Klimabedrag.dk

Vestas is coming with a new even more gigantic wind turbine with a rotor diameter of 164 meter, therefore named V164. It has a maximal effect of 7MW, weighs 425 ton plus tower and platform, and has a life expectancy of 25 years. It is equipped with gearbox, in order to decrease the size of the generator.

In the beginning wind turbines used a gearbox and one or two asynchronous generators, components similar to those used in almost anything electrical, from a domestic washing machine to large industrial electro motors. Then came a time when wind turbines increased dramatically in size and the designers decided to avoid the gearbox. However, with no gearbox the rotational speed of the generator is reduced about 40 times. This in turn means you have to build a much larger generator and it became necessary to use a synchronous generator with permanent magnets of incredible strength.

The very big and powerful magnets in these slowly rotating generators, are using rare earth metals, which are now only available from China. With China largely taking over all production and further development of wind turbines, Vestas and other wind turbine manufactures had to change the design in order to avoid dependency on these rare earth metals.

With the new (old) design in the new V164, they speed up the rotational speed of the generator and can therefore use smaller, less powerful magnets, thus avoiding heavy use of rare earth metals. Eventually, if the Chinese cut off supply of the metals, it would not be so far-fetched to use a generator with self-magnetiser, like in generators used in conventional power plants.

The new design is a step forward in manufacturing terms, but is bigger better, is it less of an eyesore, is it addressing the problem with the unreliable wind, is it addressing the harm to nature and wildlife and is it addressing the obscured large quantity of resources, particular steal and concrete, used per effective MW electricity?

Taking the last problem first. The platform for a even a much smaller wind turbine, amounts to thousands of ton concrete and steel. The steel tower weighs hundreds of ton and so does the machinery on top of the tower. I do not have all the correct data at hand for the V164, but I assume we talk about a total weight of over a thousand ton in steel alone. Not that this is an immediate problem, but it is important to know that there are more sustainable, cheaper and more reliable ways of producing electricity. A natural gas fired power plant uses about 1000 times less concrete and 100 times less steel per installed maximal MW. Things are getting worse when you look at the actual yield from wind turbines, which comes close to only 20% on an average.

Then there is nature and wildlife. Although wind turbines are clean, in terms of not smoking, eating O2 or spreading CO2, there are a series of severe impacts on wild life and industrialisation of so many beautiful landscapes and waterways. The wind turbines are often build in places, where the authorities would not even give planning permission for a small bungalow. Wind turbines on the other hand get planning permission for all the utility roads, transformer stations, electrical cables and the giant wind turbines themselves.

If wind turbines were the only reliable way of producing electricity, we were probably forced to live with the fact that countrysides are destroyed, and waterways gets covered with industry. However, wind turbines do not close conventional power stations, they produce some of the most expensive electricity on the planet and produce the least electricity when the weather is cold at winter time, the time you need the most electricity.

The wind turbine industry has become a big business in Denmark, it has employed many thousand people and has performed good in terms of export. Hopefully this will still be a relative good business for years to come, but don't count on it. Firstly this and other industries are taken over by the Chinese, who themselves do a combination of creating their own "green energy" venture and at the same time provide most of their energy with coal, nuclear and hydro. This scenario will leave Denmark and most of the West with much more expensive electricity, and less and less to use it for.

There might be a great future for small wind turbines in rural areas, not least in Africa. In that case it should be turbines which are produced more less locally, involving a design where only the generator and gearbox is of high technology. They should be used in places where you do not depend on a constant electricity supply, thus not for hospitals, schools etc., but rather for irrigation and similar. It is a joke to equip  even small hospitals with solar cells, static inverters, batteries and windmills. It is expensive for the power it produces and unreliable. Compare this to a western hospital, where they have almost 100% reliable electricity, backed up with emergency static inverters and sometimes also diesel generators. Even your web hosting service is likely to have these facilities in order to make sure your website is always up and running.

To a certain degree there is a parallel between electricity production, employment, GDP and welfare. If we gave Africa "permission" to use their own coal and oil, Africa would most certainly come out of poverty and hunger. However, organisations like Greenpeace will not allow this to happen.


Short considerations, realistic solutions

One day, sooner or later, easily available oil and gas will be scarce.

Coal might be available for a long time still, but it is somewhat dangerous to dig up and has a radiation issue. Although most sod particles from coal burning is removed in modern coal fire power plants, there is still some "going up in smoke". So it would make sense for the electricity industry to move to cleaner and safer long term solutions.

Wind power cannot be part of a long term solution, due to it's high cost in manufacturing, maintenance, decommission and environmental costs.

Traditional nuclear power is statistically the safest and cleanest form of power generation we have today, but it cannot be really be part of a long term solution either. There is the nuclear waste, which there is still no sensible solution for, and there are fairly limited resources of easily available uranium. If we assumed all electricity in Denmark is generated by nuclear, the waste would amount to about 20 gram per Dane per year. This does not mean that all kinds of nuclear are problematic.

There exists a, not very well known, nuclear reactor design called Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), which can take care of the waste from the classic nuclear power plants, and it is fuelled by an element called thorium (Th). Thorium is available in many countries in quantities sufficient to supply the whole world with electricity for more than a thousand years. It is difficult to give a precise explanation why this kind of reactor was abandoned in the early 70's, but it was partly because LFTR was virtually incapable of producing weapon grade plutonium, and partly because it is both a chemical processor and a nuclear reactor.

A more intrusive long term way of producing electricity, could be to use some sort of tidal wave machine. Although at a very early stage of development, such tidal wave machines could turn out to be a long term solution in some areas as the flowing water is way more energy dense than wind.

Hydro power is the currently statistically the most dangerous type of power generator, it has to date killed around a quarter of a million people. Despite the danger, hydro could still be a long term solution in many parts of the world. As long as you can avoid dam bursts as much as possible, they produce relative cheap and very "clean" electricity.


Low energy density

Generally speaking, the higher the energy density, the smaller the footprint, less construction cost and less environmental impact. Solar and wind energy very dispersed and fluctuating. Fossil and in particular Nuclear are dense energy sources. The land used for various type of power stations delivering 1GW, can be seen below:

Denmark uses 4GW on an average, with a peak consumption of about 6GW. So if we were to produce all Denmark's electricity from biomass, more than half of the country would have to be used for electricity generation. Not sure what would be left for agriculture, living space, forestry, recreation and natural beauty.
Although wind energy uses way less space than biomass, it is still a lot, and in practical terms it is not possible for wind to deliver more than about 5% of the total power consumption. This is why Denmark has to export excess electricity from wind turbines to neighbouring countries, at a very low price, actually at times a negative sales price.

Germany might not help us much longer

German, Sweden and Norway have for years been invaluable partners in the electrical energy production. But the favourable exchange of energy from Germany, may very well come to an end after last week's election. In order to win votes, Chancellor Angela Merkel made a U-turn regarding nuclear power. The Greens are now in a leading position, probably because of her U-turn, which is likely to mean closure of a lot of nuclear power stations. Germany used to have so much nuclear, coal and gas, that they could provide both base-load and peak-load for them selves and a bit for Denmark. However, in the near future Germany will struggle to avoid brownouts due to diminished base and peak-load, and ever more installations of wind power and PV installations.
This in turn will statistically result in increased unemployment and an export of industry to for example China. Because Germany is the economic centre of Europe, a partly de-industrialisation of Germany will have a domino effect on the rest of the world. Denmark, Spain and United Kingdom is likely to be the hardest hit, because these countries have already started their own de-industrialisation process with their engagement in wind and solar. France and The Netherlands have much better, cleaner and cheaper electricity production and are likely to perform the best, but it remains to be seen if they can ovoid being dragged down by the rest of Europe.


Wind turbines are not without potential

Let me finish by saying that I somehow admire wind turbines and have been involved in their early development in the 80's, I see some potential where there are no power lines, and where fuel for diesel generators is far away. Small wind turbines can be useful on small boats and they are excellent to feed water pumps at places where electricity is not at hand.


Reference

Electrical Energy, Science & You by John Droz, jr.

Nuclear Physics 101 by Rick Maltese.

Vestas: Derfor sætter vi gear i 7 MW-møllen af Sanne Wittrup.

Coal-Fired Power Plant Construction Costs by David Schlissel, Allison Smith and Rachel Wilson.

The World Factbook - CIA