Guest post by Steven Goddard
The Telegraph has an article today about the latest addition to the UK wind energy grid, described as “Europe’s largest onshore wind farm at Whitelee.” The article says :
When the final array is connected to the grid later this week, there will be 140 turbines generating 322 megawatts of electricity. This is enough to power 180,000 homes.
Assuming the turbines are actually moving. The problem is that on the coldest days in winter, the air is still and the turbines don’t generate much (if any) electricity. Consider the week of February 4-10, 2009 in Glasgow.
The average temperature was -2C (29F) during the week, and there was almost no wind on most of those days. No wind means no electricity. On the coldest days, there is no wind – so wind power fails just when you need it the most. On the morning of February 4, the temperature was -7C (19F) and the wind speed was zero.
In order to keep society from lapsing into the dark ages, there has to be enough conventional (coal, natural gas, hydroelectric and nuclear) capacity to provide 100% of the power requirements on any given day. Thus it becomes apparent that Britain’s push for “renewable” energy is leading the UK towards major problems in the future.
The belief that conventional capacity can be fully replaced by wind or solar is simply mistaken and based on a flawed thought process. People want to believe in renewable energy, and that desire blocks them from thinking clearly. The people of Glasgow were fortunate in February that there was still still enough conventional capacity available to keep their lights on. As the UK’s plans to “convert” to “renewable energy” proceed, this will no longer be the case.
Wind and solar can reduce the average load over a year, but they can not reduce the base or peak requirements for conventional electricity.
In the future, weather forecasts may have to include a segment like “No electricity from Wednesday through Friday. Some electricity possible over the weekend.”
BTW – You can purchase those nice fluorescent green jackets at the Claymore Filling Station in Ballachulish for about £12. I’ve got one just like it in the closet.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
moderator please correct my typos
Reply: Well you did say please, but don’t expect that kind of service often. ~ charles the moderator
How about ice build up on the blades? Any danger from flying ice when they pick up speed after being iced up?
Consider the tons of concrete needed for each windmills foundation, and the paved roads needed to service these windmills, not to mention the dead raptors and noise. If thats green I am an alien.
Of course, the argument that modern wind farms are not as deadly to raptors may be true, but there are few wind farms today. Once they start expanding in numbers, there will be wind farms built in locations they should not be built.
And those who count the dead raptors on private property that is receiving carbon credits for the use of their land are not going to be without bias. It would only be a matter of time before rodents learn to seek safe havens around these windmills which will lead to more raptors deaths (some by starvation) and exploding rodent populations that could upset the surrounding environment.
Mr Lynn (11:49:06) : said,
Jeremy (11:38:01) :
It is worse than that not only are these towers incredibly ugly and cover huge tracts of land these wind turbines kill birds. . .
Well, I don’t think they’re ugly; to my eye, they’re graceful and elegant, a tribute to how technology can be beautiful.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in this case it also depends how near the object is.
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq187/bobclive/windturbines2.gif
They didn’t like windmills in the nineteenth century either:
http://www.eoearth.org/article/The_Coal_Question_%28e-book%29
This was written in 1866:
“The first great requisite of motive power is, that it shall be wholly at our command, to be exerted when and where and in what degree we desire. The wind, for instance, as a direct motive power, is wholly inapplicable to a system of machine labour, for during a calm season the whole business of the country would be thrown out of gear.
Before the era of steam-engines; windmills were tried for draining mines; “but though they were powerful machines, they were very irregular, so that in a long tract of calm weather the mines were drowned, and all the workmen thrown idle. From this cause, the contingent expenses of these machines were very great; besides, they were only applicable in open and elevated situations.”
Wind power was being touted as an alternative energy source, because at the time they thought they were approaching “Peak Coal”!
The effect of wind variation or even no wind appears to be greatly exaggerated.
As other posters have noted, modern wind turbines appear to be designed to resist the urge to rotate under any wind conditions.
This has no effect on construction subsidies but makes it much easier to manage the grid, a win-win situation.
Has anyone ever seen a wind farm with all turbines rotating?
Wind does not make much sense without a back up system and the locations in the middle of no where requires huge transmission towers and lines to be erected. In searching for home wind system, I came across a site that advocates a “new” style turbine system for cities. It is much different looking and they are installing in a variety of urban environments. Starts around $15,000 for 1Kw service. Like the looks and it’s quiet. Here’s a link to the site: http://www.aerotecture.com/
If you watch the documentary page, you can see the windmill in action. It’s lightweight and apparently easy to set up, no harm to birds, no throwing of ice, and can operate in turburlent wind. Interesting….
debby
My friends? No. Tell you what, if you don’t speculate about my friends, I won’t speculate about yours.
I flew into Chicago last winter on a -15 F day. Clear, sunny and still! As a power plant guy I watch all the plants and had a good chuckle flying over the Dresden Nuclear Plant. It was running as fog was forming over the cooling pond. The surrounding wind turbines were not stirring. I guessed about 50-80 MW peak of Wind Turbines generating nothing around a 1300 MW nuke.
Toys!
http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/blogger.html
Wind Power Generators
Environmentalists are really big on wind power (as long as it isn’t affecting their view from Cape Cod), but there are some significant issues that need to be worked out. One of those issues is that wind power is highly variable. This means that it really only makes sense if you have some practical way to store that energy. Another problem is that many of the places that have plenty of wind don’t have enough customers to take advantage of that electricity–because the transmission lines don’t exist to transfer power from places like West Texas to places like Los Angeles.
Now, I ran into a fascinating claim:
A power producer typically gets paid for the power it generates. In Texas, some wind energy generators are paying to have someone take power off their hands.
Because of intense competition, the way wind tax credits work, the location of the wind farms and the fact that the wind often blows at night, wind farms in Texas are generating power they can’t sell. To get rid of it, they are paying the state’s main grid operator to accept it. $40 a megawatt hour is roughly the going rate.
I first saw this at Classical Values, and followed the links. But the last link to the original story is now dead. The story apparently first appeared on Greentech Media, which appears to be a blog for promoting alternative energy. While other articles on the Greentech Media site still reference this broken link, and indicate that it did indeed show this absurd situation, the original story has disappeared.
There’s nothing terribly surprising about this irrational situation where alternative energy producers are having to pay someone to take their product. As Simon at Classical Values points out:
What they really need to do is to find customers who are willing to be paid to use electricity. In other words we have set up a system where conservation is a bad idea.
Once you start screwing with the market ever more laws are required to make up for the distortions created by the previous set of laws. It never ends and only gets worse.
As much as I like the idea of alternative power, and finding a way to impoverish societies where they have their turbans wound too tight, the fact is that much of the alternative energy industry isn’t really a business; it’s a religion, a belief that anything that doesn’t involve fossil fuels is fundamentally wise. It is a religion because it involves not evidence, but faith.
The government can encourage alternative power, but they need to be encouraging basic research. If you throw a few billion dollars at solving hard problems, such as how to create inexpensive photovolatics, or more efficient wind turbines, that doesn’t distort the market badly, like subsidies and tax credits to producers and consumers do.
I don’t know if the disappearance of the original article off the Greentech Media article was a mistake, or an attempt to hide an embarassing reminder that some of this Green obsession is actually a bad idea. But the core problem remains: societies that refuse to face reality when it comes to economics end up going broke.
The San Onofre nuclear power station in Southern Cal., occupies about 84 acres of land. That station is pumping out 2,350 MW from its two reactors 24/7 year in and year out.
From time to time I have to drive out to the imperial valley for my work and I pass along a wind mill station in the mountains. Typically around 75% of the windmills are actually turning, the others are, for whatever reason, static. This is when the wind is actually blowing, which is not all the time. I’m not sure exactly how many windmills, working perfectly with ample wind, it would take to match the power output of one 84 acre plant but I am sure that the windmills would be occupying square miles of land, not acres. A lot of square miles. Is this what we want? Is this the best we can come up with? I hope not.
Sam bailey (15:10:44) :
“…….. but would also add the question that many turbines… and the the conversion of that much atmospheric energy/ convection to electric on such a scale… would by terms of absolute math/ physics.. directly and certainly change the global climate dynamics.. Some one here must have the mathmatical chops to have an idea of the totals.”
I have wondered that. I believe that it could have a significant effect on local rainfall.
What happens when moist air passing from the ocean to land hits a wall of offshore turbines extracting squillions of Joules?
How much rain will fall in the sea rather than wait to hit the hills?
Nomination for Quote for the Week:
Retired Engineer (15:12:47) said :
We don’t have a good ‘battery’ of any kind. Invent one and the world will push an electric car to your door.
OT, full of factual errors, but I figure this needs NYT AGW puff piece needs IMMEDIATE VIVISECTION and SUBSEQUENT GRILLING (followed by consumption with a nice Chianti) by the WUWT cohort:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/18/science/earth/18juneau.html
bon appetit
RW (12:31:36) :
“On the morning of February 4, the temperature was -7C (19F) and the wind speed was zero.”
Strangely, when I look at the graph, it looks very much like the wind speed averaged about 2.5mph on the morning of February 4th, and only dropped to zero for short intervals. Are you looking at something else?
RW,
the key here is those things don’t generate much juice unless the wind gets between 6 and 10 mph your nit picking doesn’t change the fact that at those wind speeds nothing happens. 2.5 is as good as zero when it comes to power generation.
“Mr Lynn (11:23:04) :
Are there places in the world where the wind never stops blowing?
/Mr Lynn”
Yes, Wellington, New Zealand. Or in the Wairarapa, a nearby region. I also suggest that the Hawaian CO2 measuring station be moved to Pencarrow Head, Wellington, NZ as the air is a lot cleaner there.
Eric Naegle
“I am sure that the windmills would be occupying square miles of land, not acres. A lot of square miles. Is this what we want?”
—————————————————————
It is not a matter of what WE want, it is a matter of what the politicians want and, with the power of eminent domain, square miles of land is not a problem for our “leaders.”
“How much rain will fall in the sea rather than wait to hit the hills?”
I would like to see them bore a hole through one of the coastal mountains and put a turbine in the center. When the Santa Ana’s blow, there would be a gale through that tunnel. And I mean a turbine more like a jet engine. You could taper the bore so it constricts right where the turbine is and you would have to somehow screen off the entrances to prevent debris buildup, but in some places it would, I believe, generate a lot of power.
Also, when the wind blows the other way, it would allow a path for more moisture laden water to get inland to dump more precipitation on the next row of hills inland rather than dumping it all on the coastal range which simply washes back out to sea.
Lucy Skywalker (11:36:40) :
. . . I think tidal energy harvesting is still, unbelievably, in its infancy, and promises a lot, far more than wind power, yet few are thinking about it. The energy potential is enormous. Tidal flow is predictable, and the challenge of zero energy at the turns of the tide can be met in various ways.
The big problem with tidal energy is putting massive amounts of machinery into salt water, and expecting it to last long enough to recoup the investment. It’s also tough to build underwater structures. And we’re extracting energy from either the earth’s rotation, or from the moon’s orbit (not sure which). Talk about environmental impact!
Other than that, I’m all for it if you can do it without subsidies.
.
Paul James (12:04:16) :
. . . I am guessing that you may not have been to Scotland. There is no A/C apart from large poublic buildings and . . .
Glaswegian phonetic spelling, no dooubt.
.
For a little light entertainment, google “burning wind turbines” and click on “images”.
Mike
clean, green, renewable, sustainable, and 100% organic
D Carroll (12:36:30) :
“As for killing birds, my kitchen window probably kills more.”
Sounds like you are an eco-felon for having such a window. Have you no shame, Sir?
Mark Wagner (13:47:21) : Better “low probability chaotic wind propelled global warmers´cash generator”
World Electricity Prices: Denmark, Holland, Germany and UK “lead the way” in cost per kilowatthr and turbines. We in the USA aim to follow their lead. As quickly as possible!
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/elecprih.html
Onatario is purchasing On-Shore Wind at 13.5c/kwh while they are buying it wholesale normally for 4c/kwh
http://www.nofreewind.com/index.html
Altamont Pass Wind = California Chumps!
http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/04/california-wind-not-there-when-you-need.html
North Dakota Weekly Wind = No wind……no wind…….no wind….Wind capital of USA
http://basinelectric.com/Energy_Resources/Wind/Basin_Electric_Generation/index.html
How your electric company will pull their hair out for Your Wind. Seriously, your electric company would NEVER EVER do this to YOU, it if wasn’t mandated.
http://www.nofreewind.com/zugzwang.html
Reliance on Wind Power WILL cause blackouts, (double click video to go to youtube if it stalls)
http://nofreewind.blogspot.com/2009/05/video-wind-plant-power-output-curves.html
How much to build?
http://nofreewind.com/power_cost_build.jpg
from http://nofreewind.com/wind_us.pdf Wind Power in the US
EVERYWHERE in the world it is the same. The Gov’t pays a huge portion of the cost in tax “credits” to build these monsters. In the US about 65% back in 5 yrs. Then they FORCE the power companies to buy the kilowatts, realize at night and on weekends the Load or need of power is about 60% and the coal/nuclear are just cruising along, they don’t need any wind! and to some degree they can only go so low in output. They can follow the wind to a point, but look at the charts and see the insanity that is needed to do that. http://www.nofreewind.com/Charts.html (double-click most to enlarge). Then most power companies pay the wind farms inflated rates for the electricity.(as in Ontario above). And Delaware just said that the electricity bills are going up by about 6%/month for the one offshore wind farm. Offshore wind, instead of being nirvana, is even twice the cost or >15c/kwhour WHOLESALE!!! And then to finally add to our MISERY, in the US the Gov’t give another behind the back Renewable Energy Credit of 2.1c/kwh which is a little less than 1/2 the price of regular wholesale.
Terrific overview from an engineer: http://the-green-wind.com/overview/wind_power_engineers_opinion.pdf
Finally. 30 miles down the road from me, we have a nuclear plant, 2 towers, that supplies 2400 MW of power, it worked continuously non-stop all last year!! 2400 MWhours. To replace that one plant. 2 MW turbines times 5,000 = 10,000MW. But the turbines only produce 25% of that, their capacity, so the 10,000MW = 2400MWhours from 5,000 turbines.
Greenies don’t care about their environment whatsoever.
http://the-green-wind.com/overview/boone_fragmentation.pdf
These 5,000 turbines would be strung out 6 per mile on our beautiful ridges in Pennsylvania, or almost 1,000 miles of trubines and road and 4 acres of clearcut minimun or 20,000 acres. OR we have this one iddy biddy nuclear plant which takes up about 30 acres!!!!
sorry for long post, but I tried to pick out my best stuff.
http://www.nofreewind.blogspot.com/
“Glasgow Looking To Freeze In The Dark”
They might be hungry too if the government is encouraging farmers to produce ethanol instead of food.
“Are there places in the world where the wind never stops blowing?”
Congress!
Mark Wagner (13:47:21) :
The new label should be “low density, intermittent dispersed energy power”
How about “dispersed, random-intensity power” DRIP.
Maybe DROP. DROOP. can’t come up with POOP, although it would be appropriate.
POOP = Propeller Ordered Organic Power.
Let me add, I meant 2.1 cent Production Tax Credit, (not RenewEngCr)
Also, as far as cost to build. For the “nameplate capacity” Wind is a bit cheaper than coal, and less costly than nuclear. But remember Wind only produces energy, which is measured in time, at 25% on average of nameplate capacity, ie. 2 MW turbines produces .5 MW power. (but you have to convert to hours/time to get energy) So it is MUCH more expensive than ALL technologies build a certain amt of Energy. Nat Gas is the cheapest to build but most costly to run.
To quote an old movie : “Show me the money!!”
These green power schemes rely on government handout , non profitable manufacture,building and maintenance.
The western economies are going down the chute trying to print currency like mad to stave off depression. Eventually there will be accountability.
Infrastructure projects will need to return to the tied economy days where the most practical, long lasting , bang for buck alternative is provided.
Anthony posted a very good article from the head of that Utah gas generation a few days ago. These green schemes are dealt with in that article.
See this WUWT Article – Commencement speech