Nice work. When you add grid requirements to support wind the numbers will skew even further in favor of CCGT. Scotland being a topical example at the moment. They can't utilize all the wind because it is too far from the demand and the network capacity is insufficient to transport it. Building out the network is another source of emissions and adds complexity.
you assume the turbines will not experience a “blade liberation event.” For more on that, see my substack on what happened this summer in Nantucket.
Second, wind projects are facing fierce opposition from landowners and elected officials all over the world. The economics and o&m issues are key. But land-use conflicts are constraining wind expansion.
I think 20 years is generally the best case, which does not factor in damage from bad weather and very high winds and gusts. I haven’t read any reports or studies on actual lifespan experience for the various manufacturers.
Lots of people have done the math - physicists, engineers, etc. You can find them here on Substack since it's a world not utterly dependent on utopian dreams of zero emissions. And each brings his/her own calculations based on theoretical or real world costs. Comparing numbers, basis of reasoning, and assumptions will inevitably make evident what is reality. Have a it.
As you're aware of "Lots of people have done the math", can you please point me to just one who has compared wind + backup vs. combined-cycle gas? If there is a legit study I'll happily put it at the top of my post.
If you use gas turbines as backup then gas costs will be based on spot market pricing whereas a pure gas system can negotiate forward gas contracts at a more favorable rate.
For a pure NG system, you buy gas well in advance, and in bulk. For that you get a discount, so your gas costs per unit will be cheaper for the combined cycle system than the backup gas system.
There is functionally little difference between natural gas peaker plants and natural gas plants. In fact, you can have a plant that shifts, from baseload to peaker. When it does the prices for the energy produced, from the same plant, rapidly increase. Because your gas costs go up, and you also have to amortize costs out over fewer units sold.
Its why utilities try to avoid peaker plants whenever possible and prefer to load follow. But wind and solar makes load following impossible.
Excellent points supporting the perspective that the purpose of solar and wind is to sell MORE natural gas than in a grid with no solar, wind, or batteries.
Yes, good analysis. I don't think you have made any (material) errors, not least because your calculations produce the same overall outcome as we have worked on here:
Commendable work. No energy systems are cheap, emission free or everlasting. The actual cost of your scenario (gas+wind) has the main focus on CO2 emissions vs cost. How do we find the true cost of such a combination, when the cost of grid upgrades, cabling to wind farms, mineral mining for copper, aluminium etc are not included in the calculation. Intermittent energy systems require huge peak capacities, as people will scramble to start the charging of their EVs, cooking, washing, starting their tumble driers etc when the weather conditions are favorable. So what if the entire grid system needs to be upgraded with larger cable dimensions? What about transformer capacities?
Copper mines are being depleted, as in Peru, where the quality of copper ore is decreasing, requiring more mining efforts (energy, cost) to mine the copper. This is just one example. Listen to Mark Mills from Skagenfondene https://youtu.be/sgOEGKDVvsg?si=psSGWQRtteK6gkqF covering the global mineral situation.
Before I moved into the “pipeline world” I worked in the electrical industry. It’s refreshing to see your analysis, which seems on the mark. I’ve always advocated trying different generation and storage alternatives, but they need to be applied thoughtfully and not “forced”. Kudos to your commentators adding transmission and distribution effects as well pointing out the fallacy of CO2 concerns.
Summary: For a real-world power grid, a fleet of ONLY combined-cycle natural gas (CCNG) plants will be more economical, reliable, and emit smaller amounts of air pollution than a grid with solar, wind, and natural gas peaker plants. The bonus for the CCNG plants is they can contribute significant amounts of synchronous grid inertia to stabilize the power grid. See this March 4, 2024 article, "Why is Grid Inertia Important? Without sufficient synchronous grid inertia, the grid becomes unstable and a blackout occurs." https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important
Thank you for a relevant quantitative update to this 2016 article, "Turns out wind and solar have a secret friend: Natural gas," by Chris Mooney, August 11, 2016, The Washington Post,
"Bridging the gap: Do fast-reacting fossil technologies facilitate renewable energy diffusion?" by Elena Verdolini, Francesco Vonab, and David Popp, Energy Policy 116 (2018) 242–256, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.058
The latter reference quantifies the amount of fast-acting natural gas fired generation at 105% of the nameplate capacity of the wind generation.
The high capacity factor statistics claimed by wind advocates are very rare. Typical wind capacity factors are less than 30%. Other authors such as Robert Bryce have highlighted the lack of wind power during times of bone-chilling cold, like during the 2021 winter storm Uri. Recall that since humans are warm blooded, extreme cold kills five times as many as extreme warmth.
- Using 2MW for turbine size is low. 4MW is current standard for facilites and is moving up to 6MW. That will be a downward shift on the maintenance.
- Using $2.9/MMBTu is too low as well. 2025 in the US are still artificially constrainted due to limited export capacity. As additional LNG export terminals are added I would expect US NG prices to increase as more product is exported to lucrative markets. We could easily see average prices at ~$8/MMBTu in 2 years.
- Gas plant capital costs may be too low as a large percentage of new plant are capacity additions at existings sites that have cost advantages given the utilitzation of already built facilites.
60 %? In a dream maybe, here in Alberta we have what’s considered a good wind resource and our capacity factor is ~35%. Has little to do with the turbine, all geography
Nice work. When you add grid requirements to support wind the numbers will skew even further in favor of CCGT. Scotland being a topical example at the moment. They can't utilize all the wind because it is too far from the demand and the network capacity is insufficient to transport it. Building out the network is another source of emissions and adds complexity.
Very good work here. Attaboy.
I’d suggest two more points:
you assume the turbines will not experience a “blade liberation event.” For more on that, see my substack on what happened this summer in Nantucket.
Second, wind projects are facing fierce opposition from landowners and elected officials all over the world. The economics and o&m issues are key. But land-use conflicts are constraining wind expansion.
Again, good work.
Great breakdown! Just one small thing to add: the lifespan of wind turbines is typically estimated at 20 years, at least in Europe.
I think 20 years is generally the best case, which does not factor in damage from bad weather and very high winds and gusts. I haven’t read any reports or studies on actual lifespan experience for the various manufacturers.
20 years is a stretch perhaps
Nice analysis. Question: wouldn’t a higher wind at full capacity % (e.g., 70% v 50%) shorten the lifespan of the windmill system?
That's a good point and my guess is likely.
Wonder why no one has performed this kind of analysis before 🤔. Thanks for putting in the work on it.
Forget fusion - we already have fission and it ROCKS. Check it out:
https://xkcd.com/1162/
Lots of people have done the math - physicists, engineers, etc. You can find them here on Substack since it's a world not utterly dependent on utopian dreams of zero emissions. And each brings his/her own calculations based on theoretical or real world costs. Comparing numbers, basis of reasoning, and assumptions will inevitably make evident what is reality. Have a it.
As you're aware of "Lots of people have done the math", can you please point me to just one who has compared wind + backup vs. combined-cycle gas? If there is a legit study I'll happily put it at the top of my post.
See my post further along with several references.
Hah - they have - then just lie to you about the results.
(that's the joke 🤭)
Can I add one further thought to the analysis?
If you use gas turbines as backup then gas costs will be based on spot market pricing whereas a pure gas system can negotiate forward gas contracts at a more favorable rate.
Presumably that will swing the balance further.
Ugh, so true! I had forgotten about this.
For a pure NG system, you buy gas well in advance, and in bulk. For that you get a discount, so your gas costs per unit will be cheaper for the combined cycle system than the backup gas system.
There is functionally little difference between natural gas peaker plants and natural gas plants. In fact, you can have a plant that shifts, from baseload to peaker. When it does the prices for the energy produced, from the same plant, rapidly increase. Because your gas costs go up, and you also have to amortize costs out over fewer units sold.
Its why utilities try to avoid peaker plants whenever possible and prefer to load follow. But wind and solar makes load following impossible.
Excellent points supporting the perspective that the purpose of solar and wind is to sell MORE natural gas than in a grid with no solar, wind, or batteries.
You didn’t get it wrong and your analysis was very generous to the wind assumptions
Yes, good analysis. I don't think you have made any (material) errors, not least because your calculations produce the same overall outcome as we have worked on here:
https://sites.google.com/view/the-lpf/home
Also here: https://thenewreformer.uk/2024/10/13/not-shooting-the-lights-out-energy-policy-that-might-actually-work-part-i/
Commendable work. No energy systems are cheap, emission free or everlasting. The actual cost of your scenario (gas+wind) has the main focus on CO2 emissions vs cost. How do we find the true cost of such a combination, when the cost of grid upgrades, cabling to wind farms, mineral mining for copper, aluminium etc are not included in the calculation. Intermittent energy systems require huge peak capacities, as people will scramble to start the charging of their EVs, cooking, washing, starting their tumble driers etc when the weather conditions are favorable. So what if the entire grid system needs to be upgraded with larger cable dimensions? What about transformer capacities?
Copper mines are being depleted, as in Peru, where the quality of copper ore is decreasing, requiring more mining efforts (energy, cost) to mine the copper. This is just one example. Listen to Mark Mills from Skagenfondene https://youtu.be/sgOEGKDVvsg?si=psSGWQRtteK6gkqF covering the global mineral situation.
Nicely done. Everyone's better off with honest and forthright research such as what you have done and explained. Thank you.
Before I moved into the “pipeline world” I worked in the electrical industry. It’s refreshing to see your analysis, which seems on the mark. I’ve always advocated trying different generation and storage alternatives, but they need to be applied thoughtfully and not “forced”. Kudos to your commentators adding transmission and distribution effects as well pointing out the fallacy of CO2 concerns.
Summary: For a real-world power grid, a fleet of ONLY combined-cycle natural gas (CCNG) plants will be more economical, reliable, and emit smaller amounts of air pollution than a grid with solar, wind, and natural gas peaker plants. The bonus for the CCNG plants is they can contribute significant amounts of synchronous grid inertia to stabilize the power grid. See this March 4, 2024 article, "Why is Grid Inertia Important? Without sufficient synchronous grid inertia, the grid becomes unstable and a blackout occurs." https://greennuke.substack.com/p/why-is-grid-inertia-important
Thank you for a relevant quantitative update to this 2016 article, "Turns out wind and solar have a secret friend: Natural gas," by Chris Mooney, August 11, 2016, The Washington Post,
http://tinyurl.com/Natural-Gas-Secret serves as an introduction to:
"Bridging the gap: Do fast-reacting fossil technologies facilitate renewable energy diffusion?" by Elena Verdolini, Francesco Vonab, and David Popp, Energy Policy 116 (2018) 242–256, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.01.058
The latter reference quantifies the amount of fast-acting natural gas fired generation at 105% of the nameplate capacity of the wind generation.
The high capacity factor statistics claimed by wind advocates are very rare. Typical wind capacity factors are less than 30%. Other authors such as Robert Bryce have highlighted the lack of wind power during times of bone-chilling cold, like during the 2021 winter storm Uri. Recall that since humans are warm blooded, extreme cold kills five times as many as extreme warmth.
Couple of quibbles on your inputs:
- Using 2MW for turbine size is low. 4MW is current standard for facilites and is moving up to 6MW. That will be a downward shift on the maintenance.
- Using $2.9/MMBTu is too low as well. 2025 in the US are still artificially constrainted due to limited export capacity. As additional LNG export terminals are added I would expect US NG prices to increase as more product is exported to lucrative markets. We could easily see average prices at ~$8/MMBTu in 2 years.
- Gas plant capital costs may be too low as a large percentage of new plant are capacity additions at existings sites that have cost advantages given the utilitzation of already built facilites.
Other than that, great analysis!
Thank you. And tomorrow's post will address some of your points above.
60 %? In a dream maybe, here in Alberta we have what’s considered a good wind resource and our capacity factor is ~35%. Has little to do with the turbine, all geography
Several (oldish) references on this topic:
"CO2 Emissions Variations in CCGTs Used to Balance Wind in Ireland"
http://euanmearns.com/co2-emissions-variations-in-ccgts-used-to-balance-wind-in-ireland/
"Cost and Quantity of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided by Wind Generation" By Peter Lang
https://bravenewclimate.com/files/2009/08/peter-lang-wind-power.pdf
"Does wind power reduce carbon emissions?" by Barry Brook, references Lang above.
https://bravenewclimate.com/2009/08/08/does-wind-power-reduce-carbon-emissions/
"Why solar and wind won’t make much difference to carbon dioxide emissions"
https://blog.oup.com/2017/10/solar-wind-energy-carbon-dioxide-emissions/
"Wind Integration: Incremental Emissions from Back-Up Generation Cycling (Part V: Calculator Update)" By Kent Hawkins
https://www.masterresource.org/wind-power/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/#more-7271
There was also a Bendix study of wind energy with Coal backup in Colorado, but I can't seem to find the link to it.
Edit: Bentek, not Bendix. https://docs.wind-watch.org/BENTEK-How-Less-Became-More.pdf
Thank you!