Spain to dismantle over 30% of wind turbines in next 5 years

[SubieRubyRoo]

Similar in topic to @Overkill’s previous thread on repowering, but it appears they recognized the futility and had enough.

1/3 of wind turbines in Spain to be dismantled within five years

The challenging aspect of the disposal will be the fiberglass blades of the turbines, which only a few landfills accept.

tvpworld.com

 

[BHopkins]

The article says that the wind turbines are being replaced because they are reaching their end of life - not because Spain is disenchanted with them. In fact, it even mentions that the obsoleted wind turbines will be replaced with new ones that, with newer technology, will be more efficient, allowing for fewer to need to be installed.

 

[OVERKILL]

The article says that the wind turbines are being replaced because they are reaching their end of life - not because Spain is disenchanted with them. In fact, it even mentions that the obsoleted wind turbines will be replaced with new ones that, with newer technology, will be more efficient, allowing for fewer to need to be installed.

It's not quite that clear in the language.

I think you are referring to this bit:

Industry experts suggest that the future lies in replacing old systems with new and more efficient ones. With fewer wind turbines, the same or more energy can be produced, reducing environmental costs, as highlighted by the Ministry of Ecological Transition in Madrid.

Suggesting there's a future in replacing the old turbines with newer ones, on new bases, isn't the same as saying this is what is actually happening.

What the article does state is that there are about 7,500 wind turbines that will need to be dismantled, transported, and their materials dealt with, which poses some logistical issues.

With the European wind industry in dire straights thanks to competition from China, it will be interesting to see what happens to these former sites once the decommissioning is complete.

 

[Fredxt]

"One 2019 study from engineers at the University of Texas at Arlington factored in the wind speeds from a working wind farm in Texas with 200 turbines. It examined in detail the energy it took to move the turbine components from where they were made in Spain to the Lone Star Wind Farm near Abilene. It also measured the energy it took to get raw materials to the factories in Spain where manufacturing took place. The wind at the Lone Star Wind Farm varies and the researchers used that data to find the actual average wind speed through the year.

They calculated a turbine that lasts 20 years will reach a full energy payback in less than six years."

Fact-check: Do wind turbines cost more to build than the energy they produce?

A Facebook post casts wind power as a losing proposition. Most studies put the energy payback period for a wind turbine at about a year or so.

www.statesman.com

 

[OVERKILL]

"One 2019 study from engineers at the University of Texas at Arlington factored in the wind speeds from a working wind farm in Texas with 200 turbines. It examined in detail the energy it took to move the turbine components from where they were made in Spain to the Lone Star Wind Farm near Abilene. It also measured the energy it took to get raw materials to the factories in Spain where manufacturing took place. The wind at the Lone Star Wind Farm varies and the researchers used that data to find the actual average wind speed through the year.

They calculated a turbine that lasts 20 years will reach a full energy payback in less than six years."

Fact-check: Do wind turbines cost more to build than the energy they produce?

A Facebook post casts wind power as a losing proposition. Most studies put the energy payback period for a wind turbine at about a year or so.

www.statesman.com

Yes, that's EROI, Energy Return on (Energy) Invested, sometimes called EROEI, which also has some correlation with lifecycle emissions for non-emitting sources.

This is why we don't see solar farms powering solar module construction, but rather coal plants.

 

[mr_boring]

Will the world ever realize that nuclear is really the way forward? It's not 1973 anymore......

Don't build on fault lines or on beaches, amirite?

 

[mr_boring]

Also, can't fiberglass be used in the cement making process?

 

[PandaBear]

Yes, that's EROI, Energy Return on (Energy) Invested, sometimes called EROEI, which also has some correlation with lifecycle emissions for non-emitting sources.
View attachment 192763

This is why we don't see solar farms powering solar module construction, but rather coal plants.

When / if we will have gen 4 nuke? I don't know if this will ever happen unless there's some sort of massive energy trade world war and some nations have to go gen 4 or bust, like how a lot of today's technologies are the result of wars.

So far I think maybe only India and China have the incentive to really go energy independent on nuke, all other nations are either forming alliances with OPEC or US/NATO.

 

[4WD]

Also, can't fiberglass be used in the cement making process?

They do some of this - but the cost/nuisance to truck - heavy equipment to sort and cut up - and the shredding in an intense undertaking …

 

[Oro_O]

Will the world ever realize that nuclear is really the way forward? It's not 1973 anymore......

Don't build on fault lines or on beaches, amirite?

Beaches are ok; just don’t put the back-up power below the expected high-water mark.

That’s what happened at Fukushima. TEPCO refused to move the emergency generators from under the reactors (the generic GE design default) up to a higher remote position as suggested. This problem was foreseen and a way around it for the location suggested. TEPCO also refused to increase the seawall height when recommended. Either suggested safety measure would have avoided the whole fiasco. Fukushima was all on TEPCO senior management and the site itself or operation was not to blame. The quake and tsunami didn’t damage the plant in anyway that was not foreseen and protections/corrections suggested.

The fact is the shear volume of water required to deal with the waste heat is enormous and plants will always be built on riverine or littoral sites. Not a problem if done correctly. About 2/3rd of all energy generated in a nuclear plant is wasted as heat and has to be radiated away (inefficient) or water cooled (efficient). It takes a massive amount of water to do that, so river and seaside locations are in fact ideal, and also usually much closer to the customer base.

 

[4WD]

Or build on a river north of the beach to avoid storm surge …

 

[billt460]

The problem is far greater with all of these things that are installed over the sea. Like many off the coast of Long Island, and in Europe.

They're finding the corrosive effects of the salt water is shortening their life span far more than they anticipated. Demanding even more costly maintenance than already exists with land installations.

Between the corrosive effects of salt water, and blade erosion on land installations, they're fighting a losing battle. If these things were the end all cure all, they would be fighting trying to put them everywhere.

Instead they're fighting over what to do with the eroded blades. They're simply not economically viable.

Collapse of Projects Shows Again that Wind Power is Not Affordable - Empire Center for Public Policy

The renewable-power fantasy is being blown apart by furious financial headwinds. Already this year projects have tumbled in Rhode Island,....

www.empirecenter.org

 

[billt460]

"One 2019 study from engineers at the University of Texas at Arlington factored in the wind speeds from a working wind farm in Texas with 200 turbines. It examined in detail the energy it took to move the turbine components from where they were made in Spain to the Lone Star Wind Farm near Abilene. It also measured the energy it took to get raw materials to the factories in Spain where manufacturing took place. The wind at the Lone Star Wind Farm varies and the researchers used that data to find the actual average wind speed through the year. They calculated a turbine that lasts 20 years will reach a full energy payback in less than six years."

They're not even close. Oil magnate, and multi billionaire energy expert and consultant T. Boone Pickens spent years trying to develop, "The Pickens Plan".

In it he included everything, from the cost of purchasing the land, to the wind turbine cost themselves, installation costs, infrastructure requirements along with all associated expenses, and longevity of the units themselves. (Wind turbine manufacturer Siemens worked with him).

Also the cost of maintenance was taken into account, along with employee salary cost to run the whole thing. Another thing that he carefully studied, was profitability had to take into account the cost of oil.

If the price of oil went down, it ate right into any profits that might be realized by wind production. By making wind even more expensive in comparison to fossil fuel produced power.... Which there is already plenty of.

And OPEC could easily control the price of oil, if they felt the slightest bit threatened by wind. And after everything was taken into account, he determined it could not be run at a profit, and the entire project was abandoned.

 

[SC Maintenance]

More sensational clickbait. Not saying its a good thing, but these windmills will be replaced according to other articles. Or replaced with Solar. No one is agreeing these don't work - or no one in charge at least.

From the articles, the Spanish are targeting more of this type of stuff, not less, and throwing money at it while improving the permitting process.

The competition coming from China is for the production of the units - vs making them in the EU. They likely weren't being made in Spain anyway, probably France or Germany, so Spain doesn't care likely.

A couple quotes

"Spanish government raised its wind power target to 62 GW by 2030, up from a previous target of 50 GW"

"Circular Repowering, is aimed at replacing all wind turbines currently existing at wind power generation facilities with more efficient ones. It has been allocated 150 million euros and it is estimated that it will enable at least 557 MW of this technology to be repowered."

Wind, solar groups call on Spain to reignite power demand

Spain must implement measures to boost power demand alongside faster permitting and grid approvals to meet ambitious wind and solar targets, industry experts said.

www.reuters.com

Spain to allocate 222.5 million euros to wind repowering, mini-hydro renovation and wind turbine blade recycling

Spain to allocate 222.5 million euros to wind repowering, mini-hydro renovation and wind turbine blade recycling

www.investinspain.org

 

[Jetronic]

It's not quite that clear in the language.

I think you are referring to this bit:


Suggesting there's a future in replacing the old turbines with newer ones, on new bases, isn't the same as saying this is what is actually happening.

What the article does state is that there are about 7,500 wind turbines that will need to be dismantled, transported, and their materials dealt with, which poses some logistical issues.

With the European wind industry in dire straights thanks to competition from China, it will be interesting to see what happens to these former sites once the decommissioning is complete.

There was an energy company that wanted to rent a piece of land from farmers to put a wind mill on it, for 20 or 25 years. They offered to pay more than what produce on it could generate so many were interested, until 1 of them asked the million dollar question: what happens at the end of the lease? Turns out, the farmers would be left with an old windmill on their property (maybe functional, maybe not), which would eventually need dismantling on their dime... Nobody took the bait after that.

 

[Snagglefoot]

The current preferred way to process junkyard vehicles is to crush then flat and then feed them into a processing unit that literally shreds them into little pieces. The materials are separated and steel, plastic, glass etc goes into separate streams.

Shredders will be set up for windmill blades and they will easily ground them into small bits where they can be deposited into landfills and companies will get involved with subsidized recycling. Perhaps Elon might want to take a look at this.

 

[turboseize]

The fact is the shear volume of water required to deal with the waste heat is enormous and plants will always be built on riverine or littoral sites. Not a problem if done correctly. About 2/3rd of all energy generated in a nuclear plant is wasted as heat and has to be radiated away (inefficient) or water cooled (efficient). It takes a massive amount of water to do that, so river and seaside locations are in fact ideal, and also usually much closer to the customer base.

Cooling towers massively reduce the amount of water needed. One of the issues with the french reactors is that many use river water for cooling and thus had to be throttled down during draughts as not to "overheat" the river downstream (and messing with the ecosystem).
This was often used as an argument by our Green party (and their guys in the mainstream media) in Germany as to why nuclear power was dangerous and unreliable. Well, all our power plants use cooling towers which eliminates this problem...

 

[SC Maintenance]

They're not even close. Oil magnate, and multi billionaire energy expert and consultant T. Boone Pickens spent years trying to develop, "The Pickens Plan".

In it he included everything, from the cost of purchasing the land, to the wind turbine cost themselves, installation costs, infrastructure requirements along with all associated expenses, and longevity of the units themselves. (Wind turbine manufacturer Siemens worked with him).

Also the cost of maintenance was taken into account, along with employee salary cost to run the whole thing. Another thing that he carefully studied, was profitability had to take into account the cost of oil.

If the price of oil went down, it ate right into any profits that might be realized by wind production. By making wind even more expensive in comparison to fossil fuel produced power.... Which there is already plenty of.

And OPEC could easily control the price of oil, if they felt the slightest bit threatened by wind. And after everything was taken into account, he determined it could not be run at a profit, and the entire project was abandoned.

I agree with everything, but the Pickens plan didn't take into account geopolitics. When the UA/RU war started energy rates in Europe spiked. Spain has no oil or gas, and no Uranium either I don't think. They don't have a fleet they can sail around and demand it. Spain is near the equator, so renewables - both wind and solar, are likely fairly efficient.

Its not a one size fits all solution. What works best for us might not be best for them. Renewables could be the only realistic way someone like Spain has any level of energy independence at all.

 

[billt460]

I agree with everything, but the Pickens plan didn't take into account geopolitics. When the UA/RU war started energy rates in Europe spiked. Spain has no oil or gas, and no Uranium either I don't think. They don't have a fleet they can sail around and demand it. Spain is near the equator, so renewables - both wind and solar, are likely fairly efficient.

Its not a one size fits all solution. What works best for us might not be best for them. Renewables could be the only realistic way someone like Spain has any level of energy independence at all.

Spain, because of its abundant sunshine, is also big on solar / molten salt energy production. They have got that method down better than most. I think we had a similar setup in southern California near Barstow. Don't know if its still working. It was right off I-40.

 

[pbm]

I'm surprised there isn't more of an outcry about the whales that are killed by wind turbines at sea.