Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It wasn't.
As incorrect.

it is.
as it is correct

[jet_noise]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Agreed

It's getting nearer everyday - the time when Taxpayers do not contribute to the cost of Offshore Wind.

Today's costs are lower than the target that was set for 2020

Subsidy free by 2023, has a nice ring to it.....

Or maybe not

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It wasn't.
As incorrect.

it is.
as it is correct

You read the linked document on the site too ?
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/gl...

Your 2bit website beautifully framed the small minded version that supports your rational for a snap shot.

The Grown up website, debunks that.

i was going to say that replying with something of substance is far better than making an assertion ,but you replied with the link to windpower monthly that displays the very same numbers used in the wuwt article.

did you read the article on wuwt ? understand the very basic premise of what it stated ?

1991 Vindeby Offshore Wind Farm – Denmark

Years of Operation: 1991-2016 (25)

Capital Cost: 75M Kroner = $13M (1991USD) = $23M (2017USD)

Number of Turbines: 11 @ 450 kW

Lifetime Generation: 243 GWh

Nameplate Capacity: 4.9 MW

Average Power Output: 1.1 MW

Cost/Nampepate Capacity: $2.65/Watt (1991USD), $4.7/Watt (2017USD)

Lifetime Capacity Factor: 22%

Cost/Effective Output: $12/Watt (1991USD), $21/Watt (2017USD)

Levelized Capital Cost: $53/MWh (1991USD), $95/MWh (2017USD)

Levelized VOM Cost: $65/MWh (Estimated using $130/kw-hr industry figures for 2015)

Lower Bound of LCOE: $160/MWh (2017USD)


versus

2015 Industry Performance Data for Offshore Wind (http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/global-costs-analysis-year-offshore-wind-costs-fell ).

Cost/Nameplate Capacity: $5/Watt

Capacity Factor: 40%

Cost/Effective Output: $12.5/Watt

O&M Costs: $130/kW-yr

Lower bound of LCOE: $150/MWh (2015USD), $154/MWh (2017USD)

Conclusions:

1. While turbines are getting larger, able to operate at lower wind speeds, and improving their capacity factors, the total lifecycle cost per unit of energy provided from offshore wind has not perceptibly decreased from 1991 to 2015. Higher costs of O&M for larger turbines farther offshore seems to consume savings from higher capacity factors.

2. As it is uncontrollably variable and weather dependent, offshore wind generation remains uncompetitive with gas and coal which are half the cost (~ $70/MWh LCOE) while providing fully dispatchable and weather-independent power that is of much higher value to a power grid. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/22/by-the-numb...

can you point out what your issue is with the article .

[turbobloke]

2011-14
Renewable energy jobs fall by 27% in four years
2015
Green jobs have been lost across the UK's insulation and energy efficiency industries
2016
More than half of jobs in UK solar industry lost in wake of subsidy cuts
2017
Renewables companies fear 1 in 6 jobs to be lost in next 12 months
2018
Love Mondays

[robinessex]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It wasn't.
As incorrect.

it is.
as it is correct

You read the linked document on the site too ?
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/gl...

Your 2bit website beautifully framed the small minded version that supports your rational for a snap shot.

The Grown up website, debunks that.

From that link:-

Offshore wind generation costs are still roughly DOUBLE those of onshore's, but encouraging data from projects due to come online in the next few years SUGGEST the trend of rising installed costs MAY have halted. The median price of offshore wind had been drifting UPWARDS for some years. Installed costs and wind speeds vary widely, so it is DIFFICULT to pick a single figure to quantify generation costs. Offshore wind generation costs are SIGNIFICANTLY more EXPENSIVE, but a downward trend is again DISCERNIBLE.

That's fudge then. Can't you bloody read !

[Einion Yrth]

Upton Sinclair said:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”

[robinessex]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It wasn't.
As incorrect.

it is.
as it is correct

You read the linked document on the site too ?
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/gl...

Your 2bit website beautifully framed the small minded version that supports your rational for a snap shot.

The Grown up website, debunks that.

i was going to say that replying with something of substance is far better than making an assertion ,but you replied with the link to windpower monthly that displays the very same numbers used in the wuwt article.

did you read the article on wuwt ? understand the very basic premise of what it stated ?

1991 Vindeby Offshore Wind Farm – Denmark

/snipped -


can you point out what your issue is with the article .

I try to refrain from replying with anything of substance on this thread - simply in an effort to fit in.

Especially when challenged it seems.



I am also desperately aware that you are all a bunch of fking know it alls about everything, making any informative and knowledgable posts pointless.



There was no need for you to churlishly cut and paste the WUWT article. An 'article' that is hardly the edge of journalism, which you asked me to read, I read, and then had to confirm to you I read - causing me to state it was incorrect in context.
Cutting and pasting it does not make it 'binding' in your blinkered views. Actually cancel that - it probably does.
The article is nothing more than a selective screen scrape of 'some' of the information from the linked page from WindPower Monthly. Yet, because it is against your views, you are best glossing over it. If you read the WPM article you would have gained some information.


In PH terms you have quoted the Miles Per Gallon / Performance and efficiency of a Model T Ford. (Vindeby)
And then said - Look ! ..... Look ! All this time and supposed progress and now look where we are !






I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.

You haven't commented on my bit though!!!

From that link:-

Offshore wind generation costs are still roughly DOUBLE those of onshore's, but encouraging data from projects due to come online in the next few years SUGGEST the trend of rising installed costs MAY have halted. The median price of offshore wind had been drifting UPWARDS for some years. Installed costs and wind speeds vary widely, so it is DIFFICULT to pick a single figure to quantify generation costs. Offshore wind generation costs are SIGNIFICANTLY more EXPENSIVE, but a downward trend is again DISCERNIBLE.

That's fudge then. Can't you bloody read !

[dickymint]

robinessex said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

wc98 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

It wasn't.
As incorrect.

it is.
as it is correct

You read the linked document on the site too ?
http://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1380738/gl...

Your 2bit website beautifully framed the small minded version that supports your rational for a snap shot.

The Grown up website, debunks that.

From that link:-

Offshore wind generation costs are still roughly DOUBLE those of onshore's, but encouraging data from projects due to come online in the next few years SUGGEST the trend of rising installed costs MAY have halted. The median price of offshore wind had been drifting UPWARDS for some years. Installed costs and wind speeds vary widely, so it is DIFFICULT to pick a single figure to quantify generation costs. Offshore wind generation costs are SIGNIFICANTLY more EXPENSIVE, but a downward trend is again DISCERNIBLE.

That's fudge then. Can't you bloody read !

Again I refer you to Paddys profile photo....

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/profile.asp?h=0...

[mybrainhurts]

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.

Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single as there will be more to follow.

[wc98]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I try to refrain from replying with anything of substance on this thread - simply in an effort to fit in.

Especially when challenged it seems.



I am also desperately aware that you are all a bunch of fking know it alls about everything, making any informative and knowledgable posts pointless.



There was no need for you to churlishly cut and paste the WUWT article. An 'article' that is hardly the edge of journalism, which you asked me to read, I read, and then had to confirm to you I read - causing me to state it was incorrect in context.
Cutting and pasting it does not make it 'binding' in your blinkered views. Actually cancel that - it probably does.
The article is nothing more than a selective screen scrape of 'some' of the information from the linked page from WindPower Monthly. Yet, because it is against your views, you are best glossing over it. If you read the WPM article you would have gained some information.


In PH terms you have quoted the Miles Per Gallon / Performance and efficiency of a Model T Ford. (Vindeby)
And then said - Look ! ..... Look ! All this time and supposed progress and now look where we are !






I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.

calm down man. i am far from a know it all. i link an article and post it. you use the same link the article used to refute the main point of the wuwt guest post.

i read the wpm article in the original link in the wuwt article. if the figures are the same in wuwt and wpm all i am asking is why is the conclusion in wuwt wrong ? "in the near future" is a term that is used far too often in the cagw debate with no evidence to support it,so when i hear that phrase it automatically raises my suspicions. how many years is a few more ?

[turbobloke]

Nohody needs to know it all to get the right perspective i.e. one that's rational rather than faith-based.

Know about causality:
-there's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data for temperature or energy and these are the variables that define global warming

Know about EROEI:
-renewables are inadequate, expensive and pointless, enriching land owners and subsidy farmers while impoversihing pensioners and leading to excess cold-related deaths

That'll do.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

turbobloke said:

Nohody needs to know it all to get the right perspective i.e. one that's rational rather than faith-based.

Know about causality:
-there's no visible causal human signal in any global climate data for temperature or energy and these are the variables that define global warming

Know about EROEI:
-renewables are inadequate, expensive and pointless, enriching land owners and subsidy farmers while impoversihing pensioners and leading to excess cold-related deaths

That'll do.

I only stepped forward once again because your knowledge in Offshore wind is incorrect and jovial at best.

Totally sidestepped the basic knowledge which quite a few people on this thread possess but which you apparently lack.

Yet you claim to know what my knowledge of offshore wind is? Your telepathy gift is almost as impressive as your charm and wit. What I know is what I read in credible sources, and unless you personally design/build/operate/service offshore turbines then you're in the same situation. If you do any of the above then it doesn't show and in any case that's a mighty fine vested interest I can't recall you declaring. I have no vested interests ftr.

The credible sources I've read over recent years say things like

"Without Renewable Obligation Certificates Nobody Would be Building Wind Farms"

and

"Wind turbine onshore costs, overall, £1 million per megawatt of installed capacity and once functioning earns about £200,000 per megawatt installed per year, but without taxpayer subsidies this would be £100,000 and offshore costs are 25% higher"

Beyond that titbit around offshore white elephants I also recall these items:

"The head of information for the West Denmark Transmission Authority compared the operation of the Danish electricity network to driving a giant articulated truck with no accelerator, steering or brakes"

not forgetting

"A recent 5-year study by the California Energy Commission estimates that every year 1,300 raptors are killed at this one site including more than a hundred golden eagles"

together with

"Researchers in West Virginia discovered that a single 44-turbine wind farm in the Appalachian Mountains killed 4,000 migratory bats"

and to close

"Engineers say renewable energy ‘simply won’t work’"

[turbobloke]

Bland rhetoric, apart from what appears to be a declaration of vested interest.

If so, good luck but keep that Reed link handy and love Mondays.

Of the two pieces of knowledge I outlined, where is your credible alternative source(s) with objective evidence?

[mybrainhurts]

Well, I'm dazzled, for one...

[LongQ]

To repeat:

Read this

http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-internet-of...

And the comments are a must.

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

dickymint said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

I am saying that there are hard facts and figures, Industry wide on the reduction in cost and how it is reducing at a rate faster than what was deemed five years ago as aggressive. It will be subsidy free within a few more years.
Your Daily Mail hand wringing may continue regardless.

Quoted (with my bold) for use "in a few years" time but for now have a single as there will be more to follow.

Fancy a Tenner it will be within 10 years?

I'll take the bet happily.

A few now becomes ten!

I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.

[turbobloke]

LongQ said:

http://euanmearns.com/the-lappeenranta-internet-of...

And the comments are a must.

It was and is an interesting read for sure, particularly about pro-wind vested interests getting lost in ever more unaffordable and speculative assumptions aimed at supporting the original hypothesis.

While you were typing that post I was reading a paper on the economics of offshore wind energy I had on file, the authors are Green and Vasilikos. I regard the paper content as credible. I don't have a link as the paper I have on file is hard copy.

Three of the points they make are summarised below with a comment on each.

- offshore wind farms suffer from high installation and connection costs, making government support essential; clearly this actually refers to taxpayer support via subsidies of one sort or another and there was nothing temporary about the 'essential' comment

- offshore wind costs have been increasing rather than falling as offshore farms proliferate, driven partly by increasing material prices and partly by rapidly rising demand relative to supply chain capacity; as EU countries scurry to meet over-ambitious EU targets driven by dogma, the supply chain has been getting stretched to the limit

- an offshore windfarm, while slightly up compared to onshore, will "rarely operate at capacity" with a working figure of 36% mentioned for the capacity factor; this still requires significant back-up with equally significant costs attached

If either of the authors is on PH perhaps they could update the thread with an update on their paper.

Having done so, the next update might usefully be to the report from Google's commissioned engineers and scientists who reported that renewables simply cannot work even with robotic technology that doesn't currently exist and the fantasy prospect of self-erecting farms.

At this point I refer back to the comment about ever more unaffordable and speculative assumptions aimed at supporting the original hypothesis, otherwise known as wishful thinking inspired by blind faith.

[dickymint]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

dickymint said:

A few now becomes ten!

I'll take your bet though but based on your original claim of "a few years" I'll even give you odds of 2/1 if it happens within 5 years of todays date.

Excellent.

Any Offshore Wind project will be viable / make FID without subsidy within the next five years.

Give me 5:1 and I'll put £100 down.

so it's any offshore wind project now? and you've gone from an evens bet, rejected my 2:1 and now asking for 5:1 - you really don't understand maths do you?

[mybrainhurts]

Great willy waving, PNM...