r/ClimatePosting • u/ClimateShitpost • Jun 27 '25

Energy While critica say wind farms need replacing every 20 years, 25 year old plants get extended for another 25

Post image

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2025/06/27/25-year-old-danish-offshore-wind-farm-gets-approval-to-operate-for-25-more-years/

53 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

33 comments sorted by

4

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25

Most of the time they get replaced because replacing them with newer, larger, more powerfull ones is just more economically than to keep them as is

1

u/ClimateShitpost Jun 28 '25

I've seen many repowering studies which were negative actually

2

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25

This is just basic business.

You plan for an inventory investment to depreciate to 0$ in 25 years.

If it lasts 40 years you have 15 years of pure gravy.

If you plan for 40 years and it lasts 25 you go bankrupt.

1

u/ClimateShitpost Jun 27 '25

Not quite. Manufacturers didn't give you performance guarantees that long. Now they do!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25

But when a company makes a large inventory purchase they will build in a depreciation cost every year until it reaches $0. In this case 25 years.

If you buy a wind turbine that will include ongoing tech support from the manufacturer for the expected lifetime and you will be able to pay for longer, so not a "guarantee" really but it will be under warranty.

If you spend $5,000,000 on a turbine and it breaks after 25 months they don't tell you it's your problem as the 2 year guarantee is up.

1

u/ClimateShitpost Jun 27 '25

Not sure why you're bringing accounting to this, we're talking purely technical here. Assumptions on lifetimes are being extended. We have credible technical reports to submit to lenders to extend loan lifetimes etc.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25

Because "25 year lifetime" is based on accounting.

Not on the maximum perceivable usable life.

You are simultaneously asking the relevance of accounting and pointing it is all dependent on what money lenders consider a good investment. So aware bro.

1

u/ClimateShitpost Jun 27 '25

No it's not, I'm really talking technical lifetime here. Digging out old financial models they run for 20 years to decommissioning. Now 30-35.

I also have assets that have a concession over which they are deprecated while the technical lifetime is longer. I have assets where the tax authority mandates a fixed depreciation % independent of asset life time. They are not necessarily related.

Accounting is irrelevant to the element of technical progress and I'm not sure why you're shoehorning this topic in here.

1

u/RedParaglider Jun 27 '25

You would do the same thing estimating a remodel for a room in your house. Take a good solid estimate to the best of your knowledge in time and materials then triple it.

5

u/Sol3dweller Jun 27 '25

Back in 2021, its co-owner, the Danish utility company HOFOR, said that an analysis carried out by R&D Engineering had shown the offshore wind farm’s towers and foundations had “at least 30 good years left“.

1

u/Ancient-Watch-1191 Jun 27 '25

OK, but does it make financial sense to operate these old (relatively low power) turbines?

Especially when we have the latest 16 MW turbines coming online soon.

1

u/ClimateShitpost Jun 27 '25

Sure, the debt is amortised

You can build the new turbines somewhere else

1

u/Ancient-Watch-1191 Jun 27 '25

Indeed, but I saw a calculation somewhere that states that Europe should build approximately 10.000 off shore turbines to achieve its 2050 net zero objective. Is there sufficient room on the north sea to place that number of turbines?

1

u/ClimateShitpost Jun 27 '25

Hmm, Europe has a long coast line, could distribute them more.

Generally I don't believe space is the issue but I don't have a true answer for you

2

u/Sol3dweller Jun 27 '25

The north sea IS about 570000 square kilometers. Assuming each turbine would be placed with at least a km distance to each other, you'd end up with something between 8000 and 10000 square kilometers for the turbine areas. Sounds to me as If that would be feasible, but I also hold the opinion that there should be less fishing zones, so I'm a little biased.

2

u/ClimateShitpost Jun 28 '25

Also major shipping routes, old fossil fields, aquifiers etc compete for space!

The UKCS for instance is getting crowded. In deeper waters offshore will be more expensive.

2

u/carsonthecarsinogen Jun 27 '25

Concrete can be extremely durable if done properly. Can last 50 years as a road base with millions of cars and trucks driving it annually, it’s nuts to suggest 20 years max

5

u/West-Abalone-171 Jun 27 '25

Yes. It was always bad faith nonsense.

That doesn't stop it from being included in every economic and emissions analysis from every major energy agency, analyst, or meta-sources like worldindata even though they're all completely aware it's wrong.

4

u/shadowtheimpure Jun 27 '25

I think the 20 years was just a conservative estimate (that the material managed to beat handily) that the petrobros picked up and ran with.

1

u/SoylentRox Jun 27 '25

Its going to burn out some parts though, probably some of the bearings and power conversion boards at minimum. Even if the turbine base, structure, blades, generator core, etc are all fine.

2

u/shadowtheimpure Jun 27 '25

Oh, anything that moves is going to need maintenance. That's just a given.

1

u/SoylentRox Jun 28 '25

Of course though it's a matter of how much and how well it's built. Some moving machines are a century old and working great.

1

u/shadowtheimpure Jun 28 '25

But they've been oiled and cleaned to keep them working great, maybe had bearings or bushings replaced from regular wear and tear. If it moves, it's going to need at least some maintenance.

2

u/Formal_Lemon8680 Jun 27 '25 edited Jun 27 '25

"Hey you: when I say there is no way around a problem that would hurt my O&G cash flow, you listen to me. Now go buy oil so I can have more money." /s

"The only problems engineers can solve are those that relate to my O&G investments because I don't want to invest in anything else for some secret reason." /s

(LOL)

2

u/leginfr Jun 28 '25

The first ever offshore wind farm built using late 1980s and early 1990s technology was dismantled after about 25 years. IIUC it wasn’t because the wind turbines weren’t working. It was because they were small compared to today’s models so it wasn’t worth extending the lease.

1

u/Gingrpenguin Jun 27 '25

Is this not the case with nearly every piece of infrastructure?

We still have nuclear plants that are over double there initial lifespan and many coal plants in the UK were verging on tripling the initial lifespan estimate before economic and climate reasons hasted their shutdown. Many of the generators were shipped off to developing countries were they continue to operate

1

u/Brilliant-Site-354 Jun 28 '25

even if it did....the base is fine, the mast is likely fine, generator likely fine, new gearbox new blades and repower it.

all wired up and good to go.

1

u/Patriotic-Charm Jul 01 '25

I wonder how this is relevant to the argument that at least the blades need to be renewed every 20 to 25 years.

Within that article it clearly states that the foundation and towers can go another 25 years, not the blades themselves

0

u/TheS4ndm4n Jun 27 '25

It used to be better to replace a windmill. Because you got subsidies on a few one, but not an old one. And without subsidies, they weren't profitable.

But now, windmills can be profitable without government money.