4 ms·

I've never heard the argument that current wind turbine are unsustainable before. I don't see why that would be so. The base is concrete, the tower is steel, ne

I've never heard the argument that current wind turbine are unsustainable before. I don't see why that would be so. The base is concrete, the tower is steel, neither of which is exotic. The generator is pretty standard. All of that is industrial tech we invented a century ago, and we know how to maintain it for the long haul. The blades themselves are composite, that may have some longevity issues (you typically need to paint carbon fiber to prevent UV degradation every view years), but I don't know, they can last for a long time. Fiberglass boats last 50+ years. I would imagine the designed lifecycle of a wind turbine is 25+ years, and I also imagine that the bases will last long beyond that. In 50 years we may have to go around and replace the blades on these things, but that's it.

grownseed 12y ago
Thank you for your reply. I used to live in Scotland where there are a lot of wind turbines and I remember controversy in the news about the fact that while the expected lifespan of a wind turbine should be around 20 years, the actual lifespan ended up being in the region of 12 years, and the long-term maintenance costs ended up being higher than expected. There was also controversy about the environmental damage done to forests and birds, as well as noise pollution, though I guess this isn't directly related to the subject at hand. Please don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of clean energy, I'm genuinely trying to inform myself about the pros and cons of each solution.
- krschultz 12y ago
  Well if you are talking about damage done to forests & noise pollution, then you are trying to capture the externalities of power production into its "true cost". I'm all for that, but if you decide to do that you also have to use the same methodology for coal, oil, nuclear, etc. Sorry birds, but I feel like the cost of every bird killed by a wind turbine pales in comparison to what a few mountain top removal coal mines do to an area. In terms of economic ROI for the corporations owning wind turbines, I think it works out even w/o tax credits. Obviously the tax credits help, but the credits are not generous enough to justify all of this investing on their own. I believe the companies have done the analysis and believe it is profitable.
  - jonathansizz 12y ago
    FYI: bird deaths via wind turbines are trivial. Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of one percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science...
    - lotsofmangos 12y ago
      I was thinking about starting the anti-windows party to campaign for banning glass in architecture, just to see how dedicated people are to the premise of reducing bird deaths caused by human structures.
- cwal37 12y ago
  It's a bit odd to be attempting to inform yourself of pros and cons you don't know, but also make a very strong opening statement about wind power. I work in the energy industry and I can honestly say I've never heard someone refer to wind turbines as "effectively unsustainable." Maybe, as a joke? But certainly not in any serious way. If you want to learn more about wind in general you can cherry pick sections from the recently released Wind Vision[1]. It should be able to answer most anything you'd wonder about. [1] http://www.energy.gov/windvision http://www.energy.gov/windvision
  - grownseed 12y ago
    I honestly wasn't trying to make a strong statement, but given the reactions and the downvotes, it does seem like I didn't come across as intended, my apologies for that. And thank you for the reference, I will make sure to read through it as soon as I get more time.
- nl 12y ago
  controversy in the news about the fact that while the expected lifespan of a wind turbine should be around 20 years, the actual lifespan ended up being in the region of 12 years There certainly was controversy. An initial study did indicate the lifespan was likely to be 12 years[1], but that was immediately questioned because Scotland already had 16 yo windfarms with no maintenance issues. That initial study led to additional research, which showed that: the UK's earliest turbines, built in the 1990s, are still producing three-quarters of their original output after 19 years of operation, nearly twice the amount previously claimed, and will operate effectively up to 25 years. This is comparable to the performance of gas turbines used in power stations. The study also found that more recent turbines are performing even better than the earliest models, suggesting they could have a longer lifespan.[2] Also, there's no real controversy about "damage done to forests and birds, as well as noise pollution". There's no damage at all to forests, bird deaths are in the order of 0.1% and noise pollution is what it is: they can be noisy if they are built near you, but there is no mystical "subsonics" or something that some people claim. [1] http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/wind-turbines-lifespan-far-shorter-than-believed-study-suggests-1.62945 http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/wind-turbines-life... [2] http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_20-2-2014-9-18-49 http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcolleg...
giggles_giggles 12y ago
My understanding is that, among other things, the generators come under extreme stress during exceptionally windy occasions, causing a lot of wear and tear that happens way up at the top of these giant windmills. These require a lot of manual maintenance, which is dangerous and expensive due to the nature (and location) of the work. Additionally (and as a demonstration of just how much stress they come under), while coming under said strain, they've been known to burst into flames https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_oFPF6Anwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_oFPF6Anwo As for their lifespan, the government agencies that build them claim 25 years, but there's controversy about this. Searching online will find you conflicting studies, including this one http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/280-analysis-of-wind-farm-performance-in-uk-and-denmark http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/280-analysis-of-wind-farm..., which states "Analysis of site-specific performance reveals that the average normalised load factor of new UK onshore wind farms at age 1 (the peak year of operation) declined significantly from 2000 to 2011" indicating that they may wear out more on the order of ten years. Now that was a cursory search but in any case the argument that the wind farms cost so much to maintain that they're nonviable is not new. Wind turbines aren't exotic tech, but it is a giant turbine that is placed way up on a pole, and fundamentally a turbine will need maintenance, so someone has to go up and do that maintenance, and that's expensive.
- Retric 12y ago
  Current designs are not standardized, so the worst case is fairly poor. However, economically on average wind is fairly close to Coal Power and in some cases actually cheaper even without subsidies. So, there is no way for it to be a net loss energy wise because electricity is vary cheap energy. PS: For scale wind is on target to hit ~8% of total electricity generation in 2018.
  - Agustus 12y ago
    Could you cite sources for the coal to wind economics?
    - Retric 12y ago
plug 12y ago
Me neither, I'd be interested to hear more. I understand that 25 years is their lifespan. There was an interesting HN submission recently that discussed the problem of what to do with the blades once they reach EOL. Obviously they are very large and very hard to recycle due to the materials they are made from - a problem that increases with scale of course. Like everything, I'm sure turbine blade tech will iterate. I recall hearing once that solar panels weren't viable because they didn't last long enough to recoup the energy cost it took to build them. I don't believe this is the case any more though?
Shivetya 12y ago
Motor assemblies and the hub likely take the brunt of the stress and would require the most maintenance. Servicing them in the long term is a problem in that there simply not enough qualified people to do that job. Figure part electrician, part mechanic, and more, just to be able to work on one. Then throw in that candidates for this work must be very physically fit and mentally agile to be able to do the two hundred foot or more climbs. So besides the material costs of building and maintaining we may run up against one that isn't fixable as quickly, getting the people to do the work.
- smhg 12y ago
  The people-work relation is a whole other subject. Definitely something to look at, but one that drags in a lot of other topics. But I would like to add this: other power plants have similar complex HR requirements (think nuclear, water).

grownseed 12y ago

Thank you for your reply. I used to live in Scotland where there are a lot of wind turbines and I remember controversy in the news about the fact that while the expected lifespan of a wind turbine should be around 20 years, the actual lifespan ended up being in the region of 12 years, and the long-term maintenance costs ended up being higher than expected. There was also controversy about the environmental damage done to forests and birds, as well as noise pollution, though I guess this isn't directly related to the subject at hand. Please don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of clean energy, I'm genuinely trying to inform myself about the pros and cons of each solution.

krschultz 12y ago
Well if you are talking about damage done to forests & noise pollution, then you are trying to capture the externalities of power production into its "true cost". I'm all for that, but if you decide to do that you also have to use the same methodology for coal, oil, nuclear, etc. Sorry birds, but I feel like the cost of every bird killed by a wind turbine pales in comparison to what a few mountain top removal coal mines do to an area. In terms of economic ROI for the corporations owning wind turbines, I think it works out even w/o tax credits. Obviously the tax credits help, but the credits are not generous enough to justify all of this investing on their own. I believe the companies have done the analysis and believe it is profitable.
- jonathansizz 12y ago
  FYI: bird deaths via wind turbines are trivial. Collisions with wind turbines account for about one-tenth of one percent of all "unnatural" bird deaths in the United States each year. http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/wind-turbine-kill-birds.htm http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science...
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    I was thinking about starting the anti-windows party to campaign for banning glass in architecture, just to see how dedicated people are to the premise of reducing bird deaths caused by human structures.
cwal37 12y ago
It's a bit odd to be attempting to inform yourself of pros and cons you don't know, but also make a very strong opening statement about wind power. I work in the energy industry and I can honestly say I've never heard someone refer to wind turbines as "effectively unsustainable." Maybe, as a joke? But certainly not in any serious way. If you want to learn more about wind in general you can cherry pick sections from the recently released Wind Vision[1]. It should be able to answer most anything you'd wonder about. [1] http://www.energy.gov/windvision http://www.energy.gov/windvision
- grownseed 12y ago
  I honestly wasn't trying to make a strong statement, but given the reactions and the downvotes, it does seem like I didn't come across as intended, my apologies for that. And thank you for the reference, I will make sure to read through it as soon as I get more time.
nl 12y ago
controversy in the news about the fact that while the expected lifespan of a wind turbine should be around 20 years, the actual lifespan ended up being in the region of 12 years There certainly was controversy. An initial study did indicate the lifespan was likely to be 12 years[1], but that was immediately questioned because Scotland already had 16 yo windfarms with no maintenance issues. That initial study led to additional research, which showed that: the UK's earliest turbines, built in the 1990s, are still producing three-quarters of their original output after 19 years of operation, nearly twice the amount previously claimed, and will operate effectively up to 25 years. This is comparable to the performance of gas turbines used in power stations. The study also found that more recent turbines are performing even better than the earliest models, suggesting they could have a longer lifespan.[2] Also, there's no real controversy about "damage done to forests and birds, as well as noise pollution". There's no damage at all to forests, bird deaths are in the order of 0.1% and noise pollution is what it is: they can be noisy if they are built near you, but there is no mystical "subsonics" or something that some people claim. [1] http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/wind-turbines-lifespan-far-shorter-than-believed-study-suggests-1.62945 http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/scotland/wind-turbines-life... [2] http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcollege/newssummary/news_20-2-2014-9-18-49 http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/newsandeventspggrp/imperialcolleg...

giggles_giggles 12y ago

My understanding is that, among other things, the generators come under extreme stress during exceptionally windy occasions, causing a lot of wear and tear that happens way up at the top of these giant windmills. These require a lot of manual maintenance, which is dangerous and expensive due to the nature (and location) of the work. Additionally (and as a demonstration of just how much stress they come under), while coming under said strain, they've been known to burst into flames https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_oFPF6Anwo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_oFPF6Anwo As for their lifespan, the government agencies that build them claim 25 years, but there's controversy about this. Searching online will find you conflicting studies, including this one http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/280-analysis-of-wind-farm-performance-in-uk-and-denmark http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/280-analysis-of-wind-farm..., which states "Analysis of site-specific performance reveals that the average normalised load factor of new UK onshore wind farms at age 1 (the peak year of operation) declined significantly from 2000 to 2011" indicating that they may wear out more on the order of ten years. Now that was a cursory search but in any case the argument that the wind farms cost so much to maintain that they're nonviable is not new. Wind turbines aren't exotic tech, but it is a giant turbine that is placed way up on a pole, and fundamentally a turbine will need maintenance, so someone has to go up and do that maintenance, and that's expensive.

Retric 12y ago
Current designs are not standardized, so the worst case is fairly poor. However, economically on average wind is fairly close to Coal Power and in some cases actually cheaper even without subsidies. So, there is no way for it to be a net loss energy wise because electricity is vary cheap energy. PS: For scale wind is on target to hit ~8% of total electricity generation in 2018.
- Agustus 12y ago
  Could you cite sources for the coal to wind economics?
  - Retric 12y ago

plug 12y ago

Me neither, I'd be interested to hear more. I understand that 25 years is their lifespan. There was an interesting HN submission recently that discussed the problem of what to do with the blades once they reach EOL. Obviously they are very large and very hard to recycle due to the materials they are made from - a problem that increases with scale of course. Like everything, I'm sure turbine blade tech will iterate. I recall hearing once that solar panels weren't viable because they didn't last long enough to recoup the energy cost it took to build them. I don't believe this is the case any more though?

Shivetya 12y ago

Motor assemblies and the hub likely take the brunt of the stress and would require the most maintenance. Servicing them in the long term is a problem in that there simply not enough qualified people to do that job. Figure part electrician, part mechanic, and more, just to be able to work on one. Then throw in that candidates for this work must be very physically fit and mentally agile to be able to do the two hundred foot or more climbs. So besides the material costs of building and maintaining we may run up against one that isn't fixable as quickly, getting the people to do the work.

smhg 12y ago
The people-work relation is a whole other subject. Definitely something to look at, but one that drags in a lot of other topics. But I would like to add this: other power plants have similar complex HR requirements (think nuclear, water).