Scottish onshore windfarm to be repowered

[dan_b]

Half as many turbines, 5x as much power, plus battery storage. Nice.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... w-turbines

[Mr Gus]

Honestly, I'm tingling upon reading this, great news, battery storage too.

Likely the highlight of my week after dealing with "wendy" at the DVSA yesterday ( I asked who the current transport minister was & she refused to name the civil servant inquestion, considering how many pM's we've been through & therefore cabinets in recent years (5 PM's) each brings a broom, ..at this point I cannot keep up)

Skim read the rest, doesn't offer context, what happens to the "stumps" cable upgrades etc, why are the locals "supportive" ..they embrace green power? OR are happier in a poll at less WT's in the locale, more community pot, better grid stability... or what?

"A soundbyte doth not a full meal make" sorta thing.
(damn, now got to sniff around, too many loose ends)

[Mart]

Hi Gus, you ask about the locals. Well, in general, public attitude surveys are showing that support for wind turbines in rural areas is almost as high as support in general. The point being that for most city dwellers, they can be supportive as they won't see it, or be impacted as much.

Also, support for local RE, like PV and WT's, is higher in rural areas that already have RE, than those that don't have it. It seems that the fear of the unknown is higher than the reality once RE becomes 'normal'.

All great news, and like you, the article made my morning.

[Mr Gus]

Yeah, agree with the stat Mart, but it wasn't from the locals mouthes as it were, which is what matters to really get the whole "bigger but less" scenario reported properly & utilised elsewhere.

I'd be interested in a lot more on this story as to the re-workings, digging out or covering over the "stumps" additional carbon footprints re-use of materials etc.. which is prep work for all ageing sites & future acceptance / feedback et al.

(easily pleased aren't we though)

[Mart]

Another stat that might interest you Gus, is about the cost savings. Hopefully this still stands, as I read it at least 5yrs ago, but for a new PV or wind farm (on or off shore), about 40% of the cost is the electrical build out to the grid, the on-site electrical units, and the installation of mounts, bases, mono-piles. So in theory, repowering like for like, should avoid about 40% of the old costs, and hopefully the remaining 60% will have fallen in cost in real terms.

Of course, the 'problem' is that WT's have gotten larger, so the bases may not be viable, and PV panels are more powerful (efficiency to area), so the connections may need beefing up*. But still, there must be a cost reduction of having some infrastructure already built out and on site.

* Edit - Actually, thinking about this scheme, and the addition of some storage, that may be a way for all repowerings, to improve the leccy supply quality (make it more consistent) and avoid some electrical upgrades.

[Countrypaul]

Another stat that might interest you Gus, is about the cost savings. Hopefully this still stands, as I read it at least 5yrs ago, but for a new PV or wind farm (on or off shore), about 40% of the cost is the electrical build out to the grid, the on-site electrical units, and the installation of mounts, bases, mono-piles. So in theory, repowering like for like, should avoid about 40% of the old costs, and hopefully the remaining 60% will have fallen in cost in real terms.

Of course, the 'problem' is that WT's have gotten larger, so the bases may not be viable, and PV panels are more powerful (efficiency to area), so the connections may need beefing up*. But still, there must be a cost reduction of having some infrastructure already built out and on site.

* Edit - Actually, thinking about this scheme, and the addition of some storage, that may be a way for all repowerings, to improve the leccy supply quality (make it more consistent) and avoid some electrical upgrades.

Given that the new WTs will produce 5 times as much ower as the old ones, is it really likely that they can reuse much (any) of the old on-sie electrical units, or even the grid connection? I can see that they might have some savings by reusing the same locations for some things, and presumably the service roads to get to some of the WTs, but given that the new ones are larger and probably different locations even that must be limited. I can see some savings, but would (pleasantly) be surprised if they got anywhere close to 40%.

If the WTs were only say 100% more power then I could see the grid connection might be kept especially if they have a large battery on-site, after all full power is only a small percentage of the total operating time.

[dan_b]

I think the term "repowered" is a bit misleading really isn't it.
Given how much bigger the new ones are it's basically just ripping it all out and starting again?

[Mart]

Another stat that might interest you Gus, is about the cost savings. Hopefully this still stands, as I read it at least 5yrs ago, but for a new PV or wind farm (on or off shore), about 40% of the cost is the electrical build out to the grid, the on-site electrical units, and the installation of mounts, bases, mono-piles. So in theory, repowering like for like, should avoid about 40% of the old costs, and hopefully the remaining 60% will have fallen in cost in real terms.

Of course, the 'problem' is that WT's have gotten larger, so the bases may not be viable, and PV panels are more powerful (efficiency to area), so the connections may need beefing up*. But still, there must be a cost reduction of having some infrastructure already built out and on site.

* Edit - Actually, thinking about this scheme, and the addition of some storage, that may be a way for all repowerings, to improve the leccy supply quality (make it more consistent) and avoid some electrical upgrades.

Given that the new WTs will produce 5 times as much ower as the old ones, is it really likely that they can reuse much (any) of the old on-sie electrical units, or even the grid connection? I can see that they might have some savings by reusing the same locations for some things, and presumably the service roads to get to some of the WTs, but given that the new ones are larger and probably different locations even that must be limited. I can see some savings, but would (pleasantly) be surprised if they got anywhere close to 40%.

If the WTs were only say 100% more power then I could see the grid connection might be kept especially if they have a large battery on-site, after all full power is only a small percentage of the total operating time.

Yes you're absolutely right in this example. Hence why I stressed 'like for like'.

I was really talking about more modern installs (from about 5yrs ago). But as I said, even those may change, as has been seen with off shore WT's growing significantly in the last 5yrs.

But presumably, if a large power supply has been installed, including the on-site substation (not sure that's the right name, but for off shore wind, these things are huge, and look like an oil rig), then presumably some of the cost is covered.

Not a great example, this article, so I maybe shouldn't have mixed my point on this thread, but, just for arguments sake, let's say this is 5x the power, but 1/5th of the power is already established, then even that might mean the cost of this 5x scheme, is still less than 5x more, just as a rather dodgy example. Perhaps 460% more?

[nowty]

The other thing I find positive is that these "old" technology ones still lasted 25+ years in a location not too far from Kirk Hill.

[Mr Gus]

It would be good (informative, but not likely) to have a post mortem of the old kit to see what stresses / life they had in them, what "brought them down" etc (likely just projected profits from new-gen kit)

Is there likely ever to be a secondary market for 25 year old kit in the 3rd world for instance?