Disaster looming in UK offshore wind power

[markslawson + 1,042]

Professor Gordon Hughes, of the School of Economics, Edinburgh University has written a report on offshore wind entitled Wind Power Economics - Rhetoric and Reality  A summary is linked. This has been issued through an organisation called the Renewable Energy Foundation, although the REF is clearly not about lobbying for renewable energy as the name would suggest. It has issued reports correctly predicting major increases in UK power prices, in part due to the increase in the use of renewables. That point aside, Prof Hughes conclusion is that all the wind farms to be built to meet Britain's declare net zero goal are relying on completely unrealistic financial projections. They will run into financial trouble and have to be bailed out  by the government which will then want to pass on the costs to the consumers. As a result he estimates that UK power prices will  be 3-4 times in real terms (that is after allowing for inflation) than they are today. Say what? You may grumble that Prof Hughes is hostile to wind, none the less after trawling through the books of the existing UK offshore wind farms, all of which are audited and available to the public, he has some interesting points to make.  

One such point is that the government projections assume that the costs of offshore wind will decline as more installations are built. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be happening (the same trends are evident in offshore oil and gas installations). Although its not immediately clear why this should be so, after looking a the Danish experience Prof Hughes says one of the problems is that with the best sites already taken, new wind farms have to be built in deeper and deeper water. Deeper water means higher construction and operating costs. Another problem is the offshore wind industry's use of the gigantic 2+ MW turbines, as opposed to the smaller turbines typically used onshore. The smaller turbines are far more reliable. He says:" nearly 60% of offshore turbines will experience an equipment failure in the first five years of operation." Also the risk of failure increases sharply after 10 years of operation, although the Danish experience shows that this can vary greatly with location. In addition turbine performance declines rapidly..

Although existing wind farms may survive, all this means that instead of the government's assumption of an expected operating life of 20 to 30 years for new offshore wind farms,  most will be lucky to last 20 years and fail to cover operating costs, let alone make any return on capital, after 12 years. Further, if the UK government insists on building a host of new farms, then costs will escalate. The result will be a financial disaster. As with all renewables, a few offshore farms are no bad thing. Its when you try building heaps of them the trouble really starts.. there is a lot more to the report which I urge you to read.   

  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

15 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Professor Gordon Hughes, of the School of Economics, Edinburgh University has written a report on offshore wind entitled Wind Power Economics - Rhetoric and Reality  A summary is linked. This has been issued through an organisation called the Renewable Energy Foundation, although the REF is clearly not about lobbying for renewable energy as the name would suggest. It has issued reports correctly predicting major increases in UK power prices, in part due to the increase in the use of renewables. That point aside, Prof Hughes conclusion is that all the wind farms to be built to meet Britain's declare net zero goal are relying on completely unrealistic financial projections. They will run into financial trouble and have to be bailed out  by the government which will then want to pass on the costs to the consumers. As a result he estimates that UK power prices will  be 3-4 times in real terms (that is after allowing for inflation) than they are today. Say what? You may grumble that Prof Hughes is hostile to wind, none the less after trawling through the books of the existing UK offshore wind farms, all of which are audited and available to the public, he has some interesting points to make.  

One such point is that the government projections assume that the costs of offshore wind will decline as more installations are built. In fact, the exact opposite seems to be happening (the same trends are evident in offshore oil and gas installations). Although its not immediately clear why this should be so, after looking a the Danish experience Prof Hughes says one of the problems is that with the best sites already taken, new wind farms have to be built in deeper and deeper water. Deeper water means higher construction and operating costs. Another problem is the offshore wind industry's use of the gigantic 2+ MW turbines, as opposed to the smaller turbines typically used onshore. The smaller turbines are far more reliable. He says:" nearly 60% of offshore turbines will experience an equipment failure in the first five years of operation." Also the risk of failure increases sharply after 10 years of operation, although the Danish experience shows that this can vary greatly with location. In addition turbine performance declines rapidly..

Although existing wind farms may survive, all this means that instead of the government's assumption of an expected operating life of 20 to 30 years for new offshore wind farms,  most will be lucky to last 20 years and fail to cover operating costs, let alone make any return on capital, after 12 years. Further, if the UK government insists on building a host of new farms, then costs will escalate. The result will be a financial disaster. As with all renewables, a few offshore farms are no bad thing. Its when you try building heaps of them the trouble really starts.. there is a lot more to the report which I urge you to read.   

  

I may be wrong, but this seems to be another case where those who rely solely on big data learn that spreadsheets and simply multiplying results doesn't always work in the world of machines and mother nature.  There are more than a few folks lurking on this website that can tell us the realities of dealing with both the spreadsheet boys and mother nature.

[markslawson + 1,042]

4 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I may be wrong, but this seems to be another case where those who rely solely on big data learn that spreadsheets and simply multiplying results doesn't always work in the world of machines and mother nature.  There are more than a few folks lurking on this website that can tell us the realities of dealing with both the spreadsheet boys and mother nature.

I think more a case of making assumptions that no-one questions because the subject is fairly complex. The only people who can challenge those assumptions are the spread-sheet people whose job depends on keeping the client happy. And the client wants offshore wind farms. By the time the excrement hits the fan they'll have another job..  

[NickW + 2,714]

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

I may be wrong, but this seems to be another case where those who rely solely on big data learn that spreadsheets and simply multiplying results doesn't always work in the world of machines and mother nature.  There are more than a few folks lurking on this website that can tell us the realities of dealing with both the spreadsheet boys and mother nature.

Looking at the capacity factors on British offshore wind farms that are up to 17 years old there is no compelling evidence that suggests a big drop off in capacity factors which would be caused by break downs or major wear on the working parts. 

UK offshore wind capacity factors (energynumbers.info)

Look in the right hand column. You can sort the wind farms by age. Some are demo units but most are operational wind farms that have been running, in some cases since 2004. Look at Scroby, Kentish Flats & Hoyle (3 different parts of the UK offshore environment). 

Bigger turbines are easier maintain. The size means you can fit cranes or lifts. Furthermore much like other technology as they mature reliability is improved. 

As for better sites the larger turbines are able to access windier locations which has raised the capacity factors significantly offsetting the longer transmission distances and deeper foundation piles.  

 

[NickW + 2,714]

The area I will agree with Mark is that the UK (and ireland) are going into wind over kill and building way too much to be absorbed by the grid / storage / power to liquid / gas functions.

The Uk with 65 million people is talking about building 40GW (we have 20 already). Ireland with 5 million people is talking about building 40GW which is insane. They won't be able to dump that on the UK grid, have limited pump storage, and are building a small 500MW link to France. 

Were I the UK Energy Minster (not the window licker currently holding that role) , mindful of the fact the UK is mined out of coal, gas production is in decline and we don't want to be reliant on imports I would focus on nuclear. Not some shoddy chinese piece of sh1t but the Rolls Royce SMR* proposals. Rolls Royce have been building decent PWRs for subs for 50 years. Might as well champion a British firm and reinvigorate british engineering. 

*Locate them in areas where the waste heat can be used in horticulture so we are less reliant on Holland and Spain. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by NickW

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Looking at the capacity factors on British offshore wind farms that are up to 17 years old there is no compelling evidence that suggests a big drop off in capacity factors which would be caused by break downs or major wear on the working parts. 

Nick - while your attempt to defend wind power has some interest, you should have read the material more closely .. the author says that existing wind farms by and large will survive. The material you point to is for existing wind farms. Now, sort them by age as you suggest. You will see there is a general decline in capacity factor with age, as the author points out. Major breakdowns in one turbine are easily accommodated within the existing figures.

This statement. Bigger turbines are easier maintain. The size means you can fit cranes or lifts. Furthermore much like other technology as they mature reliability is improved.  That is a statement you made up on the spot. There is considerable evidence from the author's analysis that the opposite is the case, or rather than the switch to the much larger turbines has proved a huge problem. You are, in any case, confusing easy access with reduced costs. The actual problem is that they are being built increasingly far out to sea. The list you present says nothing about maintenance costs.. the big problem.

And, yes, we can certainly agree that the UK has gone too far.. 

[NickW + 2,714]

Just now, markslawson said:

Nick - while your attempt to defend wind power has some interest, you should have read the material more closely .. the author says that existing wind farms by and large will survive. The material you point to is for existing wind farms. Now, sort them by age as you suggest. You will see there is a general decline in capacity factor with age, as the author points out. Major breakdowns in one turbine are easily accommodated within the existing figures.

This statement. Bigger turbines are easier maintain. The size means you can fit cranes or lifts. Furthermore much like other technology as they mature reliability is improved.  That is a statement you made up on the spot. There is considerable evidence from the author's analysis that the opposite is the case, or rather than the switch to the much larger turbines has proved a huge problem. You are, in any case, confusing easy access with reduced costs. The actual problem is that they are being built increasingly far out to sea. The list you present says nothing about maintenance costs.. the big problem.

And, yes, we can certainly agree that the UK has gone too far.. 

Nope. 

The older farms are built with much smaller turbines and are close in shore. There location in part was driven by shallow locations. 

New farms are built with much bigger turbines and further offshore hence the higher capacity factors. 

If you were correct you would see declines as the farms get older - that is not apparent. The capacity factors plateau over their lifetimes allowing for some interseasonal variation. 

 

[hemanthaa@mail.com + 64]

It's a known fact; there are days with no significant winds. Then what?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, hemanthaa@mail.com said:

It's a known fact; there are days with no significant winds. Then what?

Nobody seems to know, but that's okay:

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

The list you present says nothing about maintenance costs.. the big problem.

Actually maintenance costs on a pr MW basis is decreasing. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, hemanthaa@mail.com said:

It's a known fact; there are days with no significant winds. Then what?

In individual locations yes. 

If you have sufficient interconnections over a wider area then you can start giving the wind fleet a small baseload contribution over that network. In Europe wind is now assumed to have a baseload effect of 5% of total capacity. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

15 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

Actually maintenance costs on a pr MW basis is decreasing. 

Rasmus - the report presents graphs and evidence that the opposite is happening, at least for offshore wind. Please do not make assertions - that is, don't make things up. The one excuse you may have is that you may be looking at onshore wind, which deal in smaller, more liable turbines. Remember we're talking about offshore.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

12 hours ago, NickW said:

n individual locations yes. 

If you have sufficient interconnections over a wider area then you can start giving the wind fleet a small baseload contribution over that network. In Europe wind is now assumed to have a baseload effect of 5% of total capacity.

Never heard of that one. The baseload capacity is very small so it would not surprise me - the old story about wind being made reliable by spreading out the wind farms has long been show to be wrong but there might well b e a residual effect .. so do you have a source on that. I'd be quite interest to look at it.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

23 hours ago, NickW said:

Nope. 

The older farms are built with much smaller turbines and are close in shore. There location in part was driven by shallow locations. 

New farms are built with much bigger turbines and further offshore hence the higher capacity factors. 

If you were correct you would see declines as the farms get older - that is not apparent. The capacity factors plateau over their lifetimes allowing for some interseasonal variation. 

Nick - again you've become thoroughly confused. You think I'm saying this. the author is a professor of economics who specialises in such stuff who has done considerable analysis, looking at the audited accounts which would give a somewhat different picture to the PR stuff you can see. You've looked at one list - a list which, as I pointed out, is not relevant - and decided you know better. On top of that you keep on inventing material this "new farms are built with much bigger turbines". No they were not. Nor were they, as a rule, built further out.. there is a general tendency to do so but you have to sit down and analyse the figures. The professor notes that existing wind farms probably won't get into trouble but the trends he can see indicate huge problems in the future. I would add a great deal more but I suspect that it would simply fall on deaf ears, or incite more of these ridiculous responses. I urge you to read the report, including the section of  balancing costs which I don't fully understand myself. I won't reply to any more of these ridiculous and, it must be said, feeble attempts to explain away the report. Leave it with you.   

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,129]

On 2/16/2021 at 4:16 AM, NickW said:

Looking at the capacity factors on British offshore wind farms that are up to 17 years old there is no compelling evidence that suggests a big drop off in capacity factors which would be caused by break downs or major wear on the working parts. 

UK offshore wind capacity factors (energynumbers.info)

 

WTH!  Open your eyes... They are all decreasing with age.  The one possible exception is the one you pointed out... Clearly it is bunk data point and must have add turbines added along the way when all the others of same age start high and are decreasing. 

[NickW + 2,714]

2 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

WTH!  Open your eyes... They are all decreasing with age.  The one possible exception is the one you pointed out... Clearly it is bunk data point and must have add turbines added along the way when all the others of same age start high and are decreasing. 

Perhaps you should take a trip to specsavers? A large sample below that all look pretty pleateauy to me. Scroby and North Hoyle are 16 -17 years old. Putting aside a few of the demo farms the only one which appears to have a noticeable decline is Thames Array. 

If the farm is extended then it has the same name with 2 added. - Look at Burbo and Walney. 

[NickW + 2,714]

11 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - again you've become thoroughly confused. You think I'm saying this. the author is a professor of economics who specialises in such stuff who has done considerable analysis, looking at the audited accounts which would give a somewhat different picture to the PR stuff you can see. You've looked at one list - a list which, as I pointed out, is not relevant - and decided you know better. On top of that you keep on inventing material this "new farms are built with much bigger turbines". No they were not. Nor were they, as a rule, built further out.. there is a general tendency to do so but you have to sit down and analyse the figures. The professor notes that existing wind farms probably won't get into trouble but the trends he can see indicate huge problems in the future. I would add a great deal more but I suspect that it would simply fall on deaf ears, or incite more of these ridiculous responses. I urge you to read the report, including the section of  balancing costs which I don't fully understand myself. I won't reply to any more of these ridiculous and, it must be said, feeble attempts to explain away the report. Leave it with you.   

I recall you are a journalist. Is this indicative of the rubbish you write day in day out? We had the same issue over embodiment of water and its effect on sea level. 

List of offshore wind farms in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia

Last 10 commissioned farms built with 6-8MW turbines. One exception was Rampion which was built with 3.45MW 

First 10 commissioned - 9 out of 10 2-3.6 MW. Beatrice a 2 turbine demo was built with 5 MW turbines. 

Distances are a bit more variable but if you look at more recent developments they are going well offshore

 

Hywind 23km 

Beatrice 23km

Hornsea 1 - 120km

Hornsea 2 (2022)

Triton Knoll 33km (2021)

[NickW + 2,714]

17 hours ago, markslawson said:

Nick - again you've become thoroughly confused. You think I'm saying this. the author is a professor of economics who specialises in such stuff who has done considerable analysis, looking at the audited accounts which would give a somewhat different picture to the PR stuff you can see. You've looked at one list - a list which, as I pointed out, is not relevant - and decided you know better. On top of that you keep on inventing material this "new farms are built with much bigger turbines". No they were not. Nor were they, as a rule, built further out.. there is a general tendency to do so but you have to sit down and analyse the figures. The professor notes that existing wind farms probably won't get into trouble but the trends he can see indicate huge problems in the future. I would add a great deal more but I suspect that it would simply fall on deaf ears, or incite more of these ridiculous responses. I urge you to read the report, including the section of  balancing costs which I don't fully understand myself. I won't reply to any more of these ridiculous and, it must be said, feeble attempts to explain away the report. Leave it with you.   

As I'm bored and run out of work for  today I thought I would put this together which a sequential plot of offshore turbine size in the UK over time from 2003 to the last 4 which are currently being built. 

Just to clarify the x Axis is turbine size in MW

The Y axis is a sequential plot of wind farms starting with the earliest to the last 4 which are currently being built. 

And you are telling me there hasn't been a trend to build offshore wind farms with bigger turbines? 😀

  

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by NickW

[Coffeeguyzz + 454]

Mr. Slawson

That was an absolutely fascinating report that you linked and I thank you for posting it.

 

Some observations relating to offshore wind farm operational 'issues' ...

The 4 biggest problem areas have involved -

1. Gearbox/bearing breakdowns. Primarily lubrication and load stress factors.

As newer projects use almost exclusively direct drive, these earlier problems have been eliminated, but the capex has increased.

2. Turbine blade edge (leading) degradation and/or deformation. As the tips of newer, larger turbines travel at speeds approaching 200 mph, contact with ice chrystals, salt, any solid object affects these lightweight, highly engineered components.

Newer coatings and other methods continue to evolve to address this chronic problem.

3. The early grout issues at the Transition Piece/Base interface were/are horrendous, but newer designs seem to have resolved these challenges.

4. Cable connection problems. A biggie and directly related to the huge opex cost in deeper waters.

The bottom continuously shifts and this puts enormous stress on the cable/base connections.

(BOTH of the Block Island cables are currently being replaced!)

Once divers are employed and work in depths of 100 feet/130 feet and deeper, enormous expenses are incurred. These primarily - but  not exclusively - involve air/gas breathing mixtures and decompression protocols. While the offshore oil/gas industry has successfully addressed this for decades, it all comes at significant cost.

(Use of ROVs  may make sense, but they ain't cheap either).

 

What should be of utmost importance to everyone interested in this industry ...  this is still relatively new 'stuff' and emerging problems continue to arise. The latest example might be the unexpectedly high corrosion rate of the bases  that is now being observed.

 

The author's figures of current UK cost of electricity being £35/Mwh and projected opex of £125/Mwh for 12 year old deepwater offshore projects are very sobering  indeed.

 

As an aside regarding the increasingly touted floating turbines ...

Hywind uses spar buoys with a draught of ~240 feet. That is almost 5 times deeper than most every port in the world.

Likewise, the freeboard clearance of the Hywind column and turbines is over 300 feet, which far exceeds most bridge crossings at harbor mouths. These issues may well be addressed. They are using  semi platforms for a test project off Portugal, but the costs and resources involved in these efforts are wildly misdirected, IMHO. 

 

 

 

 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

4 hours ago, Coffeeguyzz said:

The bottom continuously shifts and this puts enormous stress on the cable/base connections.

This has been, and will continue to be, a major problem and will almost certainly render this format unreliable. 

The earth is constantly undergoing construction and degradation. What was an orogeny yesterday is a sedimentary heap today. 

The ocean floor is particularly unstable, especially as tidal shifts become more extreme. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

As I'm bored and run out of work for  today I thought I would put this together which a sequential plot of offshore turbine size in the UK over time from 2003 to the last 4 which are currently being built. 

Nick - I ducked back in to see if you answered my 5 per cent question. I see that you didn't so I suspect that's another piece of information you invented. As for your attempt to disprove the turbine size thing, your graphs relate to wind farms in general, not offshore wind.. now go and look at the turbine size for the first wind farms that are still in operation (not the test ones). You'll see they started with the big turbines.. Now go and look at the graphs on capacity for offshore farms you produce. They seem low for offshore wind but, although they start out reasonably steady, they are beginning to show what the professor was saying - a general decline after the first few years. If you look closer you'll see the weakness. Admittedly one graph doesn't show it, and careful analysis would be required. That was the problem the professor noted.. The government figures assume the reverse will be the case, among other issues. I recommend you make an effort to look at his extensive analysis, including two lengthy reports on both UK and Danish wind farms. I see also you're starting to become abusive. I take that as a sign of desperation, having been caught out inventing material several times. If you lose the argument it is best to do so graciously, or simply not respond.  You may find other sites less upsetting.. 

[NickW + 2,714]

5 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Nick - I ducked back in to see if you answered my 5 per cent question. I see that you didn't so I suspect that's another piece of information you invented. As for your attempt to disprove the turbine size thing, your graphs relate to wind farms in general, not offshore wind.. now go and look at the turbine size for the first wind farms that are still in operation (not the test ones). You'll see they started with the big turbines.. Now go and look at the graphs on capacity for offshore farms you produce. They seem low for offshore wind but, although they start out reasonably steady, they are beginning to show what the professor was saying - a general decline after the first few years. If you look closer you'll see the weakness. Admittedly one graph doesn't show it, and careful analysis would be required. That was the problem the professor noted.. The government figures assume the reverse will be the case, among other issues. I recommend you make an effort to look at his extensive analysis, including two lengthy reports on both UK and Danish wind farms. I see also you're starting to become abusive. I take that as a sign of desperation, having been caught out inventing material several times. If you lose the argument it is best to do so graciously, or simply not respond.  You may find other sites less upsetting.. 

I read his analysis. He seems to conflate onshore and offshore issues. One statement that is clearly false is that its not worth running the turbines after the CfD has expired. This is nonsense . There are hundreds of small older turbines operating around the UK that were built in the 1990's with expired CFD's Some have even been transplanted from one site to another - usually industrial sites. 

If they cost more to maintain than they produced they would be on the scrap heap. The reality is these smaller turbine pay for themselves with a small to moderate operating profit. I know someone with two  turbines  on their land built in the late 1990s and the operators have said they will be their for at least another 10 years. 

Given that BP. Shell, Total, ENI Equinor etc are all piling into wind I am fairly certain they beleive there is money to be made and have done their due dilligence. Will be interesting to see who wins the CFD bids with the lowest quotes. 

 

I haven't lost any argument - you appear to live in an alternate reality world - the graph I posted in response to one of your comments clearly demonstrates this. 

 

[NickW + 2,714]

31 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Nick - I ducked back in to see if you answered my 5 per cent question. I see that you didn't so I suspect that's another piece of information you invented. As for your attempt to disprove the turbine size thing, your graphs relate to wind farms in general, not offshore wind.. now go and look at the turbine size for the first wind farms that are still in operation (not the test ones). You'll see they started with the big turbines.. Now go and look at the graphs on capacity for offshore farms you produce. They seem low for offshore wind but, although they start out reasonably steady, they are beginning to show what the professor was saying - a general decline after the first few years. If you look closer you'll see the weakness. Admittedly one graph doesn't show it, and careful analysis would be required. That was the problem the professor noted.. The government figures assume the reverse will be the case, among other issues. I recommend you make an effort to look at his extensive analysis, including two lengthy reports on both UK and Danish wind farms. I see also you're starting to become abusive. I take that as a sign of desperation, having been caught out inventing material several times. If you lose the argument it is best to do so graciously, or simply not respond.  You may find other sites less upsetting.. 

A sequential plot of capacity factors from oldest to newest farm . Trend line added 

X Axis Capacity factor (%)

Y Axis sequential plot of fully commissioned offshore wind farms

 

 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Why so uncivil?

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

23 hours ago, NickW said:

A sequential plot of capacity factors from oldest to newest farm . Trend line added 

X Axis Capacity factor (%)

Y Axis sequential plot of fully commissioned offshore wind farms

How did they raise capacity factor?