Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

The common flaw in all the "LCOE < ~.02USD per kWhr" claims

Expand Messages
  • dave santos
    Its the most consistent and incredible economic claim in the AWE industry , that kite energy can be dirt cheap; even as little as .01USD per kWhr. Seldom,
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 29 8:59 AM
      Its the most consistent and incredible economic claim in the AWE "industry", that kite energy can be dirt cheap; even as little as .01USD per kWhr. Seldom, if ever, are detailed calculations offered, and most of the claims are the resound of the AWE hype echo-chamber. Just where is the error in these numbers?
       
      I have re-reviewed some of these claims and found a major common omission. Without naming names, since the error is pervasive and innocent, the common omission is to not properly account for "fixed" aviation regulatory and safety costs. Up to about 90% of aviation costs (excluding fuel) are the cost of liability and hull insurance, superior maintenance, frequent inspections, safety redundancy, and all the associated regulatory costs. Offshore operations are not an escape, since the hostile environment negates regulatory savings.
       
      Therefore, the obsolete AWE LCOE estimates need to be multiplied by ten or so. Adjusted LCOE estimates then range from around .10-.20 USD per kWhr, as a far more realistic projection. This is still quite attractive, given the many unique advantages upper-wind can offer.
       



       
    • Joe Faust
      http://www.energykitesystems.net/LCOEforAWES/index.html We may receive direct notes, essays, polished
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 29 11:34 AM
        http://www.energykitesystems.net/LCOEforAWES/index.html
        We may receive direct notes, essays, polished papers, links, or notes placed in this topic thread for growing the folder on LCOE for AWES.    
        Thanks for inputs. 

        ~JoeF
      • Doug
        Dave S. Nothing new here. All Professor Crackpots (and others) feel obligated to state that their proposed method would lower costs for wind energy.
        Message 3 of 6 , Jul 1, 2013
          Dave S.
          Nothing new here.
          All "Professor Crackpots" (and others) feel obligated to state that their proposed method would lower costs for wind energy. Otherwise, they have only so many rationalizations for anyone to listen to them.
          (birds, noise, "urban" performace...)

          An almost limitless number of energy-harvesting schemes are possible, but only ones that offer lower costs are economically viable. The good professor is cornered: he MUST look at competing costs from wind turbines and gas turbines, and beat the current 4 cents/kWh PPA price point. We've watched wind energy fall from around 20 cents to 4 cents in the last couple decades (or something close to that).

          To get funding from grants or investors, the finding decision-makers need to see a projection of lower costs, or why fund a project?

          As I've pointed out, almost every new wind energy concept starts out with a package of lies, whether the purveyor even is aware of that fact. Lower levelized COE is just one of the big lies.

          What else is the good professor going to say? He's normally going to offer a 100% solidity solution that misses every pertinent aspect of wind energy, and instead targets phantom problems that exist only in the professor's imagination.

          Therefore you see giant metal savonius turbines proposed, using maglev bearings. Why the maglev bearings? Well the good professor, as it turns out, is so completely ignorant that:
          1) He doesn't realize the Savonius design is the least efficient beginner design known;
          2) He thinks bearing drag is a problem with wind turbines.
          3) He can't understand that a solid structure 450-feet tall could never come close to competing with a 450-foot-tall structure offering 2% solidity, with regard to cost. His 100% solidity structure might cost hundreds of millions, giving little power, which is why such a contraption has never been built. Yet the promoters are obligated to cite an orders-of-magnitude lower-than-realistic levelized COE.

          It just goes to show, few fields offer as many idiotic notions, combined with endless distractions, as wind energy. Add the airborne aspect, and before long you're talking about deflecting comets and everything under the sun, since as long as there is no obvious path to lower cost energy, the instinct is to talk about every other possible problem under the sun. Diversions and distractions abound and dominate. The biggest problem under the sun for wind energy today is the falling cost of solar and NatGas.

          Anyway, yes all new wind energy schemes must rationalize their existence by stating a lower levelized COE. If you understand anything about the art, you clearly see most schemes offered to radically change the art of wind energy as complete nonsense, with the absurdly-low promised COE just the easiest lie to instantly flag.

          Understanding the reasons involves being able to dissect all the lies that the professor is telling himself, or all the issues he either doesn't understand or is not addressing, including his erronous assumptions, that lead to the erroneous predictions of such cost savings.

          One good test is usually to tell the Professor to develop a small version and show how it outperforms existing small turbines. He hates that. That puts the ball in his court. He wants the ball to stay in your court. He'd rather talk about how economies of scale are essential for him to reach that lower COE, how the market share for small wind is too trivial to bother developing, especially since his invention is so overwhelmingly important.

          How could he ever waste the time to prove it at a small scale, when global warming is such an emergency? Just don't ask him how he is going to afford to replace that 2% solidity rotor with his 100% solidity rotor, at a lower cost. He HATES that...

          In truth, you can't really even have a logical discussion of any type with most of these people - they are impossible designs, promoted by impossible people!

          Sound impossible? Nope, that's the way it is.
          :)
          Doug S.

          --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, dave santos <santos137@...> wrote:
          >
          > Its the most consistent and incredible economic claim in the AWE "industry", that kite energy can be dirt cheap; even as little as .01USD per kWhr. Seldom, if ever, are detailed calculations offered, and most of the claims are the resound of the AWE hype echo-chamber. Just where is the error in these numbers?
          >
          > I have re-reviewed some of these claims and found a major common omission. Without naming names, since the error is pervasive and innocent, the common omission is to not properly account for "fixed" aviation regulatory and safety costs. Up to about 90% of aviation costs (excluding fuel) are the cost of liability and hull insurance, superior maintenance, frequent inspections, safety redundancy, and all the associated regulatory costs. Offshore operations are not an escape, since the hostile environment negates regulatory savings.
          >
          > Therefore, the obsolete AWE LCOE estimates need to be multiplied by ten or so. Adjusted LCOE estimates then range from around .10-.20 USD per kWhr, as a far more realistic projection. This is still quite attractive, given the many unique advantages upper-wind can offer.
          >
        • Joe Faust
          Doug S., Dave S, and All, Critique of this paragraph is invited: ==Prospects for crosswind kite power== Current trends in CWKPS sectors will have their
          Message 4 of 6 , Jul 1, 2013
            Doug S., Dave S, and All, 
            Critique of this paragraph is invited: 

            " ==Prospects for crosswind kite power==
            Current trends in CWKPS sectors will have their follow-on stories. Enthusiasm seems to be at a high level among over a thousand workers in the crosswind kite power realm that includes scales from toy scale to utility-grid. Speculation for traveling and moving goods without fuel around the world by use of CWKPS is envisioned both by systems staying connected to the ground and some systems fully disconnected from the ground. Objectives for the future discussed in the literature regard CWKPS facing toy, sport, industry, science, commerce, energy for electrical grid, sailing, and a host of other tasking applications. For CWKPS to compete with [[solar energy]], [[nuclear energy]], [[fossil fuels]], conventional [[wind power]], DWKPS, or other [[renewable energy]] sources, the [[levelized cost of energy]] from CWKPS will need to become competitive, proven, made known, and adopted; during CWKPS march into the future, other competing sectors will be advancing also. The variety of configurations of kite systems that will fly wings to crosswind for the enhanced power is expected to grow; however, for specific purposes and applications, some winning formats are expected to eventually shine. Placing wing elements that fly to crosswind on huge lofted rope-based arches or even net domes is being researched."


          • Doug
            Problem #1) fixation on kites - no useful wind energy system uses kites or cloth sails of any kind, though they ALL started out that way. Then they
            Message 5 of 6 , Jul 8, 2013
              Problem #1) fixation on "kites" - no useful wind energy system uses kites or cloth sails of any kind, though they ALL started out that way. Then they improved. I'd say anyone using the word "kite" may be completely missing the point. "Kites" per are not necessary for AWE, and over-use of that word may reflect more of a quaint familiarity with 19th century technology and what hobbyists have grown to love, than a necessary or even desirable component for AWE. At this point I know I can expect an angry retort from Dave S. the kite-flyer, which is why I no longer post here much. What's the use? Either build it and fly it or let's all just shut up. This is getting very redundant... Tlk is cheap and everyone has an opinion, whether informed or not. So what?

              2) FIxation on the word "crosswind" - oh you mean like surfers surf ACROSS the wave? Or like sailplanes go ACROSS the sky and not straight down? By the time you have to mention "crosswind" you KNOW you are talking to people without a clue - those whose wind energy contraptions travel WITH the wind (reducing relative wind speed), then have to retract AGAINST the wind - only for the lame.

              3) Sure and lets extrapolate: flying cities supported by kites, and endless peripheral drivel - again I can expect a vehement denial of my vehement denial by Dave S.

              Let me tell you how hard it is to make anything new happen: You cannot convince electric companies to even CONSIDER placing solar plants under power lines. And that is a pretty simple concept. They control sufficient acreage under the lines to provide all power to the USA, but never do so. They have endless excuses never to even LOOK at the possibility, meanwhile they want to put a 20-acre solar plant across the street from my house in a residential neighborhood, AND upgrade local ugly power lines to have 200-foot towers from today;s 100-foot towers. Why? To get power from new solar plants way out in the desert. Why locate them so far out instead of under power lines? Power companies don't want to consider anything that might be the least bit inconvenient or a nuisance for powerline workers. So they don;t even consider what was originally sold as a main reason that solar power was "good" (placement under existing lines) which would make upgrading the lines unnecessary.

              So we learn, even if something SOUNDS COMPLETELY SENSIBLE you can never get it done, let alone replacing Fedex with kites. Hey I have a great related moronic idea: All those boats and ships burning fuel? Let's convert them to sailboats! And let's pretend it is a new idea! Let's pretend that ships were not ALL sailboats in the recent past and pretend we've INVENTED the notion that ships can SAIL! And that Dave S. and Wayne German will replace Fedex's flying pizza delivery service with a steam-punk series of clotheslines hanging from kites for delivery. Just ask Dave S., people will volunteer to fly them because it will be so cutting edge that they will do it just for the honor and the fun. Then you will wake up. :)

              --- In AirborneWindEnergy@yahoogroups.com, "Joe Faust" <joefaust333@...> wrote:
              >
              > Doug S., Dave S, and All, Critique of this paragraph is invited:
              > " ==Prospects for crosswind kite power== Current trends in CWKPS sectors
              > will have their follow-on stories. Enthusiasm seems to be at a high
              > level among over a thousand workers in the crosswind kite power realm
              > that includes scales from toy scale to utility-grid. Speculation for
              > traveling and moving goods without fuel around the world by use of CWKPS
              > is envisioned both by systems staying connected to the ground and some
              > systems fully disconnected from the ground. Objectives for the future
              > discussed in the literature regard CWKPS facing toy, sport, industry,
              > science, commerce, energy for electrical grid, sailing, and a host of
              > other tasking applications. For CWKPS to compete with [[solar energy]],
              > [[nuclear energy]], [[fossil fuels]], conventional [[wind power]],
              > DWKPS, or other [[renewable energy]] sources, the [[levelized cost of
              > energy]] from CWKPS will need to become competitive, proven, made known,
              > and adopted; during CWKPS march into the future, other competing sectors
              > will be advancing also. The variety of configurations of kite systems
              > that will fly wings to crosswind for the enhanced power is expected to
              > grow; however, for specific purposes and applications, some winning
              > formats are expected to eventually shine. Placing wing elements that fly
              > to crosswind on huge lofted rope-based arches or even net domes is being
              > researched."
              >
            • dave santos
              Doug,   The problem as it seems to me is not your soured opinions as such, but your poor public presentation of them, and the failure to see how they also
              Message 6 of 6 , Jul 8, 2013
                Doug,
                 
                The problem as it seems to me is not your soured opinions as such, but your poor public presentation of them, and the failure to see how they also apply to you (as a top self-promoter of unlikely pet AWES schemes).
                 
                The original topic thread was specifically about how most known AWE economic projections ignore key aviation cost issues, like high cost of FAA regulatory compliance and aviation insurability. It was not at all about your vague disturbed animus against academic elitism. Nowhere in your unhappy ramblings in aviation-related threads do you note that you are the most willfully blind of all to AWE's stark aviation realities. 
                 
                Please start your own topic threads, rather than play an inept troll to topics you never directly address.  Most of all, share some tangible new progress of yours (as long claimed imminent), rather than only complaining and blaming others. For most of us, good progress in AWE is ongoing and unstoppable.
                 
                Not angry :)
                 
                daveS
                 
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.