Thank you for this. For me, it’s always been a hard question when someone asks “how long does a wind turbine last?” I usually say that they’re designed for twenty years but often basically replaced after ten. Then the next question is “why?” And then we leave the engineering constraints and go full on to the policy choices. I’m annoyed and so is the person who asked the question.
Thanks for this article. I plan to cite it frequently.
The power industry lobbyists knew about this possibility when they sold the programs to the politicians. Sadly, this is but another example of corporate political contributions being more meaningful than a hard nosed analysis of what the politicians are approving.
Regardless of one’s views on alternative energy, this is an interesting article about how well-intentioned government regulation creates unintended (or, more cynically, intended) consequences that not only fails to achieve its objectives but creates perverse financial incentives (often for a select few) through subsidies. While focused on alternative energy this story could be adapted to many different areas of Federal regulation. Though imperfect, provided they are fair, markets will always be more efficient and effective than a system of government-led outcomes.
You do a great job of pointing out what incentivizes follies in financing absurd energy projects, that it is all being done to pander inane political energy policies. Of course ignorance in politics often is really a deliberate deceptional coverup for profiteering and vote harvesting.
The entire 'cost plus' aspect of pricing utility charge is rife with abuse ... inflate the cost and one earns a greater profit.
As well, wind company are thus able to avoid accurate accounting practices of pricing capitol cost, maintenance cost and operating costs as separate factor in making a business profitable. As you say, they fail to build adequate transmission capacity to deliver the electricity to the customer. As well if it takes a 300 ton capacity crane to install the gear box, it's going to take a 300 ton crane to replace it.
Realistically thought, a free market system would end the argument and solve the problem. It would also eliminate the need for this blog ... and this post... and any discussion about silly solutions to a non essential problem. The climate people would be even more angry than they are now, should free market forces ever be considered.
Feb 18·edited Feb 18Liked by Isaac Orr, Mitch Rolling
This article has a lot of useful information. Some of the Wyoming wind plants installed in 2011-2012 are being repowered now. We went through a contentious general rate case last year here (+29% total in two filings), and the utility involved wasn't really square with the rate payers. Word was percolating around the state that wind power was the underlying cause of the rate increase. The utility countered that it was actually the increasing cost of coal and natural gas -- 95% of the increase they claimed. However, the rate increase used a future test year; so, it wasn't actually cost increases but rather projected future net power costs modelled with AURORA. Thus it was the result of input to their model. And the bulk of rate increase was actually revenues needed to reach 10.3% return on equity capital.
In regard to Public Utility (Service) Commissions, I have learned to lower my expectations. In a hearing for a certificate of necessity and public convenience for a new wind plant late last January, I did my best to explain how nameplate rating means nothing other than what the facility costs, but that output might average 1/3 of nameplate year-round but is quite frequently zero. The utility even admitted that the plant would only provide 10-20% of nameplate when the power was really most needed. They got the certificate anyway and soon the capital cost of this plant will become part of a rate case in which the new rates are needed becuse of coal and natural gas. Rinse and repeat as long as it works.
First - I love the song - takes me back! Then I love your comment about the PUC protecting rate payers... I'm really not sure (and I only have Texas to go by) that the commissioners really understand much about wind and solar or how it should all work (not that I am an expert myself either) but they seem to be lacking in knowledge and baffled by the bs of the solar and wind companies, or maybe it is the "we have to do this no matter what". But then again I have heard them say that they are excited about batteries - they will help save us! AT WHAT COST?
It seems like the rubber stamp is much overused and any semblance of a plan has taken flight to another planet! The renewables companies are like spoiled children and act accordingly doing as they please!
Thank you for the cogent and explanatory piece of writing. Warren Buffett wouldn't be in wind were it not for the subsidies, he has said as much. Energy conglomerates began their raiding of utilities in the 90's in California and waged their dirty war to take them over from state taxpayers from that point onward. Biden's band of merry jackasses' quixotic plan to replace constant electricity with a mishmash of poorly thought out and clearly environmentally damaging alternatives plays nicely into their hands. Combined with ludicrous subsidies to stack the deck, ratepayers and every taxpaying American citizen are left holding the bag.
One hopeful note within the article is the fact of the farm in question producing very close to its expected generation. That is something that I rarely read of and at least is a bright spot in the otherwise idiotic pursuit of "green" energy which is not green at all. It would be interesting to see data on average wind farm yield across a full 25 year timeline including repowering and maintenance costs (and service notations).
The only reason there are wind turbines being built is because they are supposedly the produce "clean" energy so as to avoid climate catastrophe. If there wasn't climate change hysteria along huge tax-payer subsidies, there would be no wind turbines.
When i say a free market would solve the problem, I don't mean just a free market in only electrical power. I say dismantle the regulatory state and watch growth explode. Free people solve problems. Paid bureaucrats create them.
Power utilities used to be regulated vertically integrated monopolies -- generation, transmission, distribution. Then politicians got a "deregulate" wasp up their collective ass, broke them up, and didn't deregulate -- they just changed the regulatory structure. Transmission is now done in most places by a "nonprofit public interest corporation," that is, in effect, a state agency such as CISO in California, MISO in the midwest, and ERCOT in Texas.
Generators are supposed to "compete" to minimize citizens' electricity costs. But how can it be called "competition" if some of the competitors are subsidized by the government (kind of like men competing in women's sports)? And with transmission now owned and operated separately from generation, solar and wind scammers don't pay for it -- they demand that the transmission operator -- the state and taxpayers -- build infrastructure for them to get their alleged product from behind the back of nowhere to customers.
Thank you for this. For me, it’s always been a hard question when someone asks “how long does a wind turbine last?” I usually say that they’re designed for twenty years but often basically replaced after ten. Then the next question is “why?” And then we leave the engineering constraints and go full on to the policy choices. I’m annoyed and so is the person who asked the question.
Thanks for this article. I plan to cite it frequently.
This is an example of what happens when ideological politics and technical unawareness overwhelms a states electrical generation decisions.
The power industry lobbyists knew about this possibility when they sold the programs to the politicians. Sadly, this is but another example of corporate political contributions being more meaningful than a hard nosed analysis of what the politicians are approving.
Regardless of one’s views on alternative energy, this is an interesting article about how well-intentioned government regulation creates unintended (or, more cynically, intended) consequences that not only fails to achieve its objectives but creates perverse financial incentives (often for a select few) through subsidies. While focused on alternative energy this story could be adapted to many different areas of Federal regulation. Though imperfect, provided they are fair, markets will always be more efficient and effective than a system of government-led outcomes.
You do a great job of pointing out what incentivizes follies in financing absurd energy projects, that it is all being done to pander inane political energy policies. Of course ignorance in politics often is really a deliberate deceptional coverup for profiteering and vote harvesting.
The entire 'cost plus' aspect of pricing utility charge is rife with abuse ... inflate the cost and one earns a greater profit.
As well, wind company are thus able to avoid accurate accounting practices of pricing capitol cost, maintenance cost and operating costs as separate factor in making a business profitable. As you say, they fail to build adequate transmission capacity to deliver the electricity to the customer. As well if it takes a 300 ton capacity crane to install the gear box, it's going to take a 300 ton crane to replace it.
Realistically thought, a free market system would end the argument and solve the problem. It would also eliminate the need for this blog ... and this post... and any discussion about silly solutions to a non essential problem. The climate people would be even more angry than they are now, should free market forces ever be considered.
Nice work on this one 👍
This article has a lot of useful information. Some of the Wyoming wind plants installed in 2011-2012 are being repowered now. We went through a contentious general rate case last year here (+29% total in two filings), and the utility involved wasn't really square with the rate payers. Word was percolating around the state that wind power was the underlying cause of the rate increase. The utility countered that it was actually the increasing cost of coal and natural gas -- 95% of the increase they claimed. However, the rate increase used a future test year; so, it wasn't actually cost increases but rather projected future net power costs modelled with AURORA. Thus it was the result of input to their model. And the bulk of rate increase was actually revenues needed to reach 10.3% return on equity capital.
In regard to Public Utility (Service) Commissions, I have learned to lower my expectations. In a hearing for a certificate of necessity and public convenience for a new wind plant late last January, I did my best to explain how nameplate rating means nothing other than what the facility costs, but that output might average 1/3 of nameplate year-round but is quite frequently zero. The utility even admitted that the plant would only provide 10-20% of nameplate when the power was really most needed. They got the certificate anyway and soon the capital cost of this plant will become part of a rate case in which the new rates are needed becuse of coal and natural gas. Rinse and repeat as long as it works.
Very insightful!
First - I love the song - takes me back! Then I love your comment about the PUC protecting rate payers... I'm really not sure (and I only have Texas to go by) that the commissioners really understand much about wind and solar or how it should all work (not that I am an expert myself either) but they seem to be lacking in knowledge and baffled by the bs of the solar and wind companies, or maybe it is the "we have to do this no matter what". But then again I have heard them say that they are excited about batteries - they will help save us! AT WHAT COST?
It seems like the rubber stamp is much overused and any semblance of a plan has taken flight to another planet! The renewables companies are like spoiled children and act accordingly doing as they please!
Thank you for the cogent and explanatory piece of writing. Warren Buffett wouldn't be in wind were it not for the subsidies, he has said as much. Energy conglomerates began their raiding of utilities in the 90's in California and waged their dirty war to take them over from state taxpayers from that point onward. Biden's band of merry jackasses' quixotic plan to replace constant electricity with a mishmash of poorly thought out and clearly environmentally damaging alternatives plays nicely into their hands. Combined with ludicrous subsidies to stack the deck, ratepayers and every taxpaying American citizen are left holding the bag.
One hopeful note within the article is the fact of the farm in question producing very close to its expected generation. That is something that I rarely read of and at least is a bright spot in the otherwise idiotic pursuit of "green" energy which is not green at all. It would be interesting to see data on average wind farm yield across a full 25 year timeline including repowering and maintenance costs (and service notations).
Greentards are gonna 'tard.
Especially when there is a lot of graft to be made.
What's Greta's net worth these days?
The only reason there are wind turbines being built is because they are supposedly the produce "clean" energy so as to avoid climate catastrophe. If there wasn't climate change hysteria along huge tax-payer subsidies, there would be no wind turbines.
Thanks for this research. I always wondered about the maintenance and longevity of these things.
Your data means that internal combustion car engines stay in service longer than wind turbines.
When i say a free market would solve the problem, I don't mean just a free market in only electrical power. I say dismantle the regulatory state and watch growth explode. Free people solve problems. Paid bureaucrats create them.
Power utilities used to be regulated vertically integrated monopolies -- generation, transmission, distribution. Then politicians got a "deregulate" wasp up their collective ass, broke them up, and didn't deregulate -- they just changed the regulatory structure. Transmission is now done in most places by a "nonprofit public interest corporation," that is, in effect, a state agency such as CISO in California, MISO in the midwest, and ERCOT in Texas.
Generators are supposed to "compete" to minimize citizens' electricity costs. But how can it be called "competition" if some of the competitors are subsidized by the government (kind of like men competing in women's sports)? And with transmission now owned and operated separately from generation, solar and wind scammers don't pay for it -- they demand that the transmission operator -- the state and taxpayers -- build infrastructure for them to get their alleged product from behind the back of nowhere to customers.