That said, if Eos Systems is right and their zinc-air batteries can deliver stored off-peak electricity to peak hours for about a dime for storage/BoS costs then the life expectancy of gas peakers is likely limited. Off-peak wind purchased at 2 to 6 cents and delivered to peak demand at 12 to 17 cents (Eos’s numbers) significantly undercut peaking power at well over 20 cents per kWh.

http://www.eti.co.uk/news/article/eti_invest_14m_in_energy_storage_breakthrough_with_isentropic

And the membership of the ETI are some VERY big players who will have a minority share in Isentropic.
Not sure if that’s supposed to reassure me or make my inner conspiracy theorist reach for the tinfoil.

With that sort of money they ought to be able to build one of their heat pumps and hook it up to a couple of insulated containers full of rocks and demonstrate their concept.

They don’t need a huge demo project. People can do the math of using bigger boxes of rocks. It’s their efficiency claim that needs some proof.

http://www.isentropic.co.uk/our-phes-technology

Approx 70% efficient and based on gravel and argon but I don’t see why they couldn’t use nitrogen.

“Analysis of site-specific performance reveals that the initial load factor of new UK onshore wind farms, normalized for wind availability and size, declined significantly from 2000 to 2011, especially in Scotland.”

Here’s a straightforward critique of his “analysis”

http://energy-surprises.blogspot.ca/2013/02/are-wind-turbines-merely-icons-of.html

There’s simply no drop in capacity over time except for the 2010 low wind year event.

Unless the first ten wind farms in the database are not typical of the farms in general Hughes made a large mistake.

2010 in the UK was a very low year for wind as the REF themselves point out and use as a club against wind power, citing that volatility as contributing to uncertainty and higher prices.

http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/217-low-wind-power-output-2010

I suppose coal and gas never suffer from volatility in pricing.

“This groundbreaking study applies rigorous statistical analysis to years of actual wind farm performance data from wind farms in both the UK and in Denmark. The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third.”

http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/281/ref%20pr%2019%2012%2012.pdf

Now, I’ve charted only five farms so far. And I haven’t allowed for variations in wind speed nor have I done a statistical analysis. But my eyes tell me that there is no substantial decline in two out of the three farms for which we have nine years data.

There is what seems to be a low wind year in 2010 when all farms drop in output but then pop back up in 2011.

Outside of 2010, good old Four Burrows is flat as a board. (At least as flat as the piece of jatoba I’ve been working on today.)

I’ll try to chart up another batch or two and let us see if Hughes was correct.

I’m pretty sure if one averaged the first couple of years and then the last two years and compared they could report a big drop over time, but Hughes wouldn’t have done anything like that, would he?

Of course, he did report that Danish wind farms lose output capacity over time when they don’t.

I used only years that had a least 11 months. Only 1 year for 2 separate farms include 11. The rest 12.

I tossed years with less than 11 months. They were almost all the last few months of the first year or the first 3 months of 2012. Including early/late parts of a year might be misleading due to seasonal differences.

I’ll post the graph and discuss it in a follow up comment.

Here’s the key –
Haf U I – Hafoty Ucha I & III (F9 L3)
Hare H – Hare Hill Wind Farm – A (F9 L3)
Alata – Altahullion Wind Farm (F8 L2)
Four A – Four Burrows Wind Farm – A
Thorf – Thorfinn Wind Energy Project (NM1500)

(Had a flawed chart up for a few minutes. Deleted it and posted the correct one.)

I used only years that had a least 11 months. Only 1 year for 2 separate farms include 11. The rest 12.

I tossed years with less than 11 months. They were almost all the last few months of the first year or the first 3 months of 2012. Including early/late parts of a year might be misleading due to seasonal differences.

I’ll post the graph and discuss it in a follow up comment….

Here’s the key –
Haf U I – Hafoty Ucha I & III (F9 L3)
Hare H – Hare Hill Wind Farm – A (F9 L3)
Alata – Altahullion Wind Farm (F8 L2)
Four A – Four Burrows Wind Farm – A
Thorf – Thorfinn Wind Energy Project (NM1500)

I’ve downloaded the UK data but haven’t cranked through it yet.

You got the time line correct. But wrong on the reason.

Turns out that several European wind farms are being upgraded. Older, smaller, shorter turbines are being taken down and replaces with more powerful units. By 2020 the UK will have upgraded some of its farms from 1,524 GWh to 8,221 GWh. That’s happening where the best sites were used early on with first generation turbines.

But here’s some more good news for you. Those turbines aren’t being scrapped. They’re being sold on to other countries which have larger area and not enough capital to purchase state of the art turbines. Those turbines will produce electricity for another couple of decades before they get recycled.

So much good news. I’m sure you’re smiling now….

http://www.evwind.es/2013/07/02/repowering-gives-new-life-to-old-wind-sites/34106

It’s down the page a ways.