That's the hard part. In temperate or further north climates, a 'mostly VRE' approach is really a mostly wind bet, with PV filling in a few spots.
Do we really have much expectation that wind will get all that much cheaper?
There are negligible efficiency improvements available, the onshore size is probably near its limit due to transport and siting restrictions, but size is also about the only way to improve CF.
It's a primarily mechanical system so material costs will not improve much (need all the material for mechanical strength, which has been an issue of late anyway).
Offshore is considerably more expensive and likley always will be due to the sea, even if the size cap is larger...
The time function of output has a large enough period that really only resevior hydro has a long enough 'duration' to absorb a Dunkelflaute period without excessive cost.
And wind cost needs to keep ahead of the 'frictions' around canobalization of value and the best sites being taken.
I see very high risks in assuming wind will be able to be the primary driver for temperate climate deep decarbonisation.
Sure use it where it fits, but seasonally firm resources are going to be the driver (hydro, nuclear, goethermal) or there is an unacceptable high risk it doesn't happen.
Wind, as a weather exposed mechanical system also has substantial Opex costs, with little prospect of dramatically improving. Improvements to mechanical reliability tend to add weight and worsen material and power efficiency...
It works as a fuel saver and maybe a fuel producer, bit it is hard to see wind (outside a few particularly good resource areas) forming the core of a cheap deep decarb system.
Indeed, in Northern climate, a decarbonization of the energy sector (including heating) will require an important amount of energy in winter months. As wind is stronger in winter (not a perfect match if you look at hourly level, but still it matches over a month), it is indeed a way for providing this necessary energy.
As you are clearly pointing out wind is facing some issues. Are we close to the limits for the size of the turbines? Maybe, but I am not certain. If it is really the case, then yes, the cost of wind will probably not go down (not like solar), except if the basis materials get cheaper (steel, etc.) but I see no reason for that.
These problems for the wind industry are the reason why, I believe, we are seeing such a shift towards more solar but as you understand, you cannot simply replace one kWh of wind by one kWh of solar (except if we have cheap long-term storage but I do not see that coming anytime soon).
That's the hard part. In temperate or further north climates, a 'mostly VRE' approach is really a mostly wind bet, with PV filling in a few spots.
Do we really have much expectation that wind will get all that much cheaper?
There are negligible efficiency improvements available, the onshore size is probably near its limit due to transport and siting restrictions, but size is also about the only way to improve CF.
It's a primarily mechanical system so material costs will not improve much (need all the material for mechanical strength, which has been an issue of late anyway).
Offshore is considerably more expensive and likley always will be due to the sea, even if the size cap is larger...
The time function of output has a large enough period that really only resevior hydro has a long enough 'duration' to absorb a Dunkelflaute period without excessive cost.
And wind cost needs to keep ahead of the 'frictions' around canobalization of value and the best sites being taken.
I see very high risks in assuming wind will be able to be the primary driver for temperate climate deep decarbonisation.
Sure use it where it fits, but seasonally firm resources are going to be the driver (hydro, nuclear, goethermal) or there is an unacceptable high risk it doesn't happen.
Wind, as a weather exposed mechanical system also has substantial Opex costs, with little prospect of dramatically improving. Improvements to mechanical reliability tend to add weight and worsen material and power efficiency...
It works as a fuel saver and maybe a fuel producer, bit it is hard to see wind (outside a few particularly good resource areas) forming the core of a cheap deep decarb system.
Thanks Jesse for your extensive comments.
Indeed, in Northern climate, a decarbonization of the energy sector (including heating) will require an important amount of energy in winter months. As wind is stronger in winter (not a perfect match if you look at hourly level, but still it matches over a month), it is indeed a way for providing this necessary energy.
As you are clearly pointing out wind is facing some issues. Are we close to the limits for the size of the turbines? Maybe, but I am not certain. If it is really the case, then yes, the cost of wind will probably not go down (not like solar), except if the basis materials get cheaper (steel, etc.) but I see no reason for that.
These problems for the wind industry are the reason why, I believe, we are seeing such a shift towards more solar but as you understand, you cannot simply replace one kWh of wind by one kWh of solar (except if we have cheap long-term storage but I do not see that coming anytime soon).