"In the financial world, it tends to be misleading to state ‘There is no free lunch.’ Rather the more meaningful comment is ‘Somebody has to pay for lunch.’ " - Martin J Whitman
Your articles are always a treat to read. You have a great ability to write a clearly understandable explanation of what can be a complex subject - also done in a logical to follow format. I like that you use something that everyone can relate to (the 737 plane - with picture) to help visualize/contextualize the weight and size comparisons to these wind towers. Bravo for another masterpiece article!
Good one, couple things to add. One the generators are asynchronous, basically squirrel cage motors. We used to just connect them directly to the grid but it caused issues. So now the power goes through a converter/inverter bridge, some fancy electronics. Second, the wind is not free, when we remove energy it has an impact on nature as detailed in another substack.
Now, some one needs to do the "simple math" of what "net-zero" really means should the country kowtow to EPA's defacto renewable (wind and solar) directives. How much steel is needed to build the wind towers? NREL data suggest 110 MT per MW. Peterson (2005) suggests only half of that is needed for gas or nuclear, both of which offer reliable power. NREL suggest the steel needed for a MW of solar can be as much as 3 times greater than that needed for wind.
This begs the question: does the US have sufficient steel production capacity to meet the structural needed of the net-zero directives?
You bring up excellent points. It's all inflationary, yes, there'll be enough steel...if the price is high enough. But it's the cost of renewable energy that goes beyond the direct price for electricity. It's the Greenflation (I forget who coined that term right now). Especially when it's a multiplicative effect: More Renewables means more MW installed because of intermittency. But renewables mean mineral requirements. Both things are magnified by the other.
Well said. I'm a giant fan of John Lee Pettimore's IG. It dovetails nicely with your pieces. If you haven't taken a gander at his feed, I can't recommend enough that you do so. No bloviating just facts.
I did a back-of-the-envelope analysis on steel, looking at replacing the energy consumed by gas, coal, and petroleum in 2022 (79.1 quads). To make that mystical 2050 commitment, you would need 2,400 GWH per day, every day. As a 3 MW turbine produces about 25 MWH per day, that's saying you'd need 288 MW of wind added every day. Using NREL's numbers from your essay and assuming all are on-shore, you'd need to dedicated about 32,000 metric tonnes of steel daily to wind turbines, which is about 15 percent of average US production.
A bite that big in supplies would have a substantial impact on steel prices assuming production capacity remained the same. I am no economist, but it has the earmarks of disaster to school, bridges, and other public works projects.
There is something to be said on that, the amount of human effort per MWhr of renewable energy produced does go up. Is that a good thing? More jobs or lose efficiency?
that's where the power density differences take control. efficiency is gained not in jobs but in allowing for diversification of resources. nuclear frees up steel, copper, land, etc., for other productive uses. my two cents, adjusted for inflation.
But think of all of those jobs that big government proponents trumpet to the masses. What could be better than jobs provided by taxpayer subsidies rather than market forces for build outs that are grossly inefficient and have the opposite effect of what is intended. It would make a commissar swell with pride.
Lovely distillation of a set of problems that (like all of the other fascinating ones that geeenies and the idiot squad in DC happily ignore) make renewables so completely unfit for requirements.
When will this information be incorporated in policy, law, public spending, tax policies, capital markets, mainstream public debate, education and economic teaching ? Help me here!
Hopefully through platforms like Substack! And people like you! But seems an uphill battle, but it helps to be more interested is understanding reality than it is to be worried about the latest political trends.
Great dive into the details on onshore wind farms. Would be very cool to see that same for offshore -- would be multiple times worse.
Don't worry about the needed steel...according to the climate alarmists, green steel is about to conquer the market and take off! It is a typical climate alarmist energy transition plan -- aim for the highest cost, least reliable energy production with either the most expensive supply chain imaginable....or one that is dominated by the PRC. Such a great plan....what can go wrong?
Offshore wind is very new with few projects online in the US so we’re working with preliminary numbers/ estimates for US offshore wind. It’s obvious too but a lot depends on the depth and type of offshore platform. That’s a key driver. But the NREL estimates onshore uses a total of ~ 110 tonnes per MW but offshore is estimated to be around 250 tonnes.
Talk about a rust problem with all that steel and saltwater.
While nuclear is a strong potential if we can build them quickly, solar has similar problems that wind does. In particular, solar is highly seasonal and batteries currently aren’t remotely close to being able to smooth out solar’s seasonality. So, so it’s does work for reliability.
Here’s an article on solar published just recently talking about the when it works and doesn’t:
Wind and solar power tend to substitute one form of negative impact on the natural environment (high land and mineral usage) for another negative impact on the natural environment (carbon emissions). It is not clear that the trade-off is positive, even when you ignore the economic impact.
Thanks for this report. Dollars attached to quantities and weights might be helpful too. I am curious what you have learned about the back end of wind turbine technology, which is to say, how are the parts, blades, etc. disposed of when they require replacement? I am concerned that not much is said on this front, and it is important. I have read, for example, that the blades must be buried in the ground vertically, since they are not biodegradable or recyclable.
I note than Hoover Dam used 25000 kg of concrete per MW of power, not to mention the material used for the generators and transformers. Hydroelectric dams were the first kinds of power stations built because of the available of all that free energy (that requires a lot of materials to build) but over the lifetime of the plant makes the cost per kwh very low.
A second point is the article assumes that using fossil fuels has no negative externalities. Just because we currently don't price these externalities doesn't mean they don't exist. After all we did not price in the externalities of discharging waste into the environment until we finally faced up to the problems posed by cholera and other waterborne pathogens and the threat to health posed by organic contaminants in ground and surface waters (e.g. Love Canal).
How is what is being argued here any different that the surgeons who went straight from the autopsy room to the deliver babies without even washing their hands despite the entreaties of Lister and others, or neglecting the unnecessary expense of waste treatment at chemical plants?
While externalities are a common go to argument, the topic was the real world material costs for to access ‘free’ wind energy.
Externalities go both ways. Yes, directly line of sight negative impacts should be considered and mitigated: but direct line of sight positive impacts need to be considered as well.
Externalities are very relative too, depending on if you have power or not. Living in a blackout or in a place without reliable power, and the highest priority on most everyone’s mind is to get power, now.
The @energybadboys recently posted on the topic of externalities
But the article is silly. If CO2 is not a problem, gas is obviously the best, because (1) its energy dense (2) it can be transported by pipelines which already exist, (3) we have a lot of it (4) gas turbines are both efficient and cheap.
But the whole reason different sources of electrical energy are being discussed at all is because CO2 IS a problem. So, it is useless to pretend it’s not, as the analysis did.
A useful analysis would be to compare wind+batteries or solar+batteries to nuclear in terms of materials. Here none of them have the externality issue, and by adding batteries you eliminate the intermittent problem (by adding a lot of materials).
Despite what you and (many climate alarmists) believe, the risk of CO2 is not fully understood and likely overblown. Even the IPCC reports don't claim to say what the apocalyptic believers say (read Roger Pielke, Jr...or just read the IPCC reports). If you have a more moderated view on elevated CO2 levels, then other externalities like those highlighted above gain greater importance. If you think the world will end because of elevated CO2, then this article may seem silly to you. But I think reality is on a much different path than that.
There are also the negative externalities of the need for greater and greater amounts of mined minerals for "clean" energy line wind, solar, and batteries. The environmental impacts of related production is not minimal, especially in the countries where we currently get them from.
And of course, an unreliable and non-resilent power grid in the 21st century should be of paramount concern to everyone, as the author has highlighted.
It is silly because gas is *obviously* more economical than nuclear, coal, wind + batteries or solar + batteries. It says nothing useful.
You say is CO2 is truly a big problem then we should go with nuclear. If nukes are such a great idea, why did utilities cancel plans for hundreds of plants in the mid-1970's, BEFORE Three Mile Island? The reason was rising interest rates made capital intensive nuclear plants more expensive than coal.
But wind is also capital intensive. So, a comparison between nuclear and wind would be very interesting.
Solar is the most interesting. Back in the eighties when I was working on biofuel research, if someone said photovoltaics will become a candidate for electricity generation I would have wondered where they got the drugs. What has happened with PV is incredible. That said, rooftop solar is the wrong way to go, I've never liked it because it is regressive and anti-urban. You've got rich suburbanites who buy subsided solar for their homes and enjoy lower bills, while they use the grid as batteries, thus boosting the cost for those who are not rich or who live in dense areas. One guy I know was showing off his solar setup at a party. He is a Ph.D. scientist, a Trump voter who doesn't believe in global warming, but he loves his solar! It IS a very cool technology.
But utility-scale solar is an entirely different thing. Particularly when you stop thinking about it just as a power plant, but also as a chemical plant input. But this of course assumes that simply using natural gas for both things is problematic from CO2 emission standpoint.
Your articles are always a treat to read. You have a great ability to write a clearly understandable explanation of what can be a complex subject - also done in a logical to follow format. I like that you use something that everyone can relate to (the 737 plane - with picture) to help visualize/contextualize the weight and size comparisons to these wind towers. Bravo for another masterpiece article!
Thank you for your support and kind words. Yes, having spent so much time on them it sort of just fell into place.
Good one, couple things to add. One the generators are asynchronous, basically squirrel cage motors. We used to just connect them directly to the grid but it caused issues. So now the power goes through a converter/inverter bridge, some fancy electronics. Second, the wind is not free, when we remove energy it has an impact on nature as detailed in another substack.
Amen! Nothing is free! And you make excellent points about the inverters!
https://open.substack.com/pub/tucoschild/p/redux-wind-turbines-cause-local-and-d06?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=23kggy
Yes @Tuco’s Childs newsletter was a good read!
Tremendous article! Thanks. I recommended it to my subscribers.
Much appreciated!
Thank you very much. Good essay.
Now, some one needs to do the "simple math" of what "net-zero" really means should the country kowtow to EPA's defacto renewable (wind and solar) directives. How much steel is needed to build the wind towers? NREL data suggest 110 MT per MW. Peterson (2005) suggests only half of that is needed for gas or nuclear, both of which offer reliable power. NREL suggest the steel needed for a MW of solar can be as much as 3 times greater than that needed for wind.
This begs the question: does the US have sufficient steel production capacity to meet the structural needed of the net-zero directives?
Thanks again for the essay. Great stuff!
You bring up excellent points. It's all inflationary, yes, there'll be enough steel...if the price is high enough. But it's the cost of renewable energy that goes beyond the direct price for electricity. It's the Greenflation (I forget who coined that term right now). Especially when it's a multiplicative effect: More Renewables means more MW installed because of intermittency. But renewables mean mineral requirements. Both things are magnified by the other.
Well said. I'm a giant fan of John Lee Pettimore's IG. It dovetails nicely with your pieces. If you haven't taken a gander at his feed, I can't recommend enough that you do so. No bloviating just facts.
I did a back-of-the-envelope analysis on steel, looking at replacing the energy consumed by gas, coal, and petroleum in 2022 (79.1 quads). To make that mystical 2050 commitment, you would need 2,400 GWH per day, every day. As a 3 MW turbine produces about 25 MWH per day, that's saying you'd need 288 MW of wind added every day. Using NREL's numbers from your essay and assuming all are on-shore, you'd need to dedicated about 32,000 metric tonnes of steel daily to wind turbines, which is about 15 percent of average US production.
A bite that big in supplies would have a substantial impact on steel prices assuming production capacity remained the same. I am no economist, but it has the earmarks of disaster to school, bridges, and other public works projects.
It would be a massive chuck of steel production!
who knows....maybe this is where the administration invents all of their "new jobs" numbers for renewable energy.
Thank you for the conversation, and please keep up the great work!
There is something to be said on that, the amount of human effort per MWhr of renewable energy produced does go up. Is that a good thing? More jobs or lose efficiency?
that's where the power density differences take control. efficiency is gained not in jobs but in allowing for diversification of resources. nuclear frees up steel, copper, land, etc., for other productive uses. my two cents, adjusted for inflation.
But think of all of those jobs that big government proponents trumpet to the masses. What could be better than jobs provided by taxpayer subsidies rather than market forces for build outs that are grossly inefficient and have the opposite effect of what is intended. It would make a commissar swell with pride.
Engaging and educational, keep up the great work!
Thank you!
Lovely distillation of a set of problems that (like all of the other fascinating ones that geeenies and the idiot squad in DC happily ignore) make renewables so completely unfit for requirements.
Thank you! Yes, its totally unfit for a reliable grid
When will this information be incorporated in policy, law, public spending, tax policies, capital markets, mainstream public debate, education and economic teaching ? Help me here!
Hopefully through platforms like Substack! And people like you! But seems an uphill battle, but it helps to be more interested is understanding reality than it is to be worried about the latest political trends.
Great dive into the details on onshore wind farms. Would be very cool to see that same for offshore -- would be multiple times worse.
Don't worry about the needed steel...according to the climate alarmists, green steel is about to conquer the market and take off! It is a typical climate alarmist energy transition plan -- aim for the highest cost, least reliable energy production with either the most expensive supply chain imaginable....or one that is dominated by the PRC. Such a great plan....what can go wrong?
Thank you!
Offshore wind is very new with few projects online in the US so we’re working with preliminary numbers/ estimates for US offshore wind. It’s obvious too but a lot depends on the depth and type of offshore platform. That’s a key driver. But the NREL estimates onshore uses a total of ~ 110 tonnes per MW but offshore is estimated to be around 250 tonnes.
Talk about a rust problem with all that steel and saltwater.
And offshore usually uses far less concrete.
You make excellent points!
Offshore wind relies on a lot more steel and zinc for coating, but very little concrete ( typically).
To be fair, natural gas pipelines use a heck of a lot of steel.
True, but then we need to compensate for the distance of transmission lines for wind in remote places whereas gas is often located close to towns.
But steel is incredibly common. Copper use and rare earths are much more challenging and where the pinch is.
That's why nuclear and solar are the way to go.
While nuclear is a strong potential if we can build them quickly, solar has similar problems that wind does. In particular, solar is highly seasonal and batteries currently aren’t remotely close to being able to smooth out solar’s seasonality. So, so it’s does work for reliability.
Here’s an article on solar published just recently talking about the when it works and doesn’t:
https://penguinempirereports.substack.com/p/does-alaskas-solar-make-sense?r=2og74c
Wind and solar power tend to substitute one form of negative impact on the natural environment (high land and mineral usage) for another negative impact on the natural environment (carbon emissions). It is not clear that the trade-off is positive, even when you ignore the economic impact.
Wind has become winded.
Fantastic article. Doomberg should be ashamed that they didn’t think to write this.
Thank you for your support! Doombergs fantastic articles were the inspiration to start writing! Glad you enjoyed the article
Thanks for this report. Dollars attached to quantities and weights might be helpful too. I am curious what you have learned about the back end of wind turbine technology, which is to say, how are the parts, blades, etc. disposed of when they require replacement? I am concerned that not much is said on this front, and it is important. I have read, for example, that the blades must be buried in the ground vertically, since they are not biodegradable or recyclable.
I note than Hoover Dam used 25000 kg of concrete per MW of power, not to mention the material used for the generators and transformers. Hydroelectric dams were the first kinds of power stations built because of the available of all that free energy (that requires a lot of materials to build) but over the lifetime of the plant makes the cost per kwh very low.
A second point is the article assumes that using fossil fuels has no negative externalities. Just because we currently don't price these externalities doesn't mean they don't exist. After all we did not price in the externalities of discharging waste into the environment until we finally faced up to the problems posed by cholera and other waterborne pathogens and the threat to health posed by organic contaminants in ground and surface waters (e.g. Love Canal).
How is what is being argued here any different that the surgeons who went straight from the autopsy room to the deliver babies without even washing their hands despite the entreaties of Lister and others, or neglecting the unnecessary expense of waste treatment at chemical plants?
While externalities are a common go to argument, the topic was the real world material costs for to access ‘free’ wind energy.
Externalities go both ways. Yes, directly line of sight negative impacts should be considered and mitigated: but direct line of sight positive impacts need to be considered as well.
Externalities are very relative too, depending on if you have power or not. Living in a blackout or in a place without reliable power, and the highest priority on most everyone’s mind is to get power, now.
The @energybadboys recently posted on the topic of externalities
https://open.substack.com/pub/energybadboys/p/the-levelized-cost-of-blackouts?r=2og74c&utm_medium=ios
But the article is silly. If CO2 is not a problem, gas is obviously the best, because (1) its energy dense (2) it can be transported by pipelines which already exist, (3) we have a lot of it (4) gas turbines are both efficient and cheap.
But the whole reason different sources of electrical energy are being discussed at all is because CO2 IS a problem. So, it is useless to pretend it’s not, as the analysis did.
A useful analysis would be to compare wind+batteries or solar+batteries to nuclear in terms of materials. Here none of them have the externality issue, and by adding batteries you eliminate the intermittent problem (by adding a lot of materials).
And if CO2 is a potentially world ending problem then I hope you are all in on nuclear power. Otherwise all is lost...
The wind/solar + batteries argument is not realistic with current technology. There is no sizeable market where they is economically feasible.
☝️☝️Spot on.
Despite what you and (many climate alarmists) believe, the risk of CO2 is not fully understood and likely overblown. Even the IPCC reports don't claim to say what the apocalyptic believers say (read Roger Pielke, Jr...or just read the IPCC reports). If you have a more moderated view on elevated CO2 levels, then other externalities like those highlighted above gain greater importance. If you think the world will end because of elevated CO2, then this article may seem silly to you. But I think reality is on a much different path than that.
There are also the negative externalities of the need for greater and greater amounts of mined minerals for "clean" energy line wind, solar, and batteries. The environmental impacts of related production is not minimal, especially in the countries where we currently get them from.
And of course, an unreliable and non-resilent power grid in the 21st century should be of paramount concern to everyone, as the author has highlighted.
It is silly because gas is *obviously* more economical than nuclear, coal, wind + batteries or solar + batteries. It says nothing useful.
You say is CO2 is truly a big problem then we should go with nuclear. If nukes are such a great idea, why did utilities cancel plans for hundreds of plants in the mid-1970's, BEFORE Three Mile Island? The reason was rising interest rates made capital intensive nuclear plants more expensive than coal.
But wind is also capital intensive. So, a comparison between nuclear and wind would be very interesting.
Solar is the most interesting. Back in the eighties when I was working on biofuel research, if someone said photovoltaics will become a candidate for electricity generation I would have wondered where they got the drugs. What has happened with PV is incredible. That said, rooftop solar is the wrong way to go, I've never liked it because it is regressive and anti-urban. You've got rich suburbanites who buy subsided solar for their homes and enjoy lower bills, while they use the grid as batteries, thus boosting the cost for those who are not rich or who live in dense areas. One guy I know was showing off his solar setup at a party. He is a Ph.D. scientist, a Trump voter who doesn't believe in global warming, but he loves his solar! It IS a very cool technology.
But utility-scale solar is an entirely different thing. Particularly when you stop thinking about it just as a power plant, but also as a chemical plant input. But this of course assumes that simply using natural gas for both things is problematic from CO2 emission standpoint.