“Clean” energy is dirtier than imagined

[Summitric]

“Clean” energy is dirtier than imagined​

By Donn Dears |February 6th, 2022|Energy|64 Comments
The effect of wind power on birds and bats is already well-publicized but is being swept under the rug.
This article will explain why using wind and PV solar for generating electricity will cause greater harm to the environment than will using nuclear, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC), or coal-fired power plants.
The following chart, published by EnrgyPostEU, compares critical materials used by six different methods for generating electricity.
However, this chart is woefully misleading because it seriously understates the amount of critical materials used by wind and PV solar compared with nuclear, coal or natural gas combined cycle power plants.

According to the chart, the total materials used in kg/MW are as follows:

• Offshore wind 15,000
• Onshore wind 9,200
• Solar PV 6,800
• Nuclear 5,200
• Coal 2,100
• Natural gas combined cycle 1,200

This would seem to show how much critical material is used for wind and solar when compared with nuclear, coal, and natural gas.
It infers that offshore wind, for example, only uses 3 times the amount of critical materials than a nuclear power plant.
However, the values are kg /MW of installed capacity and not for materials used per MW of electricity produced, i.e., kg/MWh.
It also doesn’t reflect the operational life of these six alternatives.
This begs the question:
What is a fair comparison of critical materials used by these different types of power plants to generate the same amounts of electricity?
To answer that question we can look at the materials used when comparing (1) the amount of electricity produced and (2) the operating lives of these different types of power plants.
1, Critical materials consumed based on the quantity of electricity produced:
The capacity factors (CF) for each type of generation are shown here.

• Onshore wind 35%
• Offshore wind 52%
• Solar 25%
• Nuclear 92%
• Natural gas combined cycle 56%
• Coal 54%

(This data is for 2020 from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) , except offshore wind is from the International Energy Agency (IEA).)
CF reflects the amount of electricity actually produced by a power plant. So, for example, a nuclear power plant will generate about twice as much electricity per MW as will an offshore wind turbine.
From this data the critical materials required to generate electricity in kg/MWh is as follows.
Specifically, in kg/MWh:

• Offshore wind 28,900
• Onshore wind 26,300
• Solar 27,200
• Nuclear 5,650
• NGCC 2,140
• Coal 3,890

2. Quantities of material used based on plant lifetimes.
Onshore wind and PV solar have expected lifetimes of around 20 years. Offshore wind installations may also have expected lifetimes of 20 years, though, at this point, no one knows their life expectancy. For example, how well will they hold up against hurricanes?
Nuclear power plants operate for 80 years, while NGCC power plants operate for at least 40 years and coal-fired power plants operate for 60 years.
Therefore, wind and solar plants have to be built and then replaced three times while the nuclear plant is built just once.
Here are the quantities of critical materials consumed in kg/MWh over the life of a nuclear power plant:

• Offshore wind 4 * 28,800 = 115,600
• Onshore wind 4 * 26,300 = 105,200
• PV solar 4 * 27,200 = 108,800
• Nuclear 5,700

In other words offshore wind, and onshore wind and solar require approximately 19 times more critical materials than does nuclear power.
Here are the quantities of critical materials consumed in kg/MWh over the 40 year life of a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plant:

• Offshore wind 2 * 28,900 = 57,800
• Onshore wind 2 * 26,300 = 52,600
• PV solar 2 * 27,200 = 54,400
• NGCC 2,140

In other words offshore wind, and onshore wind and solar require approximately 25 times more critical materials than does a natural gas combined cycle power plant.
Similar calculations can be made for coal-fired power plants.
Conclusion
Wind and solar consume far more critical materials than nuclear, NGCC, and coal-fired power plants.
The mining, processing, and transporting of critical materials adversely affect the environment.
Most of these materials are mined in developing countries where environmental harm will be far worse because they have fewer environmental regulations than do developed countries.
Therefore, nuclear, NGCC, and coal-fired power plants will do substantially less damage to the environment than will the use of wind and PV solar.
One could rightly say nuclear, NGCC, and coal-fired power plants are more sustainable than wind and solar

 

[ABMax24]

So a wind turbine is built on land, and then the exact same model is built offshore and suddenly it takes 3 times as much copper to build?

Pretty cool how coal power plants run without haul trucks to haul the coal, and without shovels to dig the coal. Wonder what those are made of?

How about the natural gas combined cycle powerplants, where does the natural gas come from? A pipeline maybe, does that gas also get processed in a gas plant, how does the gas get out of the ground? Are these things built out of stuff too?

 

[Flapjack]

If the headlines fits into your point of view, babble them with bs because nobody will ever read or understand it.

 

[Stg2Suby]

It does kind of bypass the point that wind & solar don't produce carbon emissions during operation, which seems to be the main environmental concern.

 

[Flapjack]

I think we could have a generic e car/truck platform with recyclable panels, exteriors and interiors. With 3D printing tech the designs could be personalised and almost unlimited. ?

 

[Lunch_Box]

So a wind turbine is built on land, and then the exact same model is built offshore and suddenly it takes 3 times as much copper to build?

Pretty cool how coal power plants run without haul trucks to haul the coal, and without shovels to dig the coal. Wonder what those are made of?

How about the natural gas combined cycle powerplants, where does the natural gas come from? A pipeline maybe, does that gas also get processed in a gas plant, how does the gas get out of the ground? Are these things built out of stuff too?

Are you sure land and offshore wind turbines are the same size? I could easily see offshore being larger but thats just speculation. Maybe the added cooper is all the cable laid in the ocean to get the power to shore?

To me wind a solar are just a pipe dream for clean energy, the only really viable clean energy is hydro. But that comes with its own issues, but at least its a constant energy supply.

 

[ABMax24]

Are you sure land and offshore wind turbines are the same size? I could easily see offshore being larger but thats just speculation. Maybe the added cooper is all the cable laid in the ocean to get the power to shore?

To me wind a solar are just a pipe dream for clean energy, the only really viable clean energy is hydro. But that comes with its own issues, but at least its a constant energy supply.

Some are the same, some are bigger, the biggest wind turbines in current production are definitely the offshore models. Sure they use more copper, but they also produce more energy, so the kg/MW metric doesn't change much. I guess it could be for the undersea cables, but those could be aluminum as well.

I think solar and wind pair quite nicely with hydro, hydro has a very quick ramp up and down capabilities that make it well matched with the intermittency of wind and solar, not to mention the huge lake behind the dam that effectively makes hydro the worlds largest batteries.

What I do know is this, the largest solar farm in Canada is currently under construction in southern Alberta, at 400MW, and at current natural gas prices will generate cheaper electricity than natural gas fueled thermal plants, while also generating more revenue for the investors.

 

[Cdnfireman]

Some are the same, some are bigger, the biggest wind turbines in current production are definitely the offshore models. Sure they use more copper, but they also produce more energy, so the kg/MW metric doesn't change much. I guess it could be for the undersea cables, but those could be aluminum as well.

I think solar and wind pair quite nicely with hydro, hydro has a very quick ramp up and down capabilities that make it well matched with the intermittency of wind and solar, not to mention the huge lake behind the dam that effectively makes hydro the worlds largest batteries.

What I do know is this, the largest solar farm in Canada is currently under construction in southern Alberta, at 400MW, and at current natural gas prices will generate cheaper electricity than natural gas fueled thermal plants, while also generating more revenue for the investors.

Is that 400Mw output it’s rated output or it’s actual output which for a typical solar farm is around 20% of rated…..

 

[ABMax24]

Is that 400Mw output it’s rated output or it’s actual output which for a typical solar farm is around 20% of rated…..

It's rated output is 400MW at full sun, so yes it puts out 400MW.

You're talking about capacity factor, which 20% is about accurate for a solar installation.

 

[Cdnfireman]

It's rated output is 400MW at full sun, so yes it puts out 400MW.

You're talking about capacity factor, which 20% is about accurate for a solar installation.

like all solar installations, it’s a crap shoot on which days it will actually produce anything close to its rated output, and will require conventional gas or coal backup to maintain a stable grid. It will be interesting to see what returns the investors get, or whether it will, like all other solar energy installations, fail without subsidies or sweetheart rate deals. My prediction is that the initial preferred investors that get in on the IPO will make out like bandits then sell quickly before the shares tank As the true viability of the project is realized.

 

[jhurkot]

 

[06 Dragon]

Doesn’t that look pretty, compared to a small wellsite and underground pipeline producing how much more energy? We going to cover Mother Earth with wind powered turbines and solar panels? Probably still will not produce enough for the amount of energy we use.

 

[Stg2Suby]

Here's some solar generation info from AESO website

This is current MC (max capacity) and TNG (total net generation). I'm surprised the Claresholm installations are nearly at nameplate output. Most of them do next to nothing.

Here's the 3 day forecast, note the massive variation between max and min and their guess at "most likely".

Hard to run a power grid when you don't know how much solar will contribute. So the utilities have to keep other resources online (coal/gas/hydro) and ready to take up the slack.

Also obvious is the solar only producing mid-day.

 

[SUMMIT TREE]

At the end of the day “green energy” is a fantasy. You simply cannot get something for nothing.
Lets just say for arguments sake today is day one of the green energy movement. And a genie granted the granola munchers a wish, they made fossil fuels become non existent overnight. Now, lets see you build anything “green energy” without the use of fossil fuels. The sad truth is you can’t.
So the question is, how much good does “green energy” do?
It has to offset the energy consumption used in making it before it can ever become “green”.
So looking at a single wind mill, from the very beginning, right from mining the materials to make the steel to build the gear box, to the oil rig that drilled the oil well to produce the oil needed to send to a refinery to produce the oil in said gear box. To the countless semi trucks used in the entire supply chain running parts pieces and supplies to and fro to make this wind mill. The HUGE amount of electricity used to smelt the raw material to produce the steel for the gear box among other parts, then the massive amount of energy that goes into the machining process, then possibly a heat treatment cycle or two, then also another massive amount of energy to produce the cast steel/ Iron to make the Massive case of the gear box. And on and on and on. Then you gotta ship all that to site, then more mining to get raw material for making concrete, more trucking, massive ships and tug boats and barges etc for the construction process. Not to mention the Enormous amount of energy that was consumed to mine, and produce the components that make up the generator itself, and the massive power cables to transmit the electricity.
So at the end of the day, does a wind mill generate enough electricity to overcome the power used to manufacture it, and then actually start to produce “green power”, before its life cycle is considered over? This doesn’t factor in machine maintenance, what if a gear box fails and needs new gears, or the entire thing? Now it has to cover the cost of that again, before it ever goes “green”.

 

[Flapjack]

And how could it accurately be measured to compare

 

[Stg2Suby]

Here's something I randomly picked off the google search. Its only looking at CO2 emissions but covers the full life cycle:

"LCA is a standardized technique that tracks all material, energy, and pollutant flows of a system—from raw material extraction, manufacturing, transport, and construction to operation and end-of-life disposal"

Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization

www.nrel.gov

Summary: Nat gas is about 470 g CO2 equivalent / kwhr, solar PV is just over 50 g CO2 equivalent / kwhr. Wind, coal all the other ones are in the report.

 

[Flapjack]

Question, nat gas fuel cell, anygood ?

 

[SUMMIT TREE]

Id be curious to know how accurate that LCA is? I have read articles that have stated a solar panel cannot offset the amount of power used in its manufacturing during its lifetime.

 

[ABMax24]

Id be curious to know how accurate that LCA is? I have read articles that have stated a solar panel cannot offset the amount of power used in its manufacturing during its lifetime.

If that were the case solar installations would be completely uneconomic to build and operate, because the panels purchase price would be so high due to the cost of energy to build the panel in the first place.

Generally 3 years is considered the time it takes for a solar panel to generate the same amount of energy used to build it. Most solar panels are warrantied for 25 years and will last much longer than that.

 

[tmo1620]

Here's some solar generation info from AESO website

This is current MC (max capacity) and TNG (total net generation). I'm surprised the Claresholm installations are nearly at nameplate output. Most of them do next to nothing.

View attachment 252075

Here's the 3 day forecast, note the massive variation between max and min and their guess at "most likely".

Hard to run a power grid when you don't know how much solar will contribute. So the utilities have to keep other resources online (coal/gas/hydro) and ready to take up the slack.

Also obvious is the solar only producing mid-day.

View attachment 252076

You just happened to look at it on a day with amazing sun, I watch those pages for my job on the regular and it’s rarely producing like that