It’s damning, and published by a green group. The study cited by the BBC is from the John Muir trust of all places. This would be a good place to point out what I posted a few days ago: The reality of wind turbines in California. Told ya so. From the BBC:
BBC story here (h/t to WUWT reader Wayne)
James Delingpole quips that “Official: wind farms are totally useless” Well, maybe not totally useless (unless he’s talking about the ones in Hawaii from my recent article) but these efficiencies are proof positive that the current wind power technology will never be anything but a small sporadic supplemental power source.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010. The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.
1. “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”
2. “The wind is always blowing somewhere.”
3. “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”
4. “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”
5. “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”
This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
OTHER FINDINGS have emerged in the course of this analysis in addition to the Principal Findings which related to the testing of five common assertions. These Other Findings are listed below.
1. During the study period, wind generation was:
* below 20% of capacity more than half the time;
* below 10% of capacity over one third of the time;
* below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve;
* below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.
2. Among the 124 days on which generation fell below 20MW were 51 days when generation was 10MW or less. In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there. But the very existence of these events and their frequency – on average almost once every 15 days for a period of 4.35 hours – indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.
3. Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter. They can occur at any time of the year.
4. The incidence of high wind and low demand can occur at any time of year. As connected wind capacity increases there will come a point when no more thermal plant can be constrained off to accommodate wind power. In the illustrated 30GW connected wind capacity model with “must-run” thermal generation assumed to be 10GW, this scenario occurs 78 times, or 3 times a month on average. This indicates the requirement for a major reassessment of how much wind capacity can be tolerated by the Grid.
5. The frequency of changes in output of 100MW or more over a five minute period was surprising. There is more work to be done to determine a pattern, but during March 2011, immediately prior to publication of this report, there were six instances of a five minute rise in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 166MW, and five instances of a five minute drop in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 148MW. This indicates the requirement for a re-assessment of the potential for increased wind capacity to simulate the instantaneous loss (or gain) of a large thermal plant.
6. The volatility of wind was underlined in the closing days of March 2011 as this Report was being finalised.
* At 3.00am on Monday 28th March, the entire output from 3226MW capacity was 9MW
* At 11.40am on Thursday 31st March, wind output was 2618MW, the highest recorded to date
* The average output from wind in March 2011 was 22.04%
* Output from wind in March 2011 was 10% of capacity or less for 30.78% of the time.
The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged. It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
tell us something we didn’t know
/Mango
I don’t deny climate change, I know climate changes
If only there were decision makers who read and understood this. Think of the amount of capital that has been wasted on this folly. Then add the amount of subsidy that taxpayers throw at the industry. Now add the higher electricity costs that ratepayers have to cover. All that wealth destroyed to benefit an inefficient source of energy.
First Ethanol. Then Wind/Solar. Next up “The Pickens Plan” that will use government largesse to generate a market for LNG in vehicles. Another industry (nat gas industry) that will become beholden to Washington and will fight for more subsidies/tariffs/mandates to the death.
Stop the madness.
OK, so even conservationists are now saying it.
But none of this is news: everybody who examines the matter finds the same. I have been reporting it for years; see e.g.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Richard
Well blow me!
Not surprising at all.
Relying on averages, as all the “green” wind studies do, is akin to saying that a guy with one foot frozen in a block of ice and the other blistering in glowing embers is doing just fine.
Wind farms may operate at less than 10% ecapacity one-third of the time but hey, they’re still 100% efficient in massacring flocks of birds.
“There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.”
You can say that again.
Perhaps common sense will prevail. I am sick of living in a mad-house.
Wow- not that the findings are suprising- any idiot knew this already; but that it is SO damning.
Let’s see them spin this one then.
This report won’t come as very much of a surprise to anyone who lives in an area of the UK where wind farms are prevalent, for example in West Cumbria (marketed, among other things, as “The Energy Coast”). It’s quite evident that most of the time only a fraction of the turbines are operating. A couple of days ago I found it noteworthy that one fellside wind farm south of the Duddon estuary had all nine turbines turning; normally 50% or fewer are operating.
We have been lied to and mislead and deceived about windmill (non)generated electricity and now we have concrete proof.
All those years and billions of pounds utterly wasted and based on a series of cynical lies, I feel slightly sick, the waste the sheer bloody waste of it all. Will this change the minds of the self proclaimed “greenest(reddest)ever government”. We have been had, been rolled and scammed and its left a bad taste in the mouth, whats worse is that some people are going to exit the fraud a great deal richer while those least able to weather the consequences will suffer greatly. I hope those people who walked away richer will one day realise what they have done.
Why?
Our own government ignoring the evidence, hiding the facts, misrepresenting the reality and for what? Even if they scrap the bird manglers all we have to show or those billions of pounds is a few tons of rare earth magnets and a great deal of scrap steel at the scrapyard, its not so much the money but the time wasted on a fantastical fraud, time is precious because our electricity matrix is on its last legs, time lost means when the rolling blackouts come the least able to ride the wave will be the poor and the elderly on limited incomes.
1. During the study period, wind generation was:
* below 20% of capacity more than half the time;
Well, this problem is easy to solve – just install 5 times more wind turbines to obtain your original generation capacity!
/sarc
Pretty much what was expected from these contraptions. This lengthens the time to pay for themselves by ~20% if the initial expectations were 30% of capacity output. There appears to be a discrepancy in the lists above:
First list of Findings: 3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
List of Other Findings:
2. Among the 124 days on which generation fell below 20MW were 51 days when generation was 10MW or less. In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there. But the very existence of these events and their frequency – on average almost once every 15 days for a period of 4.35 hours -indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.
Thanks for this item! Good resource for us who are opposing wind farms here in Alberta.
Here in southern Alberta the AESO reports that wind farm output averages 30 to 35% of its 777 MW capacity.
I recently saw one “real time” report of zero MW and it is common to see output of <10% of capacity.
What you will hear from the Green profiteers, amongst them the German renewable energy provider Greenpeace Energy, is that this is not a problem at all; simply store the excess wind energy in “wind gas”, by which they mean H2; derived by electrolysis. Oh, and you will here that we need to force the natural gas pipeline owners to transport this H2 in the gas mix, and that we will need incentives for this new and innovative solution.
What you will not hear is a word about the inefficiency of this idea or the fact that H2 would destroy the pipeline network.
Before you think i’m making this up here’s the source, in German.
http://www.greenpeace-energy.de/windgas/windgas-als-speicher.html
Everyone who has tried wind farms has been disappointed.
How long before the insanity passes?
I second Richard Courtney. Will government take note? Doubt it.
Excellent site to view electricity output by fuel source in the UK.
http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html
As an energy solution, wind farms are as ephemeral as the wind. (We really shouldn’t be surprised, should we?)
(BTW, why is it spelled “windfarm”? I don’t see the spellings “vegetablefarm” or “wheatfarm” anywhere.)
An utter waste of money and energy [pun intended] aimed at making the carbon profiteers very rich people indeed. This mad experiment will lead to power outages in mid-winter, excess winter deaths and so on.
This winter Scotland was forced to buy nuclear energy from France when its wind turbines failed abysmally. After Germany shut down some of its nuclear plants it turned from an exporter to an importer of nuclear generated electicity from France. It looks like France will soon become the new Saudi Arabia of electricty generation. Fools! ;O)
I vaguely remember that wind turbines require conventional power to turn the blades when there is not enough wind or something like that.
And “In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged.”
http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html
http://www.aweo.org/windCourtney1.html
Steve Keohane says:
April 6, 2011 at 9:32 am
No contradiction at all Steve. The 1st refers to 20Mw or less, which by definition must include the 10Mw or less periods which are shorter & less frequent as noted in the 2nd.
DaveE.
Jimbo says:
April 6, 2011 at 9:57 am
You remember correctly. If the blades are not turning for protracted periods of time, the bearings and shafts can distort so they must be powered. I have long thought that the abominations should have bi-directional metering and would not be surprised if at least some were nett energy users.
DaveE.
Will somebody please bang Cameron’s and Huhne’s heads together and remove their Green blindfolds. Cameron’s credibility amongst party members must be approaching zero. Spend the wind money on Thorium powered devices.
A waste product of producing wind turbine magnets is a massive, toxic lake in China. Extra! Extra! Read all about it.
Toxic lake
http://tinyurl.com/4u2xjst
Toxic mine run-off
http://tinyurl.com/ycczj26
Just how really green is winpower? So green it’s known as the bird chopping eyesore.