantly, the installed cost has steadily decreased over the years, by a
factor of 3 in the past 7 to 8 years.
The low capital cost is the primary reason that wind power is being
installed at 8 to 13 GW per year in the US. It must be acknowledged that the reductions
in capital cost per kW occurred only because the federal and state subsidies
for wind technology allowed developers to design, build, and install better and
better designs. Whatever arguments there
may be against subsidies, wind turbine generators have benefitted substantially
from the subsidies.
Installed
costs will continue to decrease as more improvements are made. Designers have several improvements yet to be
implemented such as larger turbines, taller towers, and increased capacity
factor. Oklahoma just announced a 2,000
MW project with 800 turbines of 2.5 MW each.
Onshore wind farms will soon have the larger size at 4 MW then 6 MW turbines
similar to those that are installed now in the ocean offshore.
Wind
repower projects have even better economics.
Repowering is the replacement of old, inefficient wind turbine
generators with modern, usually much larger, and much more efficient
systems. The wind will not have
changed, was not used up, in the same location. In fact, the taller turbines reach higher
and into better wind that typically has greater speed and more stability. The infrastructure is already in place for
power lines and roads. Repowering may
be able to incorporate legacy towers as the upper section of new, taller towers
for larger wind turbine generators.
Wind
power extends the life of natural gas wells.
Wind power creates less demand for natural gas. This reduces the price of natural gas. That helps the entire economy, especially
home heating bills, plus the price of electricity from burning natural
gas. But, this also reduces the cost to
make fertilizer that impacts food, since natural gas is the source of hydrogen
that is used to make ammonia fertilizer.
Wind
power is a great jobs creator. Today,
there are more than 100,000 good jobs in the US wind energy industry. Many of the wind industry jobs are filled by
aeronautical engineers. Instead of
designing airplanes with two wings that fly in a straight line, they design
wind rotors with three wings that turn in a circle. There are approximately 1.2 jobs per MW of
installed capacity, with 84,000 MW and 100,000 jobs. That’s approximately the same ratio as in
nuclear power plants, with 1 job per MW.
Wind
provides security of energy supply. No
one can impose an embargo on the wind. There
are no foreign payments, and no foreign lands to protect with the US
military.
Wind
provides a good, drought-independent supplemental income via lease payments to
thousands of families nationwide, due to the distributed nature of wind turbine
projects. Almost 100 percent of the
land can continue in its original activity, grazing cattle or farming. Marginal land with no economic activity now
produces income for the landowner. 85
acres is required for 1 MW of WTG.
Wind
power promotes grid-scale storage research and development. Wind energy generated at night during low
demand periods can be stored then released when demand and prices are higher. As always, some losses occur when energy is
stored and released later. Storage and
release on demand has spinoff into electric car batteries. EVs will reduce or eventually eliminate
gasoline consumption, and that will spell the end for OPEC. The entire world’s geopolitics will change
as a result. Recently, the CEO of BP,
the major international oil company, predicted that the next decade or two
would bring such a surge of EVs that oil demand would peak, then decline. The CEO is right, too. When it becomes patriotic to drive an EV
rather than a gas guzzler, EV sales will zoom.
A gas guzzler will be seen as an
OPEC enabler.
Wind
power hastens nuclear plant retirements as electricity prices decline. Nuclear plants cannot compete with cheap
electricity from cheap natural gas. As
stated above, wind energy keeps natural gas prices low by reducing the demand
for natural gas.
Power
from wind is power without pollution.
Wind power has no damaging health impacts from smoke, particulates, or noxious
sulfur or nitrogen oxides. The American Lung Association encourages
clean, pollution-free wind power.
Summary
to this point.
The utility-scale power
generation mix in the US will change substantially, even dramatically over the
next ten and twenty years. Nuclear power
will be almost non-existent. Coal power
will also be greatly reduced or almost absent.
Wind power will be four to five times as much capacity and generation
compared to today. Natural gas power
will grow to replace the nuclear and coal production, but will loaf along as
wind generation occurs. Only when the
wind dies down will natural gas power plants roar to life at full
throttle. This describes the US situation.
Several
other nations also have similar issues to face.
Of the approximately 450 nuclear power plants still operating
world-wide, roughly one-half will retire within 20 years, and for the same
reasons as do those in the US. Old age,
inability to compete, and safety concerns will shut them down. A similar analysis can be done for each major
nuclear power country with aging reactors, including Japan, France, Canada, UK,
and Germany. On average, with 20 years
being exactly 240 months, that is roughly 1 reactor per month to be
retired. The booming business of the
future will be reactor decommissioning.
Next
is part two, the specifics on offshore wind and the Hywind Scotland wind park.
Why,
then, offshore wind?
In
addition to all the benefits of onshore wind power listed above, offshore wind
farms have a few benefits of their own. First, a couple of drawbacks that exist with
offshore wind power. It is well-known
that offshore wind power has higher costs to install, and higher operating
costs due to accessibility issues when compared to onshore wind farms. However, these drawbacks are somewhat offset
by the much larger wind turbine generators that can be installed, taller
towers, and better wind as measured by both velocity and stability. Lease payments do not flow to private
landowners, typically, but to the government that controls the local part of
the ocean.
For
areas that do not have the very good onshore wind that exists in the interior
of the US, offshore may be an ideal place to develop wind energy.
Larger
turbine designs for offshore wind projects can be evaluated and adapted for
onshore projects.
Much
of the world’s population lives in cities near the ocean. Transmission lines to bring the energy from
the offshore wind turbine generators to the cities may be shorter, compared to running
long distances overland.
For
those who cannot see the beauty in a technologically advanced wind farm, an
offshore wind farm can place the systems out of sight.
The
marine industries get a boost with offshore wind farms.
Offshore
wind farms are ideally situated for a few forms of grid-scale storage. In particular, one of those is pumped storage
hydroelectric with the ocean as the lower reservoir and a dedicated lake higher
up onshore. Another form is the MIT
submerged storage spheres.
Offshore
wind farms very recently, Spring of 2017, won an auction in Germany that contained
zero government subsidy as part of the bid.
With more and more advances in the technology, the era of subsidized
offshore wind farms may be over. Time
will tell.
Offshore
wind farms bring additional capacity to play.
Using the US for example, the government estimates 11,000 GW of wind
capacity is economically feasible onshore.
An additional 4,000 GW of wind capacity is economically feasible
offshore. Offshore wind power increases
the US total by a bit more than one-third.
Finally,
offshore wind power brings affordable electricity to islands that presently have
very expensive electricity due to burning oil in power plants, or diesel in
piston-engine generators. Offshore wind
power is a mainstay of Hawaii’s plan to obtain 100 percent of the electricity
in the islands from renewable sources.
Some storage will be necessary to balance out the fluctuations in
demand.
The
Hywind Scotland floating wind farm uses the moored spar technology,
appropriately modified for the single-tower system of a wind turbine
generator.
Hywind
Scotland Project
Figure 4 Conceptual Layout From Hywind Environmental Statement
Technology
As depicted in
Figure 4, Hywind Scotland has five floating, seabed-moored spar-type
wind turbine generators rated at 6 MW each for 30 MW installed capacity. Note,
these are the same size as the offshore wind park in Rhode Island in the US. Block Island system offshore Rhode Island
started production in 2016. Note,
however, the Block Island system’s towers are not floating, but are anchored to
the ocean floor.
Each
Hywind Scotland WTG has three mooring lines anchored to the seabed. These mooring lines split into two, so there
are six anchor points on the floating tower.
(ES 4-5) see Figure 5 below.
 |
| Figure 5 Undersea Mooring Schematic - from ES |
WTG
has a proprietary motion compensation system to ease the load on critical
bearings. (ES 3-1)
WTG
has three rotor blades. The rotor blades
are pitch-controlled. Rotating speed
varies with wind strength, from 4-13 RPM (ES 4-19).
The
WTG are provided by Siemens, a major vendor of offshore wind turbine
generators. The model is
SWT-6.0-154. Access is available by boat and a ladder
system inside each tower.
Hub
height for the WTG is 101 meters above sealevel.
Cut-in
wind speed where power generation begins is 3-4 m/s. Cut-out wind speed for WTG protection is
higher than 25 m/s. (6.6 mph – 55 mph) (ES 4-19)
See Figure 6 for wind direction and range of speeds at the site. Wind speed is higher than cut-in speed more
than 95 percent of the time.
 |
| Figure 6 Wind Rose Showing Direction/Speed - from ES |
Power
is collected from the 5 WTGs and brought to shore via a single cable along the
seabed, length approximately 25 to 35 km.
The power is tied into the national grid. Power is at 33 KV, 50 HZ and AC. Undersea power cable to shore is armoured and
0.5 m diameter. Power can be drawn from shore if the need
arises. Diesel-powered generators can
also be used at any WTG (ES 4-6)
Each
WTG is connected via inter-array cable, 33 kV at 50 HZ and AC. Cables are armoured and approximately 0.5 m
diameter. The temporary loss of any one
WTG for repairs or maintenance will not affect the output of the others. (ES 4-5)
A
smaller floating WTG prototype operated 10 km off the west coast of Norway
since 2009 to 2014 and withstood 20 m waves and 40 m/s winds (approximately 88 mph). The prototype was a single WTG with 2.3 MW
capacity. (ES xi and 3-1)
Seafloor
area required is 15 km-2. With capacity
of 30 MW, the ratio is 2 MW per km-2.
(ES 4-2)
Water
depth is 95 – 120 meters (ES 8-8)
Each
of the WTG Units will be equipped with code-compliant navigational lights for
marine operations and aviation that will automatically turn on in the dark. (ES 4-7)
Statoil
ASA, a Norwegian oil and gas company, is the designer, and investor. Statoil has more than 40 years of offshore
oil and gas experience with more than 40 separate offshore installations, most
of which are in the harsh conditions of the North Sea. Statoil designed and built the world’s
largest object that was ever moved over the Earth’s surface, the Troll A
platform. Troll A was designed in the
late 1980s, approximately 30 years ago. It
began operating in 1996. Troll A is a complex
concrete and steel structure that sits on the ocean floor in more than 300
meter deep water. The platform itself is
far above the ocean surface. Troll A is
more than 470 meters from top to bottom.
Statoil also has long experience with power cables along the ocean floor
from shore to offshore structures.
Hywind Economics
Economics are improved
over the initial one-turbine, 2.3 MW prototype. The prototype generated 40 GWh over several
years and demonstrated a 50 percent annual capacity factor during one year. Lessons learned at Hywind Scotland’s 30 MW
system will be employed in future, large-scale wind parks. Hywind Scotland’s installed cost is GB £210
million (approximately US$276 million. $/kW
= 9210.) But, this includes undersea
cables. Note, this is just a bit less than the Block
Island 30 MW system in the US, which cost US$300 million.
The unsubsidized
economics for the small, 30 MW Hywind Scotland system gives a sales price of
electricity at $215 per MWh sold for a 12 year simple project payout. This is based on 45 percent annual capacity
factor and investment as above. Revenue
would be an average of $23 million per year. With public funding sources as described in
the Environmental Statement, the economics are very likely substantially
better. This price point, $215 per MWh, is competitive
with peaker power prices.
With economy of scale
and 60 percent reduction in installed cost for a larger 600 MW park, and 12
year simple project payout, no subsidies, the electricity could be sold at $89
per MWh. At that price point, offshore wind becomes
competitive with baseload natural gas power with LNG at $10 per MMBtu as the
fuel used.
Bird
Collisions
The environmental
impact on numerous species are included in the Environmental Statement. The impact on birds is summarized here.
Avian collision
mortality was predicted in the Environmental Statement for species that
commonly fly at rotor height (101 m) using a range of modelling scenarios. This
showed that the predicted additional mortality was negligible compared to the
numbers of birds that die from existing background mortality causes. (ES 11-1)
With one exception,
predictions of the size and duration of potential impacts shows that for all
species for all times of year effects would have negligible impact on receptor
populations. The exception is razorbill, for which a potential disturbance
effect of low impact for the breeding population is identified owing to the
very high densities sometimes present in August, a period when individuals of
this species have heightened vulnerability to disturbance. This impact is
nevertheless judged not significant. (ES
11-1)
The negligible impact
conclusion is consistent with studies in the US on bird mortality from wind
turbines. In the US, approximately 1
billion birds die annually from various causes.
Ninety-six percent of those are caused by collisions with buildings,
power lines, automobiles, and encounters with cats. Less than 0.003 percent were due to wind
turbine impacts. (Erickson et.al, USDA
Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191 (2005), Table 2 https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_1029-1042_erickson.pdf
)
In addition, bird fatalities decline as older, truss-style support
towers are demolished and modern, monopole support towers are installed.
Conclusion
There is a need for
electric power generation technologies to replace the rapidly aging and
retiring nuclear power plants in several countries within the next decade. Also, coal at today’s prices has a limited
horizon of 20 to 50 years. In the US,
coal power plants are shutting down due to pollution equipment costs. It is prudent to develop safe, reliable, and affordable
means of generating power. Wind power
has improved dramatically in the past decade to take its place as such – safe,
reliable, and affordable. More
improvements are identified and already in the pipeline. In
addition, wind as an energy source is eternally renewable and sustainable. The benefits of reduced natural gas demand,
lower natural gas price, less air pollution, improved human health from lung
diseases, economic benefits for land owners with wind farm leases, increased
jobs, increased domestic manufacturing and service businesses, all make wind
energy desirable.
The offshore, 30 MW
Hywind Scotland floating spar wind energy system is built and backed by the
very experienced Norwegian company, Statoil ASA. Even though it has subsidies, the project’s unsubsidized
economics would make it attractive against peaker power plants. The improved economics due to economy of
scale will make this competitive with main gas-powered plants where LNG is
imported for fuel. The Hywind Scotland
technology for wind turbine generators, floating moored spar supports, and
undersea power cables is already proven.
The location chosen, off the
eastern seaboard of Scotland, has excellent wind with 40 to 50 percent capacity
factor.
A 600 MW or larger offshore
wind farm using the Hywind Scotland design can be expected in the next decade. Wind energy technology continues to improve
with demonstrated, year-over-year reductions in cost to install.
Additional
References:
http://www.4coffshore.com/windfarms/hywind-scotland-pilot-park-united-kingdom-uk76.html
Abbreviated in this article as ES: https://www.statoil.com/content/dam/statoil/documents/impact-assessment/Hywind/Statoil-Environmental%20Statement%20April%202015.pdf
Footnotes (1)
Roger Sowell is an attorney in Science
and Technology Law. Since earning a BS
in Chemical Engineering in 1977, he has performed a great many engineering
consulting assignments worldwide for independent and major energy companies,
chemical companies, and governments. Cumulative benefits to clients from his
consulting advice exceeds US$1.3 billion. Increased revenues to clients are at least
five times that amount. He regularly makes public speeches to
professional engineering groups and lay audiences. He is a regular speaker on a variety of
topics to engineering students at University of California campuses – UCLA and
UC-Irvine. He is a founding member of
Chemical Engineers for Climate Realism, a “red-team” style think-tank for
experienced chemical engineers in Southern California. He is also a Council Member with the Gerson
Lehrman Group that provides advice to entities on Wall Street. He publishes SowellsLawBlog; which at present
has more than 450 articles on technical and legal topics. His widely-heralded Truth About Nuclear Power
series of 30 articles has garnered more than 25,000 views to date. Recently (2016), he was requested to defend
climate-change skeptics against an action under the United States RICO statutes.
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved
Topics and general links:
Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here and here
Free Speech.................... here
Renewable Energy...........here
c
