Connect with us

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Why Do Renewables Matter for Grid Stability?

This week we discuss Australia’s recent cancellation of wind projects due to political changes and community opposition, the complexities of grid interconnects, and the need for strategic renewable energy planning.

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 FacebookYouTubeTwitterLinkedin 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!

You are listening to the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast brought to you by build turbines.com. Learn, train, and be a part of the Clean Energy Revolution. Visit build turbines.com today. Now here’s your hosts, Allen Hall, Joel Saxum, Phil Totaro, and Rosemary Barnes. 

Well, welcome to the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast. I am Allen Hall and I’m here with Rosemary Barnes, who’s fresh from. Sweden, she just traveled all around the world to record this episode. Uh, Phil Totaro is out in California and Joel Saxum is up in the cold north of Wisconsin. And we, we’ve been just discussing off air. All the craziness has been happening in the wind industry.

And I, I have to admit, you know, I thought last week was. Insane. Well, we just, uh, put it on steroids. So not only are we canceling a lot of projects in the United States currently, we’re all, we’re starting to be cancel [00:01:00] them on Australia and over in Queensland. The Queensland Deputy Premier, uh, has used his ministerial powers to refuse planning approval for the moonlight range when Farm Near Rock Hampton.

Now I, and I’m sure I murdered that name Rosemary, so please forgive me, but it was gonna have 88 turbines in about 450 megawatts of capacity, enough to power about a quarter million homes in Australia and tied with, it’s about 300 construction jobs and 10 permanent positions to make that wind farm go.

But there’s was like a two month public consultation period that happened. And during that consultation period, about 80 per 90% of the local residents, and when I say local residents are about 150 local residents, uh, replied back and were concerned about some of the, the known people that are gonna be there because it’s gonna like double the population, right.

And 300 construction workers in a, an area of 140 people, 150 people. Uh, and based on [00:02:00] that boom, perhaps the, the project was canceled. What is happening in Queensland that we need to understand that projects just kinda get wiped away like that with 140 people, 150 people chiding in.

Rosemary Barnes: So what’s happened is that the Queensland government, the Queensland State Government, it was labor for quite a while and they had, uh, renewables targets and net zero targets and stuff like that.

And then, um, the government changed last year, so now there’s a, a liberal government, which means conservative in Australia. They’re in power and they wanted to change their planning regulations. But what is a bit weird is that they wanna do it retroactively. So they’ve changed the rules in April, and now they’re going through projects that have already been approved to see if they meet the new rules rather than the rules at the time that they were approved.

But the weirdest thing is that I’m pretty sure that this specific wind farm that they revoked, they were the ones to approve it shortly after [00:03:00] they came into government. They approved this wind farm and then they changed the rules a few months later, and then they did a new round of community consultation.

Um. And they say that 85% of local residents were, um, you know, in favor of reassessing. The issue is that now we’re at this stage of the energy transition where, you know, we’re up over 40% renewables across Australia. Um, that’s primarily wind and solar. We’re getting to the point now where we kind of, you can’t just add things as they’re convenient and easy.

You have to get a bit more strategic. Think about the whole energy system. I was looking forward to that coming online because it will make the whole system more robust and less, um, yeah, less fluctuations. You know, it would really even things out quite a lot to have, um, a lot of that Queensland wind in the mix.

So it will be a, a real shame and a, a problem for, uh, the whole of the Australian East Coast Grid. If Queensland opts out of any more wind energy.

Speaker 4: But once [00:04:00] they approve these plans, it sort of, you have to think about the grid as an entity and unplugging some capacity. There does have consequences further down the transmission line in this case.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, but each, each state has responsibility if they’re interconnected, but each space, each state has responsibility that they are gonna be okay regardless of what, they can’t control what the other states do. So. Every, um, every state has to make sure that they are okay on their own, and they are, they are planning for that, you know.

Um, so yeah, like Victoria’s got, got a lot of plans for, for batteries and interconnectors and stuff, and, uh. I mean, new South Wales is building renewable energy zones. Everyone’s got their own plans moving ahead. It would’ve, it would’ve made the whole job easier. But you know, like any interconnector, um, or yeah, interconnection between two, two grids, you can’t, like, you kind of, you plan for it, but you can’t, you have to also plan for the scenario where that interconnection goes down or you, you know, [00:05:00]um, whatever reason you might not get the energy that you plan on from the other states.

So. It is a tricky, tricky aspect I think of planning.

Joel Saxum: Mir. Lemme ask you a question, and this is popping into my head right now because it’s basically political games between parties and these kind of things. And normally we don’t talk politics on the show and we try to stay away from that. And I’m going to, I’m gonna skirt it.

But a couple months ago I, when I was uh, down, I was invited to testify the Texas Senate and I was uh, always amazed. The lack of technical knowledge in the room, right? There’s these people setting their chain. They’re, they’re putting bills forward, they’re putting things, doing things that really affect the general populace, but their knowledge base is coming from like their chief of staff and their chief of staff is a political science major, and that person is just googling whatever.

They want to see in the bill, so they’re putting things out that just didn’t make sense. Right. When it comes to Australian [00:06:00] politics, is it the same kind of stuff? Is it more of just like these political arguments versus the technical ones, or how do they get information into these decisions? Because this decision to me just seems like.

It seems like it’s not based in, in scientific fact or scientific method around anything. It’s just like, oh, we don’t like these things. Let’s get rid of ’em.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah. I don’t think it’s trying to be based. They’re not, they’re not even the, yeah, the government is not trying to say that it’s based on any kind of science or anything they’re saying that it, you know, they’re mostly citing things that community consultation.

Um, so you know, it’s more about people’s feelings, which is, you know, a valid, a valid thing. I was listening to a podcast about Texas, actually, I’m halfway through it still, um, about what’s going on there with, um, some of their proposals to, you know, require everybody to have a hundred percent firming for each individual project.

And I do think that Texas is trying really hard to, uh, you know, like, um, to, to, you know, they’ve got, you’ve got a pretty flexible system and allow, you know, [00:07:00] um, uh. And allow companies to make their own decisions about how, you know, what kind of energy sources they’re gonna have and how they’re gonna make money and let the market take care of it to a certain extent.

And it’s really similar to the Australian electricity market as well. They’re, um, they are, they do share a common basis and some of the same people worked on the, um, market design of both of them. But I feel like Texas is trying as hard as possible to intervene to make sure that none of the, you can get none of the benefits and all of the disadvantages of a system like that.

So. That is a bit interesting,

Speaker 4: but at some point, Rosemary, and maybe we’ll talk about this after the break, maybe that’s the thing to do, is to talk about this after the break. It takes so long to get projects approved because of the interconnect that this engineers have to go back and look, make sure if this is going to work, how do they connect this energy source into the grid?

How do they make it work in the United States? And I want, I want want to get over the break here. I want to talk to Phil about this. We spent all this time doing the engineering work and then all of a sudden, poof, it’s gone. What [00:08:00] is the point of doing all the engineering work? Engineering? If at a moment’s notice you can yank this project,

Speaker 9: don’t let blade damage catch you off guard.

eLog ping sensors detect issues before they become expensive to consuming problems from ice buildup and lightning strikes to vibrations and internal cracks. EOGs Ping has you covered. Their cutting edge sensors are easy to install, giving you the power to easily stop damage before it’s too late. Visit eLog ping.com and take control of your turbine’s health.

Today,

Speaker 4: Phil, explain what is happening on the interconnect and why it takes so long to get projects approved and all the in supposedly because of engineering, it takes a long time to understand what effect of adding a 500 megawatts will do to a grid. Then instantaneously you just delete a project. Doesn’t that really affect all the work that the engineering [00:09:00] just completed and spent all that time doing?

It’s not, you just can’t plug 500 megawatts into a grid willy-nilly. You have to. You have to plan for it, but to delete a project does,

Phil Totaro: has like cascading problems. Right. I think you also just kind of answered your own question regarding what’s the challenge here. It’s, you know, if you wanna add five megawatts to a grid, that’s a lot easier to integrate because the, the grid can probably handle it.

It was a little bit over designed. But when you start talking about adding or subtracting 500 megawatts plus at a time, and you know, there are terawatts worth of solar projects that have been proposed. Obviously they’re all not, not gonna get built. Um, but, uh, when you, when you’ve got that volume in. The interconnection queue.

Every single one of those has to be independently studied. And then every single one of those, you know, the, how each one goes together and, and the impact of one on the other and the whole [00:10:00] system that all needs to, to go together. Originally, the way that things were being, um, permitted for interconnection was that, um, if you had like utility PPA in place, they would kind of put you to the front of the queue.

Um. And nowadays what they’re doing is it’s kind of first come, first serve. So when they’re trying to figure out all the, you know, impacts on, on the grid from adding whatever the capacity is that you’re proposing, they have to take that into consideration in relation to everything else that’s been proposed and everything else that’s already on the grid and, and operating

Speaker 4: well.

I’m just wondering what the effect of an IRA. Bill change is going to be right. So the, you have an IRA bill, it’s been around for a couple of years. You had a lot of applications to put, uh, uh, power sources onto the grid. Some of them have gotten approved. Or close to approval. So you have this expected pipeline of capacity being added to the grid.

[00:11:00] And then if the IRA bill changes in the way it’s currently proposed, where you have six months or 5% or no, 60 days after the passage, you have to have 5% of the total investment re in the ground, so to speak. Bent. Yeah. Spent, uh, otherwise it doesn’t count. Right? So then you, you’re pulling the plug on some projects, I think.

Doesn’t that just completely just wipe out all the planning that has happened in terms of the interconnect over the last couple of years that it, it really throws a kink in the works, right? I, I, I’m thinking about this correctly. It’s playing around. I’m the electrical engineer on the panel, I think, am I the only one that’s an electrical engineer?

Okay. So when you add capacity, it’s not easy. Because you’re adding reactive power. You got real power and reactive power, right? So you got transmission line. When you start adding transmission line, you have this sort of, you have this inductive thing that’s [00:12:00] happening and you gotta balance it. Although it doesn’t work, you have.

Big problems ’cause you’re not really moving electrons, you’re moving tic and electric fields around, right? So you kinda got these waves going. It’s electromagnetics, it’s the electrons are not, are just rattling back and forth in the wire to create these waves. That’s what’s providing power to the world at the minute.

If we can’t do that efficiently, if we don’t plant it out, then you have problems. You have unevenness and the grid doesn’t like unevenness. One of the reasons maybe Spain disconnected from the grid was because of the unevenness. The frequency changes, the loads disconnecting bad stuff happens, and then they don’t have power for 10 hours or whatever the amount of time was.

That’s a huge freaking problem. I don’t think anybody has really thought this through. I, I’m okay if you want to pull the plug and all the $26 a megawatt hour. Okay, sure. But doing it at 60 days is too [00:13:00] freaking soon you’re gonna create problems. Well, going back to the Australia problem and the now the American problem, you have to increase the amount of electricity on the grid period.

There is a certain growth rate, I think 3%, two to 3% is generally acknowledged as that growth rate. I don’t know what it’s exactly in Australia, but it’s gonna be somewhere close to that. If that’s the case, you cannot be altering. You can’t go from 3% to 1%. You’re gonna have problems three or four years from now.

Rosemary Barnes: Even if it’s 0%, you’re still gonna have problems because the thing is, in Australia, at least, you, our coal power plants are really old and they, uh, borderline economic to run even an old power plant that’s already paid, you know, it’s paid back all of the um, you know, capital expenditure. They’re borderline to run, right?

So they’re all announced closures. They’re, as they get closer to their end of life, they’re getting less and [00:14:00] less reliable. And, you know, it’s one thing if, uh, you know, it’s not windy for a little while and wind power turns down. That’s something that everyone’s planned for. With coal power plant when that, you know, that’s a, a gigawatt all in one go when that goes off the grid, that is, um, challenging, um, planned for, but you know, it, it’s a bigger deal.

You start to see a few of those happen at the same time and your electricity system suddenly falls apart. So yeah, even if you want to just have, maintain zero growth if you still want electricity into the future. You have to plan. And the planning today does involve replacing the existing coal plants with renewables.

If you wanna place it with, replace it with something in something else, something instead, then you need to do that along a long way ahead of time. It takes longer to build a coal power plant than it does to build a wind farm. Um, and. Who’s gonna pay for it, you know, then there’s nobody interested, no, no private company is interested in building new thermal, uh, power plants in Australia because they’re not economics.

So it’s not, you can’t just simply say, we want [00:15:00] things to stay exactly the same. They can’t. Your coal, coal power plants are dying. You know, you have to replace them. You can’t just pretend that you don’t need to replace them with anything, because that’s just not based on reality.

Speaker 4: Yes. And so the argument that’s being made at the moment, and going back to Rosemary’s point about the coal plants, ’cause that discussion is happening in the United States, now all of a sudden we’re talking about coal again, is that there’s just a certain amount of load.

Always on the grid. The coal plant just provides all that power that the grid, uh, demand doesn’t vary up and down all day, which it totally does, right? So coal plants and gas, fire plants in general don’t nuclear. I’ll throw into that, into the mix. Don’t like going up and down, right? They like to be constant, but the usage is not constant.

Is anybody talking about this? I don’t get it. I mean, the duck curve is real.

Rosemary Barnes: I’m, I’m talking about it. We’re talking about it. You know, people talk about it, but I’m not sure. I’m not sure everybody gets it. Like, last time I was at Queensland, I, I was [00:16:00] up there, you know, um, going, uh, to one of the big, big wind farms that, that are there.

It’s already there, already running. And I was there at seven o’clock in the morning. Uh, I was just driving on to site and the turbines had been running. Then all of a sudden it’s like the whole wind farm slows down to a stop at seven in the morning. The sun is barely up, you know, so there’s a small amount of, of solo’s, heaps of rooftops, solar in Queensland because there’s just so much sun.

It just really makes money and it takes like three years to pay back for your system. Um, so what’s caused that? It’s because no one’s using much electricity at that time of day. Coal can’t turn down beyond a certain level. The rooftop solar also, you can’t stop households from using their own electricity that they’re generating.

So there’s just coal power. Plants are supplying more electricity than the grid needs, and so everything else shuts down. But the prices then, then they’re negative. That means the coal power plants are paying to generate electricity. It’s not, you know, they, they don’t get it for free. Sometimes they’re paying, you know, negative hundreds [00:17:00] of dollars an hour, um, a megawatt hour just to generate through the middle of the day so that for a couple of hours in the evening, they can make, you know, a few hundred dollars a megawatt hour, two.

Generate, but now there’s heaps of batteries coming into the grid and they’re going to reduce that evening price spike. So it’s, it’s just like things are gonna change even faster over the next couple of years.

Phil Totaro: And that was actually the one big pillar of Labor’s proposal for renewable energy was, yeah, we’re gonna do transmission.

Yeah, we’re gonna do more generation, but we need to have, especially consumer based battery storage systems. With some type of maybe subsidy or some other type of regime that facilitates the adoption of that technology because we, you know, the, in Australia, we need that to be able to take some of that power to, to basically eliminate that duck curve.

Rosemary Barnes: Yeah. Well, the Queensland government has just canceled all of the bomb hydro projects in the state as well. So, you know, they just like, they’re just nothing. You know

Joel Saxum: why?

Rosemary Barnes: Because they just don’t want [00:18:00] anything, anything, uh, any of these green projects, they don’t want any. Negative, uh, you know, negative effects from a new infrastructure project, unless it’s from, um, fossil fuels.

That’s okay. You can have a new coal mine or a new, new, uh, you know, expand gas infrastructure, but just don’t, don’t do it for clean energy reasons.

Speaker 4: But those devices are not meant to handle flexible loads. Coal is not meant to handle a flexible load. So what are you doing if you, if you know you have a certain amount of fix?

Sure. Inflexible, we’ll call it. And you have a lot of flexibility because that’s the way. The grid is developing at the moment. You have this flexible demand that you need to meet with something that you can turn on and off. So when they see wind farms being turned off, that’s a good thing. The reason they’re doing that is because the grid needs that.

You have to turn those things off. Otherwise you have grid collapse. You will damage the grid for crazy [00:19:00] reasons by leaving too much. Too much power on it, feeding it and not enough pulling it off.

Rosemary Barnes: And the coal power plants, they, they have to pay a lot of money for the fact that they’re not flexible in that way.

But you know, what I think is, is really gonna help, um, is so, I mean the Queensland government, I, I don’t know if they had any incentives for household batteries. Not, not that I’ve heard of, but the federal government has announced a 30% rebate. But I think that what’s really going to change things is because, so rooftop solar has changed the way that the average person thinks about energy in Australia.

Because once you’ve got rooftop on, yeah, solar panels on your roof, and one in three Australian households do already. Then, you know, you’ve got a real economic incentive to use electricity when the sun is shining, right? It’s, um, the, you feed in tariff that you get for giving it to the electricity grid is not anything close to what you pay to bring electricity in.

So, e everybody is naturally kind of incentivized when you get household batteries. Then it’s going to just really boost the extent to which households can shift their demand around. ’cause at the moment, like [00:20:00] if you’re at work all day. You can’t choose to do your, you know, um, I don’t know, dry your clothes in the middle of the day.

Um, and if you would hang ’em out probably on the line anyway, if you did. But you know, there’s only so much that you can shift your loads around if you are out of the house during the day when it’s sunny. But if you’ve got a battery, then all of a sudden households are gonna be trying really hard to make sure that they are only.

You know, relying on, they’re as energy self-sufficient as they can be. I’m not talking about going off grid, but I’m talking about, you know, using mostly self-consumption. Um, and I think that that is really gonna change how much, uh, you know, a non-friendly to renewables government can really bamboozle people because they will get this understanding you, you know, of, of what it means and um, and to what extent you can shift things around To what extent solar plus batteries.

Can, uh, you know, supply the bulk of, um, bulk of power, which in a state like Queensland is, you know, especially true. So I think the discourse should change over the next few years [00:21:00]

Speaker 4: as wind energy professionals staying informed is crucial, and let’s face it difficult. That’s why the Uptime podcast recommends PES Wind Magazine.

PES Wind offers a diverse range of in-depth articles and expert insights that dive into the most pressing issues facing our energy future. Whether you’re an industry veteran or new to wind, PES Wind has the high quality content you need. Don’t miss out. Visit ps win.com today. The grid stability is economic stability.

That’s exactly what it is. And I, I’m not an analogy person as an engineer. I don’t like using analogies, but I’ll use this analogy ’cause I think it applies to the United States and it kind of clears this up. When the US started putting train tracks down, where are all the cities at? They’re on the train tracks.

That’s where they are. When the US started to put highways in, where did all the cities develop? Along the highways when the, I, I, when, when the [00:22:00]Eisenhower administration went to this kinda the super highway thing, right? So Interstate 95 and 10 and all those, where did all the industry and people move right to the super highways is exactly where they are.

If you are not on the electricity grid, if you wanna isolate yourself from the grid, you are isolating yourself and your future generations from economic success. Growth, you just are. So you wanna be on that grid. You need to be near that grid. If you want your children and your children’s children to have a life, they gotta be near that damn grid.

And if you do, if you make a grid that’s unstable, like this happened in Spain and other places, it’s not just Spain. I mean, Spain’s the most recent case. When the grid becomes unstable, you become economically unstable. America cannot have an unstable grid. Australia cannot have an unstable grid. Canada cannot have an unstable grid.

Brazil cannot have an [00:23:00] unstable grid, and for for some freaking reason, we don’t seem to understand that when politicians get involved in this, and Joel pointed this out, when you start unplugging unplugging projects and saying, we’re gonna fill this with some other sort of power sub source, that you are screwing with the economic viability of your community.

That is what you are doing.

Rosemary Barnes: The average person, uh, that doesn’t understand the electricity system well to it sounds more reasonable. That a really constant out, out load, you know, base load generator is more reliable. We all know it’s not, it’s not true. Um, however, it’s just, it’s a simpler message and that’s why I say that as batteries come into households with rooftop solar.

Then they’re gonna understand how reliable, um, variables plus, uh, batteries can, can be

Speaker 4: rosemary. I think the average person will never understand that, which is why the politicians are not talking to that. What, and Joel, correct me if I’m wrong here, but the latest I’ve, I’ve heard of the United [00:24:00] States and it’s a little bit of a different argument.

I think Rosemary’s right on the technical side. Don’t get me wrong. She’s totally right on the technical side. On the politics side, here’s what, here’s what I hear in the United States at the minute. Well, those wind turbines are ugly. What the hell does that have to do with the grid? Security? Nothing. Coal plants are freaking ugly.

They are ugly. No one wants to live next to a coal plant. That’s why we’re closing them down because they are awful to live next to.

Joel Saxum: Yeah. It’s, it’s a mo it’s a, it’s a, it’s a politically driven, but it’s emotional versus technical, emotional, political, whatever you want to call it. You hear a lot of influence from all these things, you know?

Here’s the opposite side of that. I think wind turbines are fricking beautiful. I think they look like works of art on the horizon. They’re cool as hell. Some of the, Alan, think about this. How many times you and I have literally pulled over on the side of the highway to take pictures at sunset together?

Like we’re on a date.

Speaker 4: We’re not on a date

Joel Saxum: officially, by the way. We’re not, yeah. Yeah. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. To me, they’re beautiful. I think they’re amazing. They’re awesome, right? So then it’s [00:25:00] just this emotional thought. You like them or you don’t this, it’s the nimbyism thing. It’s the Nantucket don’t wanna see it off the coast.

But they don’t realize that their energy future, their economic future is hanging in the balance of what they don’t like to look at.

Phil Totaro: If you go to any. Midwestern county meeting where they have, you know, a community session talking about a new renewable project they wanna build. That is precisely what ends up happening anyway, because the, all the arguments that people come in with are whatever they’ve Googled on the internet, and we used to have experts there, either from the project developer.

And, and they still send their own people. But see, the problem is the, the community’s like, oh, well of course you’re gonna say nice things about the project you wanna build. But what we also used to have were people from awe that had a network of grassroots folks that could go out and provide independent support during those kinds of meetings.

We lost that grassroots when they pulled [00:26:00] out and sent everybody into Washington because that’s where they think policy gets made. And it, but it’s not. Making the right kind of policy because you need to be able to change people’s minds in the local communities. And the lack of grassroots is what’s killing the industry at this point, and nobody’s investing in that anymore.

Rosemary Barnes: Pol, let’s be honest, have politicians ever understood how the electricity grid works like in the, you know, the electronics kind of way? No, your average person under doesn’t understand that. So we’ve, you know, engineers, electrical engineers, power system engineers have got on with the job of keeping the grid reliable despite a lot of challenges for, you know, over a hundred years now.

And if we would let them get on with it, then they would continue to do that. But now electricity is political because of, um, you know, climate change. And so that’s why we, you have all these problems where people want to, you know, mess with the way that engineers have always have always done things. So.

Speaker 4: Sun Zia, the largest wind energy and solar project in America at the moment is being built [00:27:00] right as we speak. It’s about three gigawatts. Alright? So plugging in three gigawatts anywhere is a big deal. No matter how big your grid is. Three gigawatts is a lot of power. It’s run into legal problems again, and maybe they’re all justified.

But if you take three gigawatts that are planned, co plan capacity. That all of a sudden disappears, could disappear, or could be delayed by a couple of years. That’s a big deal. And I, I think all the electrical engineers in the world would say, uhoh, we got a problem here that we need to get fixed. And I think that is gonna be more common now than it has been previously because of the size of the projects.

The projects are getting massive. Instead of putting in 50 megawatts or putting in 500, instead of 500, they’re putting in five gigawatts.

Rosemary Barnes: But is that so different to, you know, like you’ve had, you know, gigawatts or multiple gigawatts of nuclear power that turns out to take 20 years to build instead of 10?

You know, and that’s the same sort of thought of challenge. You, you, you, you [00:28:00] gotta, you gotta, in your planning people are ob Yeah. People are obviously aware that things can get delayed, uh, or whatever. So I don’t know if it’s a, a brand new, unique challenge. It’s a, a challenge for sure, but I’m not sure that it’s unprecedented.

Joel Saxum: I think the trouble, the trouble that what you say unprecedented. I’m, I’m, I, I, I disagree with you because when I hear, like, I’m sitting in the Ercot market, right? And I watch what the Ercot like. 2, 5, 10, 20 year plans are great. Looks like we’re gonna be fine. They, they were the ones who put in the crest lines, which are the, the big transmission lines that go west in the state to grab all the renewables and bring ’em to Dallas and bring ’em to San Antonio and bring ’em all great.

But they’re being undermined right now by the politic politics. And the politics are literally quoting the, the DC politics and saying like, we’re, and they’re standing up against renewables and it’s like. Okay. Whatever your political ideal ideology is, is [00:29:00] do you, but when you’re looking at stopping growth, stopping energy generation of the only sources that are deployable fast enough, you can only build solar and wind and batteries fast enough to keep up with the de growth and demand.

Right Now, you can’t get, we’ve said this before in the podcast. You can’t, I can’t go to GE and order a thermal generation. I can order a natural gas plank and, and get it next year. I’m not gonna get it until like 20 30, 20 32 thought if I’m lucky. And by 2032, the demand in the erco market is gonna be over two and a half times what it is right now.

So you better start building wind and solar. So if you’re passing legislation that’s undermining the ability to do that, we’re screwed. Like, I’m gonna go, I’ll come, go get solar panels and batteries for the house because you’re gonna have to have,

Speaker 4: do states start to take over. Where the federal government is stepping away.

You can’t, if you cross state lines, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. In terms of, in terms of development, Joel, I’m not, I’m not saying in, in, you know, providing, [00:30:00] basically what I’m thinking is if it’s a $31, a megawatt hour production tax credit, and the federal government pulls it, which is the problem, they pull it, they, they bring it back, they pull it again.

Okay. If, if I wanna have some stability, and if I’m in Kansas and the electricity is being generated in Kansas by wind and solar and a bunch of other things, same thing about Iowa. I don’t want that nonsense going on. I want them to know that the power is gonna be there when I need it, because my economic viability is relying upon that.

It depends on that to happen. So do I take the production tax credits and build it into my. State somehow, either in terms of. Rate increases or subsidies from the state

Phil Totaro: government. The only way that they can pay for that kind of a subsidy at a state level is to raise prices or taxes or, yeah. Or taxes.

But probably raising rates, uh, is the easier way to make that [00:31:00] happen. ’cause changing the tax code means more state level, you know, provisions need to be put in place. It’s just easier to jack up the, the, the utility price. So that’s, that’s likely the outcome if they go that direction. The reason why the industry’s pushed for federal, um, you know, tax subsidies in the first place is that it.

It provides a bigger, more economically viable pool to pull from for, for those subsidies as opposed to leaving it up to the states where states are then gonna get into competition with one another. Where one’s, you know, Kansas is gonna make their subsidy, you know, 32 bucks and then you know, somebody, Oklahoma’s gonna make theirs like 35 and then, you know, which, which sounds good.

I mean, it sounds like, okay, capitalism, yay, capitalism. But that’s gonna end up, but that’s also gonna end up having the, the same effect that you were talking about before, Alan, because [00:32:00] somebody that was proposing a project, even if it’s like, let’s say it’s somewhere in the Southwest Power Pool. Even if you were proposing a project to be built to connect to one node y, you know, based on.

The, the inconsistency of the state subsidies, you may pull your project from one node and now wanna stick it into another node because you’re getting a higher subsidy over here. That’s why a federal subsidy is actually better, um, because it provides more consistency to the entire industry, regardless of where you’re building the project.

Speaker 4: But it’s a brave new world right now. Phil. There has not been consistency at the federal government level. It has been very, if anything, inconsistent, consistently inconsistent. So it’s gonna be consistently inconsistent. Then the states are gonna take over or the utilities are gonna take over and make it consistent.

Joel Saxum: So let, lemme give you a rundown of states and, and I’m just saying for money to be able to possibly do their own PTC. These are the states in 2024 that ran at a budget surplus, Texas, [00:33:00] Florida. And now it gets weird. Oregon, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nevada, Wyoming, big wind state, of course, Texas, big wind state.

There’s a couple of big wind states in here. The rest of ’em, solar, of course, you can put anywhere. Uh, Oregon’s a big, Oregon’s, a pretty decent sized wind state as well. Uh, but I, I think you could see that. I, but I think you would, to what you’re saying, Phil, I, I under completely understand federal’s better.

However, if they’re not gonna do it and the states start doing it, great, but I think you would see some lawsuits instantly because people would be like, and it’s because the power pools don’t follow state lines. Ercot is the only one that is within one state. No lawsuits there. But if you’re in S Southwest, you’re in Meso, you’re in the PJM, you’re anywhere else where that stuff can cross the the electrons.

Technically you can cross state lines. Then you’re gonna run up a lawsuit. It’ll get stopped up instantly.

Speaker 4: I could see ways of structure would, would [00:34:00] work where everybody would be happy.

Joel Saxum: It’s about time. It would make com, it would man, it would make, it would make investment in states competitive. Think about that.

If you’re sitting here in South Dakota and Minnesota and Minnesota’s offering you $30 megawatt hour, all of those jobs are gonna Minnesota. You know, all those jobs are gonna Minnesota, all that construction’s going over there, all that spend is going over, all that economic growth is going over there.

That’s

Speaker 4: as easy as it is. That’s exactly right. That is the railroad of the 2020s. It’s exactly what it is. And if you’re not willing to hop on that train, man, you’re gonna pay a price. And it’s not gonna be a five year penalty, it’s gonna be a hundred year penalty. That’s what we’re talking about right now.

So. Get on this electricity train, but thank you for listening to this podcast. Hey, there’s everybody’s frustrated at the minute we’re all trying to figure out ways to make the electricity grid more reliable, more consistent, and, uh, better than it is today. So thanks for listening. This is EP Time Win Energy podcast for Phil [00:35:00] Ro Joel Saxon, and now The Missing Rosemary Barnes.

We’ll see you next week.

https://weatherguardwind.com/renewables-grid-stability/

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind’s Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind’s Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

This exclusive article originally appeared in PES Wind 4 – 2025 with the title, Operations take center stage in wind’s next chapter. It was written by Allen Hall and other members of the WeatherGuard Lightning Tech team.

As aging fleets, shrinking margins, and new policies reshape the wind sector, wind energy operations are in the spotlight. The industry’s next chapter will be defined not by capacity growth, but by operational excellence, where integrated, predictive maintenance turns data into decisions and reliability into profit.

Wind farm operations are undergoing a fundamental transformation. After hosting hundreds of conversations on the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast, I’ve witnessed a clear pattern: the most successful operators are abandoning reactive maintenance in favor of integrated, predictive strategies. This shift isn’t just about adopting new technologies; it’s about fundamentally rethinking how we manage aging assets in an era of tightening margins and expanding responsibilities.

The evidence was overwhelming at this year’s SkySpecs Customer Forum, where representatives from over 75% of US installed wind capacity gathered to share experiences and strategies. The consensus was clear: those who integrate monitoring, inspection, and repair into a cohesive operational strategy are achieving dramatic improvements in reliability and profitability.

Takeaway: These options have been available to wind energy operations for years; now, adoption is critical.

Why traditional approaches to wind farm operations are failing

Today’s wind operators face an unprecedented convergence of challenges. Fleets installed during the 2010-2015 boom are aging in unexpected ways, revealing design vulnerabilities no one anticipated. Meanwhile, the support infrastructure is crumbling; spare parts have become scarce, OEM support is limited, and insurance companies are tightening coverage just when operators need them most.

The situation is particularly acute following recent policy changes. The One Big Beautiful Bill in the United States has fundamentally altered the economic landscape. PTC farming is no longer viable; turbines must run longer and more reliably than ever before. Engineering teams, already stretched thin, are being asked to manage not just wind assets but solar and battery storage as well. The old playbook simply doesn’t work anymore.

Consider the scope of just one challenge: polyester blade failures. During our podcast conversation with Edo Kuipers of We4Ce, we learned that an estimated 30,000 to 40,000 blades worldwide are experiencing root bushing issues. ‘After a while, blades are simply flying off,’ Kuipers explained. The financial impact of a single blade failure can exceed €300,000 when you factor in replacement costs, lost production, and crane mobilization. Yet innovative repair solutions, like the one developed by We4Ce and CNC Onsite, can address the same problem for €40,000 if caught early. This pattern repeats across every major component. Gearbox failures that once required complete replacement can now be predicted months in advance. Lightning damage that previously caused catastrophic failures can be prevented with inexpensive upgrades and real-time monitoring. All these solutions are based on the principle that predicted maintenance is better than an expensive surprise.

Seeing problems before they happeny, and potential risks

The transformation begins with visibility. Modern monitoring systems reveal problems that traditional methods miss entirely. Eric van Genuchten of Sensing360 shared an eye-opening statistic on our podcast: ‘In planetary gearbox failures, they get 90%, so there’s still 10% of failures they cannot detect.’ That missing 10% represents the catastrophic failures that destroy budgets and production targets. Advanced monitoring technologies are filling these gaps. Sensing360’s fiber optic sensors, for example, detect minute deformations in steel components, revealing load imbalances and fatigue progression invisible to traditional monitoring. ‘We integrate our sensors in steel and make rotating equipment smarter,’ van Genuchten explained.

Other companies are deploying acoustic systems to identify blade delamination, oil analysis for gearbox health, and electrical signature analysis for generator issues. Each technology adds a piece to the puzzle, but the real value comes from integration. The impact of load monitoring alone can be transformative.

As van Genuchten explained, ‘Twenty percent more loading on a gearbox or on a bearing is half of your life. The other way around, twenty percent less loading is double your life.’ With proper monitoring, operators can optimize load distribution across their fleet, extending component life while maximizing production.

But monitoring without action is just expensive data collection. The most successful operators are those who’ve learned to translate sensor data into operational decisions. This requires not just technology but organizational change, breaking down silos between monitoring, maintenance, and management teams.

In Wind Energy Operations, Early intervention makes the million-dollar difference

The economics of early intervention are compelling across every component type. The blade root bushing example from We4Ce illustrates this perfectly. With their solution, early detection means replacing just 24-30 bushings in about 24 hours of drilling work. Wait, and you’re looking at 60+ bushings and 60 hours of work. Early detection doesn’t just prevent catastrophic failure; it makes repairs faster, cheaper, and more reliable.

This principle extends throughout the turbine. Early-stage bearing damage can be addressed through targeted lubrication or minor adjustments. Incipient electrical issues can be resolved with cleaning or connection tightening. Small blade surface cracks can be repaired in a few hours before they propagate into structural damage requiring weeks of work.

Leading operators are implementing tiered response protocols based on monitoring data. Critical issues trigger immediate intervention. Developing problems are scheduled for the next maintenance window. Minor issues are monitored and addressed during routine service. This systematic approach reduces both emergency repairs and unnecessary maintenance, optimizing resource allocation across the fleet.

Turning information into action

While monitoring generates data, platforms like SkySpecs’ Horizon transform that data into operational intelligence. Josh Goryl, SkySpecs’ Chief Revenue Officer, explained their evolution at the recent Customer Forum: ‘I think where we can help our customers is getting all that data into one place.

The game-changer is integration across data types. The company is working to combine performance data with CMS data to provide valuable insights into turbine health. This approach has been informed by operators across the world, who’ve discovered that integrated platforms deliver insights that siloed data can’t.

The platform approach also addresses the reality of shrinking engineering teams managing expanding portfolios. As Goryl noted, many wind engineers are now responsible for solar and battery storage assets as well. One platform managing multiple technologies through a unified interface becomes essential for operational efficiency.

The Integration Imperative for Wind Farm Operations

The most successful operators aren’t just adopting individual technologies; they’re integrating monitoring, inspection, and repair into a seamless operational system. This integration operates at multiple levels.

At the technical level, data from various monitoring systems feeds into unified platforms that provide comprehensive asset visibility. These platforms don’t just display data; they analyze patterns, predict failures, and generate work orders.

At the organizational level, integration means breaking down barriers between departments. This cross-functional collaboration transforms O&M from a cost center into a value driver. Building your improvement roadmap For operators ready to enhance their O&M approach, the path forward involves several key steps:

Assessing the Current State of your Wind Energy Operations

Document your maintenance costs, failure rates, and downtime patterns. Identify which problems consume the most resources and which assets are most critical to your wind farm operations.

Start with targeted pilots Rather than attempting wholesale transformation, begin with focused initiatives targeting your biggest pain points. Whether it’s blade monitoring, gearbox sensors, or repair innovations, starting with your largest issue will help you see the biggest benefit.

• Invest in integration, not just technology: the most sophisticated monitoring system is worthless if its data isn’t acted upon. Ensure your organization has the processes and culture to transform data into decisions – this is the first step to profitability in your wind farm operations.

Build partnerships, not just contracts: look for technology providers and service companies willing to share knowledge, not just deliver services. The goal is building capability, not dependency.

• Measure and iterate: track the impact of each initiative on your key performance indicators. Use lessons learned to refine your approach and guide future investments.

The competitive advantage

The wind industry has reached an inflection point. With increasingly large and complex turbines, monitoring needs to adapt with it. The era of flying blind is over.

In an industry where margins continue to compress and competition intensifies, operational excellence has become a key differentiator. Those who master the integration of monitoring, inspection, and repair will thrive. Those who cling to reactive maintenance face escalating costs and declining competitiveness.

The technology exists. The business case is proven. The early adopters are already reaping the benefits. The question isn’t whether to transform your O&M approach, but how quickly you can adapt to this new reality. In the race to operational excellence, the winners will be those who act decisively to embrace the efficiency revolution reshaping wind operations.

Unless otherwise noted, images here are from We4C Rotorblade Specialist.

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind's Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

Contact us for help understanding your lightning damage, future risks, and how to get more uptime from your equipment.

Download the full article from PES Wind here

Find a practical guide to solving lightning problems and filing better insurance claims here

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind's Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

Wind Industry Operations: In Wind’s Next Chapter, Operations take center stage

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

BladeBUG Tackles Serial Blade Defects with Robotics

Published

on

Weather Guard Lightning Tech

BladeBUG Tackles Serial Blade Defects with Robotics

Chris Cieslak, CEO of BladeBug, joins the show to discuss how their walking robot is making ultrasonic blade inspections faster and more accessible. They cover new horizontal scanning capabilities for lay down yards, blade root inspections for bushing defects, and plans to expand into North America in 2026.

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!

Welcome to Uptime Spotlight, shining Light on Wind. Energy’s brightest innovators. This is the Progress Powering Tomorrow.

Allen Hall: Chris, welcome back to the show.

Chris Cieslak: It’s great to be back. Thank you very much for having me on again.

Allen Hall: It’s great to see you in person, and a lot has been happening at Blade Bugs since the last time I saw Blade Bug in person. Yeah, the robot. It looks a lot different and it has really new capabilities.

Chris Cieslak: So we’ve continued to develop our ultrasonic, non-destructive testing capabilities of the blade bug robot.

Um, but what we’ve now added to its capabilities is to do horizontal blade scans as well. So we’re able to do blades that are in lay down yards or blades that have come down for inspections as well as up tower. So we can do up tower, down tower inspections. We’re trying to capture. I guess the opportunity to inspect blades after transportation when they get delivered to site, to look [00:01:00] for any transport damage or anything that might have been missed in the factory inspections.

And then we can do subsequent installation inspections as well to make sure there’s no mishandling damage on those blades. So yeah, we’ve been just refining what we can do with the NDT side of things and improving its capabilities

Joel Saxum: was that need driven from like market response and people say, Hey, we need, we need.

We like the blade blood product. We like what you’re doing, but we need it here. Or do you guys just say like, Hey, this is the next, this is the next thing we can do. Why not?

Chris Cieslak: It was very much market response. We had a lot of inquiries this year from, um, OEMs, blade manufacturers across the board with issues within their blades that need to be inspected on the ground, up the tap, any which way they can.

There there was no, um, rhyme or reason, which was better, but the fact that he wanted to improve the ability of it horizontally has led the. Sort of modifications that you’ve seen and now we’re doing like down tower, right? Blade scans. Yeah. A really fast breed. So

Joel Saxum: I think the, the important thing there is too is that because of the way the robot is built [00:02:00] now, when you see NDT in a factory, it’s this robot rolls along this perfectly flat concrete floor and it does this and it does that.

But the way the robot is built, if a blade is sitting in a chair trailing edge up, or if it’s flap wise, any which way the robot can adapt to, right? And the idea is. We, we looked at it today and kind of the new cage and the new things you have around it with all the different encoders and for the heads and everything is you can collect data however is needed.

If it’s rasterized, if there’s a vector, if there’s a line, if we go down a bond line, if we need to scan a two foot wide path down the middle of the top of the spa cap, we can do all those different things and all kinds of orientations. That’s a fantastic capability.

Chris Cieslak: Yeah, absolutely. And it, that’s again for the market needs.

So we are able to scan maybe a meter wide in one sort of cord wise. Pass of that probe whilst walking in the span-wise direction. So we’re able to do that raster scan at various spacing. So if you’ve got a defect that you wanna find that maximum 20 mil, we’ll just have a 20 mil step [00:03:00] size between each scan.

If you’ve got a bigger tolerance, we can have 50 mil, a hundred mil it, it’s so tuneable and it removes any of the variability that you get from a human to human operator doing that scanning. And this is all about. Repeatable, consistent high quality data that you can then use to make real informed decisions about the state of those blades and act upon it.

So this is not about, um, an alternative to humans. It’s just a better, it’s just an evolution of how humans do it. We can just do it really quick and it’s probably, we, we say it’s like six times faster than a human, but actually we’re 10 times faster. We don’t need to do any of the mapping out of the blade, but it’s all encoded all that data.

We know where the robot is as we walk. That’s all captured. And then you end up with really. Consistent data. It doesn’t matter who’s operating a robot, the robot will have those settings preset and you just walk down the blade, get that data, and then our subject matter experts, they’re offline, you know, they are in their offices, warm, cozy offices, reviewing data from multiple sources of robots.

And it’s about, you know, improving that [00:04:00] efficiency of getting that report out to the customer and letting ’em know what’s wrong with their blades, actually,

Allen Hall: because that’s always been the drawback of, with NDT. Is that I think the engineers have always wanted to go do it. There’s been crush core transportation damage, which is sometimes hard to see.

You can maybe see a little bit of a wobble on the blade service, but you’re not sure what’s underneath. Bond line’s always an issue for engineering, but the cost to take a person, fly them out to look at a spot on a blade is really expensive, especially someone who is qualified. Yeah, so the, the difference now with play bug is you can have the technology to do the scan.

Much faster and do a lot of blades, which is what the de market demand is right now to do a lot of blades simultaneously and get the same level of data by the review, by the same expert just sitting somewhere else.

Chris Cieslak: Absolutely.

Joel Saxum: I think that the quality of data is a, it’s something to touch on here because when you send someone out to the field, it’s like if, if, if I go, if I go to the wall here and you go to the wall here and we both take a paintbrush, we paint a little bit [00:05:00] different, you’re probably gonna be better.

You’re gonna be able to reach higher spots than I can.

Allen Hall: This is true.

Joel Saxum: That’s true. It’s the same thing with like an NDT process. Now you’re taking the variability of the technician out of it as well. So the data quality collection at the source, that’s what played bug ducts.

Allen Hall: Yeah,

Joel Saxum: that’s the robotic processes.

That is making sure that if I scan this, whatever it may be, LM 48.7 and I do another one and another one and another one, I’m gonna get a consistent set of quality data and then it’s goes to analysis. We can make real decisions off.

Allen Hall: Well, I, I think in today’s world now, especially with transportation damage and warranties, that they’re trying to pick up a lot of things at two years in that they could have picked up free installation.

Yeah. Or lifting of the blades. That world is changing very rapidly. I think a lot of operators are getting smarter about this, but they haven’t thought about where do we go find the tool.

Speaker: Yeah.

Allen Hall: And, and I know Joel knows that, Hey, it, it’s Chris at Blade Bug. You need to call him and get to the technology.

But I think for a lot of [00:06:00] operators around the world, they haven’t thought about the cost They’re paying the warranty costs, they’re paying the insurance costs they’re paying because they don’t have the set of data. And it’s not tremendously expensive to go do. But now the capability is here. What is the market saying?

Is it, is it coming back to you now and saying, okay, let’s go. We gotta, we gotta mobilize. We need 10 of these blade bugs out here to go, go take a scan. Where, where, where are we at today?

Chris Cieslak: We’ve hads. Validation this year that this is needed. And it’s a case of we just need to be around for when they come back round for that because the, the issues that we’re looking for, you know, it solves the problem of these new big 80 a hundred meter plus blades that have issues, which shouldn’t.

Frankly exist like process manufacturer issues, but they are there. They need to be investigated. If you’re an asset only, you wanna know that. Do I have a blade that’s likely to fail compared to one which is, which is okay? And sort of focus on that and not essentially remove any uncertainty or worry that you have about your assets.

’cause you can see other [00:07:00] turbine blades falling. Um, so we are trying to solve that problem. But at the same time, end of warranty claims, if you’re gonna be taken over these blades and doing the maintenance yourself, you wanna know that what you are being given. It hasn’t gotten any nasties lurking inside that’s gonna bite you.

Joel Saxum: Yeah.

Chris Cieslak: Very expensively in a few years down the line. And so you wanna be able to, you know, tick a box, go, actually these are fine. Well actually these are problems. I, you need to give me some money so I can perform remedial work on these blades. And then you end of life, you know, how hard have they lived?

Can you do an assessment to go, actually you can sweat these assets for longer. So we, we kind of see ourselves being, you know, useful right now for the new blades, but actually throughout the value chain of a life of a blade. People need to start seeing that NDT ultrasonic being one of them. We are working on other forms of NDT as well, but there are ways of using it to just really remove a lot of uncertainty and potential risk for that.

You’re gonna end up paying through the, you know, through the, the roof wall because you’ve underestimated something or you’ve missed something, which you could have captured with a, with a quick inspection.

Joel Saxum: To [00:08:00] me, NDT has been floating around there, but it just hasn’t been as accessible or easy. The knowledge hasn’t been there about it, but the what it can do for an operator.

In de-risking their fleet is amazing. They just need to understand it and know it. But you guys with the robotic technology to me, are bringing NDT to the masses

Chris Cieslak: Yeah.

Joel Saxum: In a way that hasn’t been able to be done, done before

Chris Cieslak: that. And that that’s, we, we are trying to really just be able to roll it out at a way that you’re not limited to those limited experts in the composite NDT world.

So we wanna work with them, with the C-N-C-C-I-C NDTs of this world because they are the expertise in composite. So being able to interpret those, those scams. Is not a quick thing to become proficient at. So we are like, okay, let’s work with these people, but let’s give them the best quality data, consistent data that we possibly can and let’s remove those barriers of those limited people so we can roll it out to the masses.

Yeah, and we are that sort of next level of information where it isn’t just seen as like a nice to have, it’s like an essential to have, but just how [00:09:00] we see it now. It’s not NDT is no longer like, it’s the last thing that we would look at. It should be just part of the drones. It should inspection, be part of the internal crawlers regimes.

Yeah, it’s just part of it. ’cause there isn’t one type of inspection that ticks all the boxes. There isn’t silver bullet of NDT. And so it’s just making sure that you use the right system for the right inspection type. And so it’s complementary to drones, it’s complimentary to the internal drones, uh, crawlers.

It’s just the next level to give you certainty. Remove any, you know, if you see something indicated on a a on a photograph. That doesn’t tell you the true picture of what’s going on with the structure. So this is really about, okay, I’ve got an indication of something there. Let’s find out what that really is.

And then with that information you can go, right, I know a repair schedule is gonna take this long. The downtime of that turbine’s gonna be this long and you can plan it in. ’cause everyone’s already got limited budgets, which I think why NDT hasn’t taken off as it should have done because nobody’s got money for more inspections.

Right. Even though there is a money saving to be had long term, everyone is fighting [00:10:00] fires and you know, they’ve really got a limited inspection budget. Drone prices or drone inspections have come down. It’s sort, sort of rise to the bottom. But with that next value add to really add certainty to what you’re trying to inspect without, you know, you go to do a day repair and it ends up being three months or something like, well

Allen Hall: that’s the lightning,

Joel Saxum: right?

Allen Hall: Yeah. Lightning is the, the one case where every time you start to scarf. The exterior of the blade, you’re not sure how deep that’s going and how expensive it is. Yeah, and it always amazes me when we talk to a customer and they’re started like, well, you know, it’s gonna be a foot wide scarf, and now we’re into 10 meters and now we’re on the inside.

Yeah. And the outside. Why did you not do an NDT? It seems like money well spent Yeah. To do, especially if you have a, a quantity of them. And I think the quantity is a key now because in the US there’s 75,000 turbines worldwide, several hundred thousand turbines. The number of turbines is there. The number of problems is there.

It makes more financial sense today than ever because drone [00:11:00]information has come down on cost. And the internal rovers though expensive has also come down on cost. NDT has also come down where it’s now available to the masses. Yeah. But it has been such a mental barrier. That barrier has to go away. If we’re going going to keep blades in operation for 25, 30 years, I

Joel Saxum: mean, we’re seeing no

Allen Hall: way you can do it

Joel Saxum: otherwise.

We’re seeing serial defects. But the only way that you can inspect and or control them is with NDT now.

Allen Hall: Sure.

Joel Saxum: And if we would’ve been on this years ago, we wouldn’t have so many, what is our term? Blade liberations liberating

Chris Cieslak: blades.

Joel Saxum: Right, right.

Allen Hall: What about blade route? Can the robot get around the blade route and see for the bushings and the insert issues?

Chris Cieslak: Yeah, so the robot can, we can walk circumferentially around that blade route and we can look for issues which are affecting thousands of blades. Especially in North America. Yeah.

Allen Hall: Oh yeah.

Chris Cieslak: So that is an area that is. You know, we are lucky that we’ve got, um, a warehouse full of blade samples or route down to tip, and we were able to sort of calibrate, verify, prove everything in our facility to [00:12:00] then take out to the field because that is just, you know, NDT of bushings is great, whether it’s ultrasonic or whether we’re using like CMS, uh, type systems as well.

But we can really just say, okay, this is the area where the problem is. This needs to be resolved. And then, you know, we go to some of the companies that can resolve those issues with it. And this is really about played by being part of a group of technologies working together to give overall solutions

Allen Hall: because the robot’s not that big.

It could be taken up tower relatively easily, put on the root of the blade, told to walk around it. You gotta scan now, you know. It’s a lot easier than trying to put a technician on ropes out there for sure.

Chris Cieslak: Yeah.

Allen Hall: And the speed up it.

Joel Saxum: So let’s talk about execution then for a second. When that goes to the field from you, someone says, Chris needs some help, what does it look like?

How does it work?

Chris Cieslak: Once we get a call out, um, we’ll do a site assessment. We’ve got all our rams, everything in place. You know, we’ve been on turbines. We know the process of getting out there. We’re all GWO qualified and go to site and do their work. Um, for us, we can [00:13:00] turn up on site, unload the van, the robot is on a blade in less than an hour.

Ready to inspect? Yep. Typically half an hour. You know, if we’ve been on that same turbine a number of times, it’s somewhere just like clockwork. You know, muscle memory comes in, you’ve got all those processes down, um, and then it’s just scanning. Our robot operator just presses a button and we just watch it perform scans.

And as I said, you know, we are not necessarily the NDT experts. We obviously are very mindful of NDT and know what scans look like. But if there’s any issues, we have a styling, we dial in remote to our supplement expert, they can actually remotely take control, change the settings, parameters.

Allen Hall: Wow.

Chris Cieslak: And so they’re virtually present and that’s one of the beauties, you know, you don’t need to have people on site.

You can have our general, um, robot techs to do the work, but you still have that comfort of knowing that the data is being overlooked if need be by those experts.

Joel Saxum: The next level, um, commercial evolution would be being able to lease the kit to someone and or have ISPs do it for [00:14:00] you guys kinda globally, or what is the thought

Chris Cieslak: there?

Absolutely. So. Yeah, so we to, to really roll this out, we just wanna have people operate in the robots as if it’s like a drone. So drone inspection companies are a classic company that we see perfectly aligned with. You’ve got the sky specs of this world, you know, you’ve got drone operator, they do a scan, they can find something, put the robot up there and get that next level of information always straight away and feed that into their systems to give that insight into that customer.

Um, you know, be it an OEM who’s got a small service team, they can all be trained up. You’ve got general turbine technicians. They’ve all got G We working at height. That’s all you need to operate the bay by road, but you don’t need to have the RAA level qualified people, which are in short supply anyway.

Let them do the jobs that we are not gonna solve. They can do the big repairs we are taking away, you know, another problem for them, but giving them insights that make their job easier and more successful by removing any of those surprises when they’re gonna do that work.

Allen Hall: So what’s the plans for 2026 then?

Chris Cieslak: 2026 for us is to pick up where 2025 should have ended. [00:15:00] So we were, we were meant to be in the States. Yeah. On some projects that got postponed until 26. So it’s really, for us North America is, um, what we’re really, as you said, there’s seven, 5,000 turbines there, but there’s also a lot of, um, turbines with known issues that we can help determine which blades are affected.

And that involves blades on the ground, that involves blades, uh, that are flying. So. For us, we wanna get out to the states as soon as possible, so we’re working with some of the OEMs and, and essentially some of the asset owners.

Allen Hall: Chris, it’s so great to meet you in person and talk about the latest that’s happening.

Thank you. With Blade Bug, if people need to get ahold of you or Blade Bug, how do they do that?

Chris Cieslak: I, I would say LinkedIn is probably the best place to find myself and also Blade Bug and contact us, um, through that.

Allen Hall: Alright, great. Thanks Chris for joining us and we will see you at the next. So hopefully in America, come to America sometime.

We’d love to see you there.

Chris Cieslak: Thank you very [00:16:00] much.

BladeBUG Tackles Serial Blade Defects with Robotics

Continue Reading

Renewable Energy

Understanding the U.S. Constitution

Published

on

Hillsdale College is a rightwing Christian extremist organization that ostensibly honors the United States Constitution.

Here’s their quiz, which should be called the “Constitutional Trivia Quiz.”, whose purpose is obviously to convince Americans of their ignorance.

When I teach, I’m going for understanding of the topic, not the memorization of useless information.

Understanding the U.S. Constitution

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com