The scam continues: Why wind turbines are being re-powered at 10-years

OVERKILL

$100 Site Donor 2021
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
58,048
Location
Ontario, Canada

What can one wind facility in Southwestern Minnesota tell us about the state of the American electric grid? Quite a lot, actually.
In 2007, Minnesota began its quest to power the state with wind turbines and solar panels when the Next Generation Energy Act (NGEA) was signed into law, which mandated that 25 percent of the state’s electricity come from "renewable" energy sources by 2025.

These mandates, along with generous federal tax subsidies and monopoly utilities seeking to maximize their government-approved profits by building new infrastructure, led to a building boom in wind turbines and solar panels. From 2007 through 2021, Minnesota built thousands of wind turbines totaling 3,555 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity, and 1,093.5 MW of solar capacity en route to meeting the mandates in 2020, five years ahead of schedule.

However, many of the turbines built to comply with the 25 percent mandate are already being refurbished or “repowered,” long before the end of their supposed 25-year useful lives. In fact, one of these wind facilities, the Nobles wind farm, has already been repowered after just 12 years in service.

But why was Nobles refurbished more than a decade before the end of its useful life at a cost of $240 million? The official reason provided by Xcel Energy for repowering Nobles was to spur economic activity in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and extend the retirement date of the facility from the year 2035 to 2045.

This story makes for good newspaper headlines, but the data tell a very different story. Digging deeper into the reasons surrounding Xcel’s decision to repower the Nobles facility illustrates how our state and federal energy policies are causing America’s energy decisions to grow increasingly irrational.

*snip*

All of these actions help increase the productivity of wind turbines, but the biggest reason that companies seek to repower wind turbines has nothing to do with how they perform, and everything to do with money. Repowering wind projects allows them to requalify for the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), a lucrative federal subsidy that expires after the first 10 years of a project’s life.

It should come as no surprise, then, that data from the U.S. Department of Energy shows that the wind facilities repowered in 2021 ranged in age from 9 to 16 years old with the median age being 10 years. In essence, the lucrative federal subsidies paid to wind turbine operators are creating a perverse incentive to prematurely refurbish or replace wind projects long before the end of their useful lifetimes, including the Nobles wind project in Minnesota.

*snip*

Currently, there aren’t enough transmission lines to move the power generated from these wind facilities to other areas of the 15-state regional grid that could use it. This is because the existing transmission lines can only transport so much power at a time, similar to how water flowing down a sink is governed by the width of the drainpipe. As a result, the oversupply of electricity frequently causes power prices to go negative, which sends a signal to wind turbine operators to scale back supply—at least it works that way in theory.

In reality, the PTC pays wind projects $26 for each MWh of electricity the facility produces, whether or not that electricity is needed. The subsidies mean that electricity generated from wind farms could potentially be sold into the market at a price of negative $25 per MWh and still turn a profit for their owners.

Without the subsidies, however, wind turbine operators are forced to reconcile with the realities of supply and demand because selling wind generation at negative prices would lead to substantial losses. This causes the turbine operator to shut the wind turbine down — an industry process called curtailment — when wind generation is high but wholesale power prices are low in an effort to avoid losing money.

Data from Minnesota PUC filings show a large increase in curtailment at Nobles in 2021 when 47.6 percent of the potential output from Nobles was curtailed, and in 2022 when curtailment rates reached 38 percent, as you can see in the graph below.

The spike in curtailment is important to understand because it suggests that wind facilities around the country are at risk of becoming uneconomical once the PTC expires after 10 years, long before the 20 to 25 years that are commonly cited as their useful lifetimes.



Basically, the subsidy (PTC) allows wind farms to be profitable to operate even when prices go negative. Like too much solar and the duck curve, the economics fall off a cliff once you have too much power when you don't need it. This would naturally stifle uptake, but when there's a subsidy distorting the market like a ridiculously over-generous NEM scheme like in California, or FIT/LRP here in Ontario (back when the GEA existed) or Germany that removes the economics from the picture in pursuit of agenda, supply continues to get added well beyond that economic threshold.
 
its-a-scam-meme.gif
 
Fisherman are up in arms on L.I. over it. Dangerous for small craft in fog, and a slew of other complaints. Lets not forget marine life like whales dying, and no one wants to admit why. It fits a narrative and as long as it does it will thrive. A disaster waiting to happen. Another bad move imo.
 
I don't disagree, but is it really any different than giving a tax credit to buy an EV to people who would benefit from buying them anyway, or giving, or mortgage interest deductions, or Earned income tax credits, so people who don't actually pay income tax can get money back, or a million other tax incentives?

The only difference is who benefits.
 
Over coming decades, humanity will race to rewire the world with clean energy, to avoid the devastating effects of warming spurred by burning carbon fuels. Europe and Asia will not ignore this chance for technological innovation and new profits. If current priorities win the day, U.S. companies will be severely undercut in an emerging global market worth several trillion dollars. And millions of Americans, especially in the Midwest and West, will lose economic opportunities and face intensified droughts and crop losses from climate change.
Regarding global warming all we need is China to get onboard. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them.
 
I don't disagree, but is it really any different than giving a tax credit to buy an EV to people who would benefit from buying them anyway, or giving, or mortgage interest deductions, or Earned income tax credits, so people who don't actually pay income tax can get money back, or a million other tax incentives?

The only difference is who benefits.
It is different in the fact that rates are driven up, broadly, which disproportionately impacts low income earners who can least afford it. This is particularly problematic in California for example where rates are now just totally insane.
 
Over coming decades, humanity will race to rewire the world with clean energy, to avoid the devastating effects of warming spurred by burning carbon fuels. Europe and Asia will not ignore this chance for technological innovation and new profits.
Germany is already deep down the path of economic folly dumping money into weather dependent generation sources with massive subsidy which has resulted in skyrocketing levels of energy poverty and a grid that is still filthy. @FishFry was recently noting how many "interventions" they have had to undertake due to supply not matching demand.

Places that have already greened their grids didn't do it with yet-to-be-invented storage technologies or wind and solar, it was done with sources we've been building for more than half a century: nuclear and hydro.
If current priorities win the day, U.S. companies will be severely undercut in an emerging global market worth several trillion dollars. And millions of Americans, especially in the Midwest and West, will lose economic opportunities and face intensified droughts and crop losses from climate change.
Many of the up-and-coming SMR designs (perfect for many of these emerging economies) are of US origin. The challenge will be competitively pricing and financing them against China who is already pushing export ambitions on this front, as well as India, whose CANDU clone appears to be taking off.
 
Thankfully Minnesota can rely on Nuclear. Oops, shut down due to a radioactive Tritium leak

Best time of the year to do it, period of lowest demand. Outages are typically scheduled for the spring and fall for that reason.

We consume Tritium all the time (I'm having some right now, since I'm having soup) and the level we are allowed to consume is much, MUCH higher than the concentration of the release.

NRC said:
The EPA's dose-based drinking water standard of 4 mrem per year is based on a maximum contaminant level of 20,000 picocuries per liter for tritium. If other similar radioactive materials are also present in the drinking water, the annual dose from all the materials combined shall not exceed 4 mrem per year. This standard was expected to be exceeded only in extraordinary circumstances (EPA, 1975; EPA, 1976b).

In 1991, EPA used improved calculations to conclude a tritium concentration of 60,900 pCi/L would yield a 4 mrem per year dose. However, EPA kept the 20,000 pCi/L value for tritium in its latest regulations.

NRC said:
As an example, drinking water for a year from a well with 1,600 picocuries per liter of tritium (comparable to levels identified in a drinking water well after a significant tritiated water spill at a nuclear facility) would lead to a radiation dose (using EPA assumptions) of 0.3 millirem (mrem). That dose is:
  • at least 2,000 to 5,000 times lower than the dose from a medical procedure involving a full-body CT scan (e.g., 500 to 1,500 mrem from a CT scan)
  • 1,000 times lower than the approximate 300 mrem dose from natural background radiation
  • 50 times lower than the dose from natural radioactivity (potassium) in your body (e.g., 15 mrem from potassium)
  • 12 times lower than the dose from a round-trip cross-country airplane flight (e.g., 4 mrem from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles and back)
 
Last edited:
Regarding global warming all we need is China to get onboard. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them.
China is switching to green energy, and their goal is to become carbon neutral by 2060 by having the majority of their energy come from using green and nuclear technology. China will need to reduce the capacity of newer coal plants as well as close old ones if it is to bring emissions down. It may be possible to retrofit some old coal plants to capture emissions, but the technology to do so at scale is still developing, and many plants will have to be written off after minimal use.

China generates more solar power than any other country. That might not be so impressive given China's enormous population, but it is a sign of where the country is heading.

China's wind power installations were more than triple those of any other country in 2020
 
Not sure why we're looking at China and using them as an example to emulate. They absolutely do not care if their own people starve, freeze or just simply die. We have no reliable source of information how their "green" efforts are actually playing out, how stable is their grid and how it affects an average citizen.
I know from history what USSR was capable of doing to impress the West or their dictators, like the White Sea–Baltic Canal that was something like 10 feet deep and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

All these fantastic plants and solar farms China is building may just be for show and power nothing. Just like their ghost cities.
 
China is switching to green energy, and their goal is to become carbon neutral by 2060 by having the majority of their energy come from using green and nuclear technology.

Yeah - you keep telling that to your self :p


China permits two new coal power plants per week in 2022​

This report from the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and the Global Energy Monitor (GEM) takes a closer look at China’s permitting of new coal power plants in 2022, the possible implications for China’s climate commitments, and provides policy recommendations.

Coal power plant permitting, construction starts and new project announcements accelerated dramatically in China in 2022, with new permits reaching the highest level since 2015. The coal power capacity starting construction in China was six times as large as that in all of the rest of the world combined.

 
China is switching to green energy, and their goal is to become carbon neutral by 2060 by having the majority of their energy come from using green and nuclear technology. China will need to reduce the capacity of newer coal plants as well as close old ones if it is to bring emissions down. It may be possible to retrofit some old coal plants to capture emissions, but the technology to do so at scale is still developing, and many plants will have to be written off after minimal use.

China generates more solar power than any other country. That might not be so impressive given China's enormous population, but it is a sign of where the country is heading.

China's wind power installations were more than triple those of any other country in 2020
Sorry I don't believe anything coming out of China regarding clean energy, or anything else for that matter. They're not our friend! In fact I don't believe what I hear coming out of the US regarding it either. All I know is these wind turbines are not what they're cracked up to be. Texas proved that a couple of years back, and the nightmare to marine life has just begun.
 
Sorry I don't believe anything coming out of China regarding clean energy, or anything else for that matter. They're not our friend! In fact I don't believe what I hear coming out of the US regarding it either. All I know is these wind turbines are not what they're cracked up to be. Texas proved that a couple of years back, and the nightmare to marine life has just begun.
Interesting article here:
 
Back
Top