Connect with us

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Localizing Offshore Wind: Insights from KIMA Energy’s Maya Malik

Maya Malik, co-founder of KIMAenergy, joins host Rosie Barnes to discuss local content in offshore wind. Drawing on examples from the UK, Denmark, Japan, Taiwan and Australia, they explore policies to encourage domestic manufacturing. Maya shares insights on the key factors for success, including providing certainty on project volumes, offering incentives and infrastructure, and exploiting the potential for low-emission manufacturing in Australia’s growing offshore wind industry.

Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly email update on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary Barnes’ YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!

Pardalote Consulting – https://www.pardaloteconsulting.com
Weather Guard Lightning Tech – www.weatherguardwind.com
Intelstor – https://www.intelstor.com

Rosemary Barnes: Welcome to a special episode of the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast. I’m your host, Rosie Barnes, and I have with me today, Maya Malik, who is the co founder of KIMAenergy. Thanks for joining us, Maya. Thanks, Rosie. Happy to be here. So today we’re going to be talking all about local content and how countries can try to get more manufacturing in their region when they’re going to be installing a lot of wind energy.

So I know this is an area that you’ve worked in a lot. Would you be able to just give us a bit of background about the kinds of work that you’ve done in this industry over the years?

Maya Malik: Yeah, sure. So I have a 20 year background in energy and offshore wind. Actually I first started in, in petrochemicals working in Australia and Europe and Asia.

On the construction projects and 13 years ago, I moved to offshore wind. So I worked on projects in the UK, in Europe and Asia. And then together with my business partner, we started up KIMAenergy, which we are an advisory company focused on offshore wind in APAC. And I guess our niche is doing offshore wind in new markets.

For most of our careers, we’ve basically worked on projects that are, pioneering in nature in the countries that we’ve worked in. Now we are based in Melbourne and yeah, continuing to support other developers with their projects in new markets.

Rosemary Barnes: Okay. So you’ve worked a lot on a lot of different offshore wind projects all around the globe. I know that from the conversation that we’ve had before, before this recording. Can you tell me about yeah, just a little bit of A few examples of some interesting offshore wind projects that you’ve worked on.

Maya Malik: Most interesting and I guess most impactful for me was working on projects in Taiwan. I’d worked on projects in Europe but there, the industry developed quite organically over, a period of two decades projects, getting incrementally bigger and technology incrementally improving.

And Taiwan, I would say was the first market outside of Northern Europe to implement offshore wind and also was doing it in a way to accelerate the industrialization. So go from, doing commercial scale projects over a period of multiple years to, a handful of years. Yeah I I moved there together with another colleague from my company, and we were essentially there to win projects and, do a show in for the first time in in Taiwan.

And yeah, it was a really It was a cool experience. Yeah, just really not having, the suppliers, not having the experienced people on the ground and just, it was down to, you and what you knew and, the resources you could personally call on. To do to do projects.

Yeah, it was a real growth experience, I think for all of us in the industry at that time. But yeah, super, super great achievement.

Rosemary Barnes: You’re Australian, but you started in Australia. And then Europe, you’re in Denmark. Is that right?

Maya Malik: I was based out of the UK working for the main Danish utility.

So yeah, that was my second home. And then, I guess. Denmark did offshore wind, they were important in the innovation of the technology, but UK were the ones to really take it to a commercial scale. So put the policies and targets behind doing offshore wind at volume, allowing it to industrialize.

And then the next market to do that would be Germany. I was quite involved on those projects as well. And then we started looking outside of Northern Europe. Yeah, there was an important period in 2017 when the auction price for Osherwind showed that, the LCOE was cheaper than gas.

And then it really changed everything. And in our industry and I would say exploded at that point and then, yeah, and then the first market that, that would move to implement offshore wind fastest was Taiwan. And for me, it was, I’d lived in Asia before and I loved it and it was closer to home.

So a great chance to do lots of things and tick many boxes.

Rosemary Barnes: Okay. And now back to Australia where we’re only just getting into gear now. Can you talk a little bit about Yeah. What’s going on with offshore wind at the moment? I think a lot of our listeners are based in the US so might not be a hundred percent familiar with what’s going on in Australia, but yeah, it’s an exciting time.

Can you, yeah, to summarize where we’re up to now? Yeah, sure.

Maya Malik: So yeah, it’s a kind of, it’s a late market, quite an immature one, but actually they. did a fantastic job to very fast put in place the framework to award seabed rights. And I would say, the framework they put together is amongst the clearest I’ve seen globally.

So it was very, transparent and easy to understand what you had to do to secure exclusivity for your offshore area. So Australia is following a two stage process to award project rights. So first, there’s a competitive price to give away CBAD exclusive rights for CBAD area. And then there’s a second process to give support for revenue.

So this will be similar to U. S. and other countries like U. K. and Korea. And the process towards CBAD rights is done by the federal government. So they do it across all states in Australia. Yeah. And they have essentially looked across the states, where there’s developer interest, where it was viable to do offshore wind and where there was supporting infrastructure that could be developed by Carbis.

And they basically narrowed it down to six areas. And they have released what they call a draft declared area for all sex and some are starting to be finalized. They also have released invitations to apply for what is called a feasibility license, which is essentially your exclusive right to develop in an area.

And yeah, the first licenses have just been awarded weeks ago for an area in the state of Victoria called Gippsland. And I think the second area will be in New South Wales that will be announced soon. And then the next step, awarding revenue, is going to be run by the state government rather than the federal.

So there’s limited information on the regime and exactly how it will work, but it’s expecting that it will, be very similar to the UK CFD regime.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, so the, they’ve announced six, six areas right in Gippsland. And then I saw that there’s another six shortlisted. And I was a bit unsure about what happened there.

Did the government like divide up the area into parcels of, I want to always want to say land, but I guess parcels of seabed and let people bid on them. Or was it up to developers to pick what they thought would be a good spot and then choose exactly which area. First zone

Maya Malik: has awarded licenses. So this is a zone of Gippsland.

And then 12 licenses have been awarded in Gippsland. Yeah, equivalent to about 25 gigawatts of offshore wind. And of these 12 licenses, six are confirmed and the other six are in the process of being confirmed. Yeah, then in terms of how it, how the framework is designed and how you select and are awarded your sites.

So what the government does is initially announces a declared area. An issue is an invitation for developers to apply for a feasibility license. And for Gippsland, the area was 15, 000 kilometers squared and each developer could apply for as many licenses they want. Each license was allowed to be up to 700 kilometers squared in size, supporting about two and a half gigawatts of offshore wind.

And then, the process to decide. Your license area was up to individual developers. There was no coordination and there was also many prerequisites. So in other markets, you might need to pre qualify by having certain consents and so on. But here it was essentially you were. To write a proposal that showed, your technical capability, your financial capability, and also how you would benefit the economy.

And then based on that application and the area you chose, government took that and made their assessment over a period of around eight months and they first decided who would Met the minimum merit criteria. So they had a criteria, financial ability and if you met merit criteria and put into the next level, and then they reviewed who overlapped with who, and then if you’re, if you met the merit criteria, but you overlap with someone else who also met it, then the government has a kind of discrepancy to decide who has more merit.

And awarded to the person with more merit. So it’s a little bit of luck in this, if you choose an area that no one else chose, then. Then if you meet the minimum bar, you’re probably getting a license. But if you meet an area that a lot of people chose, then it’s going to go to the person who is deemed, yeah, is the best developer according to the government score sheet.

And then in some cases they could say you were equal in merit. And then they would put you into a private negotiation to decide how to divide the area that you overlapped.

Rosemary Barnes: Okay, but there was no auction or anything, like they ran in New York?

Maya Malik: No, so there were, the regulations did allow for if if the two developers that were put into a negotiation couldn’t agree, it did allow the government to ask for each developer to then submit a price.

And then the highest bidder would win that area. But of course, all developers would like to award that. And then there was yeah, that did not happen in this case. It could happen in future. But essentially yeah, it’s quite a cheap process compared to other markets where you need to, Commit to and pay for a seabed lease.

This is this is not, you’re not getting a lease either. So the rights aren’t as firm as in other markets where you get a seabed lease in return, you just get a right to do your surveys and progress your development works, but you’re also getting that right exclusively. That as long as you progress the works and get it to the next stage.

No one else is going to be able to do the same for your area.

Rosemary Barnes: It sounds like a lot, right? Up to 25 gigawatts just in this first region. Any crystal ball gazing about how many of these projects will eventually go to fruition? And when do you think the first ones will start to come online? If

Maya Malik: you step back and look at Australia, they’ve released a lot of seabed.

If you add up all these declared areas, it’s around 100 gigawatts that it can support. And consider that Australia, the full installed capacity in Australia is 80 gigawatts. That’s a lot. And what I found quite interesting is more than half of it is for floating which is, going to have higher end costs and further away.

And considering Australia also has lots of onshore energy options. And here it puts a question mark against, right? So what is actually going to be built out of all this seabed area released? That is the magic question. And then if you just look at Gippsland, so you had this, 15, 000 kilometers squared.

So now what’s awarded in licenses is a lot less, but still 25 gigawatts. Then if you look at how much grid connection capacity is being allocated and built out, That’s seven gigawatts. Then if you look at what the state target is by 2040, that’s nine gigawatts. So it’s allowing for also some to be offshore wind to be done on the other side of the state where they also have a declared area.

So of the 25 gigawatts, seven gigawatts can be connected to the grid. At least with, with the plans that are around today. Yeah, you are having still quite a lot of competition and I think like particularly in the auction stages, it will be highly competitive.

I think it’s quite interesting at the 25 gigawatts. Also, a lot of that is floating. and naturally not be as competitive in an auction. So it’s I’m not sure how they would, Like when I’ll participate unless a separate regime is created to support that technology.

Rosemary Barnes: Okay let’s move on a little bit because the main thing that I wanted to talk to you today about was the manufacturing associated with having such a, huge potential pipeline of offshore wind projects.

Another recent little bit of Australian. government action in recent weeks was this future made in Australia announcement from the government that they’ve got, like a lot of money set aside for manufacturing renewables and energy transition stuff in Australia. There’s a lot for hydrogen.

There’s a lot for critical minerals that then I think. It’s all kinds of clean energy in general. Yeah. So I just wanted to talk to you about what does it take to actually get manufacturing happening locally? And I know that this is something that you’ve been working on and you’ve seen other countries like Taiwan, let’s start with them as an example.

What did they do to, when they, wanted to start up an offshore wind industry there, what actions did they take to make sure that industry also brought manufacturing industry with it to the country? So currently

Maya Malik: you have just one state really committing to offshore wind by putting it into the energy mix.

This is Victoria saying they do nine gigawatts by 2040. And then, yeah, you have a lot of seabed being given away. It’s still not really clear how big the industry here is going to be. And and will there be appetite in other states to support the grid upgrades and the offtake regimes that you need to realize projects.

So in my view, until the industry or suppliers, can be confident about the volume and the timing of offshore wind build out in Australia, it’ll be really difficult for them to invest into manufacturing new facilities. But I think if they could see this or get this certainty, I actually I’m not as pessimistic as most Australians who are beating themselves up constantly about how bad we are at manufacturing.

I actually think there’s a lot of potential and a lot could be done here. I really think the key thing, to address is this volume and certainty of projects because that’s when you get manufacturing.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, you definitely see with offshore wind around the world when there’s big projects that set in stone, then you do start to see factories opening because the components are huge, right?

It’s over a hundred meters long and all the. Substructures are large as well.

Maya Malik: And it’s so correlated. And let’s look at an example in the UK, you had the industry sector deal in 2018, 2019, this is between industry and government. And government essentially saying, we want lots of local content.

What’s it going to take, and what agreements can we make around, developing local content. And, the agreement they came to is okay. Developers will aim for 60 percent local content. Starting from where they were in the twenties and thirties. And in return, government would provide a 40 gigawatts pipeline.

Volume of projects and, steadily releasing X amount per year with, CFD regimes behind it to support. And, and then behind that was a number of other things like supporting the upgrade of harbors and tax reliefs, et cetera. But yeah, in essence the top level, give and take there was you give us 60%, I’ll give you volume as it, you can really break it down to that.

And yeah, for me, that’s, that kind of piece is still missing. So it’s hard to move on to the next and then, because I think if you look at what we have now existing, so it’s not a lot of specialist vessels and a low manufacturing base capability. Okay. Thanks. So to get to that next step you need investment and you it’s hard to get the investment without the volume, without the contracts.

So that’s the sort of yeah, thing to aim for. And then you have these other enablers, grants, tax reliefs, et cetera, that all help, right? All help to pull it together. So yeah. And I guess I can also add looking at the current situation we did in the last project I was on, we did quite a detailed local content study for offshore wind in Australia.

And I found in summary, what it showed was actually the skills here. Really high quality and absolutely the right skills given our parallel heavy industries to do a lot of stuff locally. And then, yeah, the limitation is facilities quayside space, so harbors that can support manufacturing and specialist vessels.

And so that leaves you in an area because you’ve got all the right skills of people. So we’ll do great in, development phase in operations and maintenance let’s say in civil structures. So yeah, you have very high local content and job creation where it’s more dependent on skills and people.

And then you have, some scopes that are dependent on manufacturing and specialist vessels, like the turbines, foundations, installation, cables, the local content quite limited. And yeah, it needs a, it needs an investment.

Rosemary Barnes: And what are, what other models are being used around the world?

I know that when we talked before, you told me about. The approach that they took in Taiwan, for example, that was really different to that. It sounds like in the UK, it’s more a matter of, provide certainty. Manufacturers are going to want to put factories there just because that’s the most logical place to supply these huge components.

But that’s not. That’s not what Taiwan did, right? They took a much more micromanagement approach. I don’t know if that’s the right word. So I think UK

Maya Malik: is what I would call like a soft local content policy. And interestingly, I’ll go incrementally, so UK, quite soft I think they were also quite late and they were also stuck to a model for instance, when it came to developing harbors, very keen on more promoting private sector investment.

Rather than government led upgrades, which is something let’s say Denmark did, and therefore did it much faster and we’re able to capture more manufacturing opportunities despite not having a low, a big local pipeline. So yeah, one thing you can do is soft policies and give industry like a clear signal that this is what you want.

And then, those that, toe the line will get the projects and then then you have, the countries like Denmark, which is more focusing on what enablers, can I put in place and it’s a form of subsidy and they just, built a really, good, big harbor that was well placed and could support, industry and attract people to set up facilities and so on.

And therefore, despite not having their own project pipeline who could capture the opportunities in the region. Then you have someone like Japan and they have a sector deal as well. So similar to the UK got together with industry and said, okay, we would like 60 percent by I think it’s 2040.

And also gave grants for, setting up plants and factories and. And then took it a bit step further. So then also made it part of the auction process. So it’s part of the auction. You submit a proposal and percentage of score is your price and the percentage of your score is also your contribution to the local economy and your collaboration with local stakeholders.

It it’s the. Becoming a bit more, hard requirements, but still giving developers a lot of flexibility about how they do it and also how much they want to do. But then obviously the more you do, the better you score. So you have a much better chance of winning a project.

Then then we’ll go to Taiwan. And I guess they’re on extreme end. After doing their demo projects, they created a scheme. If they had the. Selection process followed by an auction process and the selection process was very much around, attracting global developers to, to come to Taiwan and, essentially make sure offshore wind happen.

And then the selection process, the reward was a very high feed in tariff. And you weren’t required to submit a price that was predetermined, that tariff was your carrot at the end. And there was a qualification criteria, which you had to promise to meet a certain amount of local content, and then you were also invited to submit a proposal that showed, how.

Great, you were technical, financial wise, but also gave you opportunity to offer even more local content. And then, person with the highest score wins and, you get a high score by offering more local content. And then this has evolved through various rounds. So in. In the very first selection round, the first project, they wanted to prioritize fast delivery, low complexity.

So they said, you guys get a break from local content. And then there was another three gigawatts that were awarded with grid connection dates, across several years. And the earlier ones had to do less. And the ones awarded with later connection dates had to do more. Ironically, this ended up in a situation where you had quite a small volume of projects that had to do the most local content.

And then therefore the contracts for these local content were quite small in nature and didn’t have the volume of pipelines ended up being very expensive. And yeah, you have this trend of, instead of cost going down cost going up. Then then you had a period of a, then you had an auction for another couple of gigawatts where they took away all of the content but they’re expecting that they had, already had enough pipeline that local content would naturally happen, but it wasn’t quite there.

And because it was so expensive, um, it wasn’t the natural choice. So then when they brought in the next auction. They, um, they didn’t make it mandatory, but they made it a competition of local content. So who can deliver the most wins? And it’s gone through various iterations because so many developers are struggling with it.

And yeah, and I would say regrettably in Taiwan, so now they have several gigawatts of projects. But. The costs there are increasing and continue to increase. So, yeah, it’s it can, it’s started to concern investors and some people have exited the market. And it, because like this increase in the content and costs is combined with reduce.

Subsidies and support on the revenue side. So there’s a big squeeze, right? From a couple of angles.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, it’s interesting because it sounds so obvious when you say, we’re going to have this big industry here. It sounds obvious to say, Oh yeah we have to make all of that locally. Or as much of it locally as possible.

That’s the best thing for the nation. But it obviously, the evidence shows that it comes with trade offs in terms of how fast you can get your industry started and how expensive it is too. So yeah, I guess that’s the other side of the coin that. We don’t seem to focus on too much. It’s always just, local manufacturing is good.

But yeah, there’s trade offs.

Maya Malik: Yeah. And it’s very complex, like these projects and particularly in new markets when you’re just getting an industry going. And I think the other thing is when you’re in a situation like Taiwan and potentially Australia. It’s not like a, it’s not like a natural evolution of projects.

You’re really trying to fast forward the industrialization and condense it. And almost like before your first project is built, you’re already auctioning, something 10 gigawatts later. And you’re demanding people to price in the learning curve and the cost reduction that you haven’t actually seen yet.

And so all the suppliers have seen is this first project that they did, that they really struggled with and was super expensive. Then you ask them don’t worry. This is in 10 years time, you’re going to be loads better by then. So just give me something really cheap. And they’re like, no, we’re still.

Burning from that last time we did. And so like people don’t price in those costs reductions until they actually experience them. And you will get them and they will experience them initially, but you can’t get people to price that. in ahead of time. I feel like sometimes in these regimes, yeah, it looks great on paper.

And in theory, also, you think that’s what should happen, but also because you’re pre planning and you’re running auctions many years before stuff is actually built. Yeah you Yeah, maybe it’s a bit unrealistic, the expectations that people will forecast the reductions and be confident to sign contracts against that.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah. What is the typical timeframe to go from, starting to think about a project to actually turning on your first turbine?

Maya Malik: I would say average is about 10 years. But it does depend on the country, but to get in the development phase, the like Australia, for instance, the critical path is actually approvals.

And then these processes, these competitions for awarding CBAD and off take. Actually also add quite a bit of time to your schedule because there’s a lot that you don’t start until you have certainty because you don’t want to make investments and then that kind of has the effect of extending your overall timeline.

I think in some kind of, actually in Taiwan it’s quite accelerated. So from when, when people were awarded their sites and tariffs. Like we were financially closing two years later, which is very fast. I think in Australia, from when you get your feasibility license, I think you’re more like five years later having a financial close and it’s another three years to construct.

Rosemary Barnes: It’s

Maya Malik: our

Rosemary Barnes: expectation. So we’ll be very lucky to see anything in this decade. I think

Maya Malik: you might get something in the early 2030s. Their target is two gigawatts by 2032. I think that’s realistic.

Rosemary Barnes: I want to try and tie this up nicely. So knowing what you know about all the different, the ways that all the different kinds of local content encouragement has happened around the world, what should Australia be aiming for?

I should we be manufacturing locally and if yes, what parts of it and how to encourage that?

Maya Malik: I think, we have the volume and I would say if we have the volume, I think the first step is to really decide how much do we want and how much can really stand behind. Seabirds, it will be, my cup of tea.

What are we willing to do to build good connections, to upgrade the harbors, to, give revenue support regimes and then combine that into a national target. You might even do a collaboration with New Zealand and say regionally. We’re going to be 40 gigawatts by 2040.

I don’t know. And then then that is a kind of anchor figure. And that figure is not, I know targets get a lot of flack because people see them as, very fluffy commitments that never get delivered. The key is to make it not just a, figure that we dreamed up, but actually something that works that is, actually supports an energy mix and Yeah, I can say with kind of commitments behind it to give investors, suppliers the confidence to say, Hey, this is actually going to happen.

And so we’re going to be ready for this. And then I think then it’s then putting in place the incentives and the infrastructure. Thing about offshore wind is the components are huge, they’re massive and transporting them inland, even short distances is really slow and difficult and risky.

So all manufacturing needs to be done by the quayside. And you’re talking now big components, you’ve got to get, your materials in, you’ve got to fabricate, you’ve got to store half built stuff somewhere, you’ve got to store fully built stuff somewhere else while they’re getting ready to be shipped offshore.

And so you need a lot of space on the key side, but also hinterland space. And, that those kind of harbors that are being developed 10 years work easily, right? So you need to be thinking about that and doing that, as soon as possible. And then there’s the things you can do on top of that like grants to give.

It’s a bit like this Policy that’s recently been announced say make something here. We’ll essentially subsidize it. You can give to land that’s happened in places like us and Taiwan, where they essentially say, Hey, we give you this, this quayside land for free. Please build something here.

You can give tax breaks. Like in the UK, the big T side development, which will now be, I think the biggest brownfield development in it is essentially a free port. No customs, no taxes very easy to operate in, export out or service, your domestic needs. Yeah, so there’s a number of things you can do to then, make it an easy decision.

But I will say, so start starting with the volumes. Is really key, and you, then you and you could focus at least initially on what can you deliver just to support the domestic market. And if you can also show, then as a hub, it’s super attractive to, use this as somewhere to export out and support, other markets in the region is a natural evolution.

I think Australia, yes, it’s it’s a it’s far. So you know, logistically it’s more expensive, but that’s also what will help it because it’s also going to cost a lot to make something somewhere else and ship it here. So actually you can have a bit of a cost advantage here making stuff because you’ve got that, that cost saving from not transporting it.

And I think Ben, despite this cost and you’ll say yes, and probably, you More expensive resources. I think Australia seen, it’s got, low interest rates. It’s got a sort of stable economy, politically very stable. So I think within the region, it’s also got a lot of things going for it that will make people comfortable, English speaking workforce, things like that.

Yeah, and I see something coming next, which is a demand for things to be made. With low emissions or no emissions, and then there’s going to be a race for not just who can manufacture the cheapest, but who can manufacture the cheapest using all green energy. And then I think a lot of energy intensive manufacturing is going to depend on how cheap your green energy is.

And Australia has such a big there’s something to exploit, when that comes and in, in some, spaces it’s already there. And I think, yeah, it will be that sort of thinking that makes it more and more attractive to do stuff here, to support an industry here.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah. That’s a really nice optimistic way to finish.

And that’s one of my big hopes for Australia too, that one of the things that I, Constantly carry on about green manufacturing in Australia. Oh, good. It’s my rant too. It’s feels like it’s starting to, enough of us are ranting about this for enough years and now, Politicians are starting to talk about it too.

So maybe we’ll finally manage to pull it together. Okay we’ll finish up there. Thanks so much for joining us. That was definitely interesting and I learned a lot give me a lot to think about. So thank you. Thanks. Thanks. I really enjoyed it.

https://weatherguardwind.com/localizing-offshore-wind-kima-energy/

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Malloy Wind and NSK on Main Bearing Failures

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Malloy Wind and NSK on Main Bearing Failures

Cory Mittleider of Malloy Wind and Loren Walton of NSK on main bearing failures, why the industry is pulling DLC coatings, and the material changes replacing them.

Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly newsletter on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on YouTubeLinkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary’s “Engineering with Rosie” YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us!


Allen Hall: Cory and Loren, welcome back to the podcast.

Cory Mittleider: Thanks for having us.

Allen Hall: So we’ve got two bearing experts in one location, and this is the point where we start asking all of our bearing questions. Cory, you’re with Malloy Wind, and we’ve had you on the podcast two or three different times. Loren’s with NSK — we’ve had Loren on at least once before.

Loren Walton: Once, yes.

Allen Hall: Yeah, and that was good.

Loren Walton: I appreciate that. It was fun.

Allen Hall: There are a lot of bearing issues happening in the States at the moment, but also globally. Whatever happens in the States, you can pretty much find in Australia, Canada, Singapore, Mexico, South America, Brazil — everywhere. We’re hearing a lot about main bearings, and there’s a variety of things that I think you two know from being on the inside that we on the outside haven’t heard yet. I want to get some of those stories out and understand what’s going on, because operators are trying to keep their assets running, and bearings are a big issue. Let’s talk main bearings. What are you seeing in the field right now? What kinds of problems are happening?

Cory Mittleider: It seems like operators are coming to us and asking us to supply bearings that no longer have DLC. That’s a bit of a phenomenon lately. For a little over a decade we spent our time supplying bearings with DLC on the rollers to address problems found fifteen years ago.

Allen Hall: DLC is diamond-like coating.

Cory Mittleider: Correct.

Allen Hall: Which is a really hard specialty coating applied to the bearing surfaces to provide hardness and durability — or it’s supposed to provide durability.

Cory Mittleider: That’s a good point. It’s a coating that’s one to two microns thick — one to two thousandths of a millimeter — and a very hard material. The big feature was that it’s a dissimilar material to the steel. So when we break through the mixed and boundary lubrication regimes and those asperities touch each other, that dissimilar material prevents the welding and tearing that leads to the peeling damage we saw fifteen years ago. That peeling damage eventually turned into spalling, cracking, and other failures. So it made a lot of sense at the time to turn to something like this to mitigate the peeling.

Allen Hall: So the peeling damage was one of those issues where you basically had some sliding happening. In my electrical world, and from looking at these on the ground, you see things moving relative to one another instead of rolling relative to one another.

Loren Walton: It’s more of a welding and shearing of the contacts. I used a finger analogy last time: think of your asperities as fingers — one set is the roller, one set is the outer raceway. They weld under high load and high pressure, then they shear, leaving behind debris. That’s what creates the beginning of the peeling damage, and then it continues to create more debris, and the bearing starts to basically eat itself alive.

Allen Hall: The start of that process, though — is that a lack of lubrication, or a finish or hardness issue on the bearing?

Loren Walton: I love that question, because this is the crux of the whole thing, and I think it’s the part that gets missed. People immediately want to throw the whole thing out and start over with something different. Fundamentally, when we fixed the surface issue by adding the coating, the problems pretty much went away. We went from one-to-five years of life to ten-plus years, depending on the application — without changing the construction, the bearing type, or the contact angle. Just by adding the coating, we increased life significantly. The root of what you’re asking is that the bearing would operate better if it had the proper amount of separation. It’s not a fatigue issue and it’s not a loading issue. At its heart, the bearing isn’t able to create that separation. There isn’t enough speed, and there isn’t enough of a gap created by the lubricant.

Allen Hall: So ideally you have this almost molecular-scale film of lubricant between the two surfaces. If it isn’t designed properly, or you have an issue, that lubricant gets squeezed out of the space, and at that point you have trouble. That’s some of what I’m hearing on main bearings — especially when turbines have been curtailed and aren’t turning. Is that partly just the fact that there’s so much load?

Cory Mittleider: I think that’s a fundamental difficulty of the main shaft bearing. You’ve got extremely variable loads, from full load to idle, and a wide range of operating conditions — from northern North Dakota in the winter to Texas in the heat this week. High load, heavy load, incredibly slow speed, and even slower if it’s idling. It’s hard to reliably build that film. It’s not necessarily that there isn’t enough lubrication; it’s that the film isn’t building properly where it needs to be to separate the metal and the rolling elements.

Allen Hall: So the diamond-like coating was meant to solve that welding problem — you put the coated bearing in, and it worked okay until more recently, when all of a sudden we started having other issues. To me those aren’t related to the coating itself, but to other things happening up in the nacelle.

Loren Walton: If we recall some of your previous episodes, you were on the forefront of understanding and talking about DLC starting to become an accelerant to failure. I know you talked about it with Cory. Those episodes have aged very well. A lot of people now are recognizing what we were saying years ago and changing their strategy toward removing DLC — whether on bearings for newer turbines, typically two megawatts and greater, or in some cases going backwards and removing DLC as they do additional replacements, and looking for another solution, because there’s potential for additional issues you weren’t expecting by adding the coating.

Allen Hall: The coating is non-conductive, which is part of the issue, because you wouldn’t think bearings are conducting electricity. But as turbines got some of these uptower and downtower converters and inverters connected to the generator, we started seeing current levels — according to Motor Doc, where people like Howard Penrose have gone out and measured currents in the nacelles — of well over a hundred amps running through ground straps and the like, into bearings. That’s a lot of current. If you’re shoving that into a bearing that has DLC on it, you’re going to break it down and create these really hard steel bits stuck inside the bearing, which wear it like pouring sand inside a bearing. That’s what eventually happens, and it has nothing to do with the bearing. It has more to do with the electrical and control systems we stuck up top and didn’t pay much attention to, but probably should have. We created an electrical situation, and now all the upkeep comes to people like you to deal with. You haven’t seen a lot of work to eliminate it, although there are a couple of good attempts happening. The reality is: okay, we have to have a bearing, and I’ve got this current going around from the nacelle. How do I put those together in a way that removes the DLC?

Cory Mittleider: That’s what we’ve spent the last ten-plus years on. As a bearing supplier, we can’t change the whole system. We have to do the best we can to accommodate what’s happening in your system. We would absolutely encourage you, if you can identify and remove the electricity, please do that.

Allen Hall: They should. And there are a lot of people who do.

Cory Mittleider: There’s a pursuit of that, absolutely. But the turbine still needs to run.

Loren Walton: We work very closely with an owner-operator that did a lot of that work. To your point from before, it does sound like, from what they’ve investigated, the current has been there for a while. It’s been there in different models and different turbines. Maybe the way it presented, or its impact, wasn’t to the same extent as what we’re seeing now. That’s where I’d say there’s more to it than just the current. I think I said last time it’s not just a smoking gun. The bearing is sitting in front of a firing squad. You put it all together and now we’re in a tough position. But to Cory’s point, we get brought the application, we get brought the environment, and we get told, “Here, make it work.”

Allen Hall: And you don’t actually see everything that’s happened. You get all the mechanical loads, but they don’t tell you, “Hey, we’re running a hundred amps through this nacelle.”

Loren Walton: No, I don’t remember hearing that.

Cory Mittleider: No, that’s not usually disclosed.

Allen Hall: No one’s ever said that. So that’s a real troubling thing happening in the industry — we’re assigning blame to mechanical components when really it’s an electrical mistake. When you dig into it, what you find is that currents have been running up top for years, but what’s changed now is that with more focus on emissions from inverters, they’ve pushed things into higher frequencies. Higher frequency bands are harder to ground out and get rid of. When things were in the kilohertz range, we could partly ground them and they’d go away. Now we’re working at ten kilohertz and up, and that energy distributes into a lot of places, including the bearings, where it wasn’t before. That’s really hard to deal with. Some electrical designer sitting in a remote location, probably in Germany, designs the circuit, and now you bearing gurus have to go fix it.

Cory Mittleider: And that system’s probably well optimized for that particular package.

Allen Hall: For that particular package, right. It meets all the requirements and does everything they wanted — except for the effect on the bearings.

Loren Walton: You solve one problem and move it to another. That’s ultimately how it works.

Allen Hall: If you’re an electrical engineer, you’d never have thought you were destroying the bearings. The industry has moved quite quickly, though. Everybody started noticing this problem with DLC. They went out to check and figure out what the problem was, and, more importantly, to find a solution. Those solutions are unique, because the reason DLC went on in the first place was to extend lifetime. So if you’re taking the DLC out of the equation, can you still get to those lifetime numbers without it?

Loren Walton: Yeah, and that’s where our message has been that adjusting the material will get you the difference you’re looking for. I want to be very clear: I’m not saying DLC as a solution is bad. When it was applied in the right space — turbines with a lighter duty — it worked great. But once you add in additional factors, it becomes an accelerant to failure at certain points. So it definitely still has its place. But once you move away from DLC, you’re going to be right back where you started — regardless of construction — with the life that was always aided by DLC. Once you’ve removed it, you have to know for sure you’re not going right back to the peeling layers and the spalling you were seeing. From what we’ve investigated, the material changes are where you get that. Having a harder surface combats it, and having a better way to combat any additional debris introduced into the system helps.

Allen Hall: And reducing the possibility of generating that debris.

Loren Walton: Correct.

Allen Hall: So what does that mean in terms of bearing design — different alloys, different heat treats, different coatings?

Loren Walton: The first two, not the third. From the recipe of the steel, adjusting some of the alloying elements, there’s a lot you can do. A lot of people think of engineering mostly through the mechanics of it, but one part of mechanical engineering that doesn’t get talked about is material science. That’s the part we dive into extremely deeply, and it gives you the biggest bang for your buck when you’re moving away from a coating as your — I don’t want to call it a crutch, but as the thing helping you get by — toward changing the bearing from the inside so it lasts better once the coating is gone.

Cory Mittleider: I like describing it as being baked into the cake. It’s not a nice thing added afterward like a coating that’s one to two microns thick. It is the bearing.

Allen Hall: It’s hard to think about steel and a lot of the metals used in the bearing industry as unique chemistries, but they are. There are a lot of varieties of steel, just like there are a lot of varieties of copper or aluminum.

Loren Walton: Yes.

Allen Hall: You’d think steel is just steel — we make cars out of it, airplanes, whatever.

Loren Walton: I was talking to someone who’s more into gears, and even when I spoke of a carbon-nitride version of a bearing versus a carbon-nitride version of a gear, it’s not exactly the same. For all intents and purposes it’s easier for everyone to consider it as steel — one word, means the same thing. But once you get into how much chromium is in it, how much molybdenum, how much manganese —

Allen Hall: It comes down to that, and it can be very small percentages of the total.

Loren Walton: It can make a huge difference. And then you get into the heat treat — your time, your soaking, what you do for quenching. It all matters, and everyone does it differently, so you get different results.

Allen Hall: That’s the kicker. You see a lot of discussions where it’s just, “Oh, it’s been heat treated.” As an electrical engineer I used to see it that way too. But there’s heat treatment and there’s heat treatment. It depends on what you’re doing and what the result needs to be, because you’re changing the whole crystalline structure of the steel. The way you do it and the way you quench it all matters. It’s not one size fits all.

Loren Walton: That’s the part that gets glossed over so quickly, because everyone’s eyes go to what they can see. You change an angle here or there, or the bearing type, and you can see that. It’s different when you don’t have X-ray vision to tell you where all the alloying elements are and in what percentages, and then whether you carburized it, through-hardened it, or carbonitrided it. There’s so much to it that I can see people’s heads start to spin. That’s where we say there are a lot of experts out here — you two are among them, and there are others. Engage in conversations. Ask questions.

Allen Hall: That’s a great call to action — “Cory, help me understand what’s going on.” There’s a variety of bearings out there. Loren’s with NSK, a great bearing company with tremendous history. Those are a couple you can trust. But operators can feel inundated by the guy down the street trying to sell them a bearing, and you don’t know if that’s the right solution for your two-million-dollar wind turbine.

Cory Mittleider: These are critical infrastructure assets. Let’s make sure we understand what we’re doing and why. To Loren’s point, you can open three boxes and they all look the same, but what’s inside is what really matters.

Allen Hall: It’s a tremendously difficult business. With as many main bearings getting swapped out today, over the last couple of years there have been a lot of decisions made on the fly — some correct, some really wrong.

Loren Walton: I’d hesitate to say wrong, because I think people are doing the best they can. It’s not because they’re not trying.

Allen Hall: It’s because they don’t have the knowledge in front of them, or maybe they haven’t made the call to Malloy or NSK yet to get the ground truth.

Loren Walton: What you mentioned a second ago is pivotal. There’s been enough selling that we’ve kind of gotten away from the engineering. People hear “sales engineer” and they cut off at “sales.” If we can get back to the engineering, a lot more people will improve their assets. And it doesn’t have to be just listening to Cory and me — poll the audience. There are a lot of us out here. Everybody has a different background; we all know a little about this or a lot about that. Take the opportunity to learn. I’d liken it to your personal life: you wouldn’t buy a new vehicle or a stereo system without doing your own research. You wouldn’t just listen to the salesperson and buy the first thing you see. It’s the same here. If you’re making decisions without engaging at least the top three to five people in this space, you’re doing yourself a disservice.

Allen Hall: And that’s what happens a lot, because people get pushed. There’s a timeline, especially now with the repower situation — “I’ve got to put something on now.”

Cory Mittleider: Right. And new platforms — the next-generation three, four, five, six megawatt platforms, and offshore — are having their first failures. We need to learn from it. That’s where we’ve worked with operators to participate in the teardown and collect the sample. We get clues, we mark it up, and we do a lot of the investigation — metallurgy, metrology, raceway traces — to inform us on what the problem is on that specific platform.

Allen Hall: As we get to these bigger turbines, some data is coming back on O&M costs relative to a one or two megawatt machine, and it doesn’t scale linearly. It goes almost exponentially, because everything is more expensive. Replacing a bearing on a six megawatt machine is a much more expensive ordeal than on a two megawatt machine. What should we be paying attention to and monitoring more closely on these larger machines? The new shiny turbine is great, but that doesn’t mean you don’t have to monitor and maintain it.

Loren Walton: I’d start with verifying all your original fits and clearances. We’ve had cases with a four-point mount main shaft — two main bearings — where one side wasn’t installed properly from the beginning, so it didn’t actually float. It’s supposed to be a fixed side and a floating side; now you’ve got one side that’s not floating, and you get overload. So make sure you’re set from the start. A lot of machines now come already outfitted with instrumentation — vibration monitoring, oil monitoring, different ways to start trending from the beginning. Back when we got started, that wasn’t the case. You got your new turbine and in a lot of cases it had nothing on it — you were flying blind. Now that it’s there, use it.

Cory Mittleider: That’s a good point. Specifically to bearings, something earlier versions didn’t have, and newer ones mostly do, is auto-lubers.

Allen Hall: I see more of those lately.

Cory Mittleider: That’s great from a lubrication-delivery and reliability point of view, but it’s its own little machine. We’ve heard of cases where the auto-luber failed, or ran when it shouldn’t have, or for whatever reason had very large output. So you need regular assessment of the entire system, including uptower.

Allen Hall: You’ve got to monitor everything that’s uptower.

Cory Mittleider: It’s its own little machine. It requires its own maintenance. If you’re relying on it, you’ve got to check it.

Allen Hall: As we move into these larger machines and see more of them deployed, what are the useful things you should be doing in that first year to make sure your bearing is working optimally? Is it just checking vibration levels? Is it getting uptower and doing a quick sweep to confirm the grease isn’t oozing out where it shouldn’t be? Is it that simple?

Loren Walton: Having a regular maintenance interval definitely helps. Even getting grease sampling to understand your baseline levels after the first six months and the first year. In a lot of cases the turbines are under a couple-year warranty, so maybe you don’t have as much access. But as much as you can, getting a baseline is huge, because you’re going to want to compare later. You’ll want to say, “Okay, I took this grease sample — what does it mean? Does it normally run that high or not?” Same for vibration, getting the trending. For main bearings in general, more grease is better than less, because you can never quite get it all out when you’re regreasing. So a lot of that first year or two is about getting a good baseline so you know what you’re actually expecting, and what it means when you take a reading in year two or three.

Allen Hall: What does a grease sample look like in terms of the response you get back? I take a sample, send it to a lab, and it comes back with — what? Is it “good or bad,” or a bunch of chemical numbers about composition and dirt? I’ve never seen one.

Cory Mittleider: It’s a matrix. You can request different versions, but probably ten or fifteen different elements they give you numbers on, in parts per million. Iron and brass will be up there.

Allen Hall: So if you see something floating in the grease —

Cory Mittleider: Silicon, phosphorus, water.

Allen Hall: Water would not be great.

Cory Mittleider: No.

Allen Hall: So those reports come back, and I assume there’s more knowledge needed to interpret the results. What do you do?

Loren Walton: We have some guidelines we share with our partners and customers. If you see a certain amount of parts per million of copper, ferrous material, or the like, we can say, “That’s worth monitoring for a while,” or “You should probably purge it, try to get it out, and see if it stabilizes.” We get those questions and respond in kind. There’s definitely help available. If we work together, we typically have a lot more success. A lot of people right now feel like they’re trying to work in their own silos, and you don’t have to do that. You don’t have to be the subject-matter expert for lubricants, gears, bearings, and everything else. You can reach out to experts who can help, and hopefully that frees up your time to assess and work on other things.

Allen Hall: The turbines are so complex today. It used to be you could have one person on site who knew most of what was going wrong, because they’d made thousands of these things — there was a legacy. When you get to six megawatt machines, where you don’t have a lot of history, particularly in the United States, there’s really no one to ask. You’d better find somebody who knows what they’re talking about.

Cory Mittleider: And the operators are responsible for multiple systems — six or seven or eight systems they’re looking at. We can help with bearings; we’re niche and focused on that. If we can take that off your plate, now instead of six systems you’ve got five to worry about.

Allen Hall: That’s key. There are experts out there, and one thing the podcast is trying to do is give those experts a chance to talk so you know who to ask. Your phones should be ringing right about now, because it’s repower time, and it’s main-bearing repair and replace time, pitch-bearing repair and replace time. There’s a lot of bearing activity going on. I always say call Malloy Wind if you need somebody who really knows their stuff, the technology, and what’s going on internally. How do people get ahold of you two if they have questions? What’s the easiest way?

Loren Walton: I try to be at most of the industry events. We usually hold a booth. And my email, my phone number — I’m on LinkedIn, so reach out there. After our last discussion I had a few folks reach out, actually mostly from other countries. It was interesting; we heard about a few issues before they even hit the US. Some folks were having problems with the larger turbines, and we were able to get our teams in Brazil and Spain involved right away. Then once it started cropping up in the US, I could say, “Yeah, I already solved that.” We can put my email in the show notes.

Allen Hall: We’ll put it in the show notes for sure. And Cory, how do people get ahold of you?

Cory Mittleider: I’m pretty active at the events — ACP, and the Drivetrain Reliability Collaborative is another one we had a couple of months ago. Email, phone, and I’m pretty active on LinkedIn. I’ve had similar experiences to Loren, getting contacted from other countries across the globe. It’s fun to investigate problems and share results in the technical articles on our website, and have people send me a picture of an article I wrote and say, “Hey, let’s talk about this.”

Allen Hall: Your articles are great. Check out malloywind.com — just Google it and it’ll come right to the top. If you have bearing questions or something you’ve seen, that website is a great first place to get some answers. It’s very helpful. Well, Loren and Cory, I love having you on the podcast. We need to have you on more, because there’s a lot going on in the bearing world.

Loren Walton: There are things we didn’t even touch on today.

Allen Hall: You’re always welcome back.

Loren Walton: Awesome. Appreciate it.

Allen Hall: Thank you.

Malloy Wind and NSK on Main Bearing Failures

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Wrong State

Published

on

Minnesota is home to intelligent, well-educated people whose approval of Trump is lower than that of toenail fungus.

If Lindell wants to lead a state, he needs to choose one at least 800 miles away. Oklahoma?

He may also want to consider that Trump is easily the most detested person in this nation.

Wrong State

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

The Existence of God

Published

on

I wouldn’t say that the burden of proof lies on religion.  No one knows how the universe got here.

The Big Bang was an event in which there was no chaos, no “entropy,” as we say in thermodynamics.  How did all this orderliness get there 13.87 billion years ago? No one knows. This is an issue in cosmology which is quite likely to outlast human civilization on this planet.

I’m an atheist for a few reasons, one of which is that saying that God created the universe doesn’t get us any closer to an understanding of the cosmos, if only because it raises the question: Who made God?

More to the point, there are hundreds of moral reasons to disbelieve in God.  Each year, 9 million children will die unbaptized on this planet before their fifth birthdays.  In the bible, we learn that God punishes them all with an eternity of torture in hell.  To what sort of weirdo does this make sense?

The Existence of God

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com