Wind turbines are a poor way to harness energy – but a very good way to generate public subsidies, says Andrew Gilligan.
By Andrew Gilligan from The UK Telegraph
Published: 7:00AM BST 13 Jun 2010
From the summit of Plynlimon, in the deep country of the Cambrian Mountains, there is a 70-mile panorama of the Cader range, hill after green-blue hill stretching into the distance, from the peaks around Bala to the shores of Cardigan Bay.
It was a view that caught the breath. It still does, in a different way. The view from Plynlimon now is of more than 200 wind turbines, nearly a tenth of Britain’s onshore total, stretching across ridge-lines, dominating near and far horizons. The author George Borrow wrote a whole chapter on Plynlimon in his classic 19th-century travelogue, Wild Wales. It’s not so wild these days.
Last week’s decision by Miriam González Durántez, wife of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, to join a leading wind-farm company has thrown the spotlight on one of Britain’s most controversial industries.
Mrs Durántez’s firm, Acciona, is seeking planning permission to add another 23 wind turbines to the view from Plynlimon, filling up some of the remaining skyline not yet occupied by them.
To opponents, land-based wind-turbines – there are currently 2,560 – are, in the words of the chairman of the National Trust, Simon Jenkins, “creatures from the War of the Worlds”, industrialising the countryside, invading precious landscapes.
Supporters are no less high-pitched. At the annual conference of the wind farm trade body, the BWEA, John Prescott, Mr Clegg’s predecessor, stormed: “We cannot let the squires and the gentry stop us meeting our moral obligation to pass this world on in a better state to our children. So let me tell them loud and clear: it’s not your backyard any more – it’s ours!”
The then energy and climate change secretary, now Labour leadership contender, Ed Miliband, said that it “should be socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area – like not wearing your seatbelt”.
Yet like so much else in the climate change debate, the emotions – on both sides – get in the way. Presenting wind farms as either an alien scourge or a moral crusade obscures what is surely the real question: are they effective at reducing CO2 emissions? Do the benefits they bring outweigh the costs they impose?
Read the rest of the story here:
h/t Neil Jones
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
drchassis says:
June 13, 2010 at 3:18 pm
“In Ireland, the capacity factor for wind has been around 30% for the last few years. However, this year,with all the extra global warming we’ve been having, the capacity factor is down around 20%!”
Do you have a source for those % claims? Are there any official sources or is it all guesswork and fantasy as in the USA ?
Are there are any other national sources such as the UK neat site?
Anthony Scalzi says:
June 13, 2010 at 10:43 pm
Interesting to note that wind produces a lot of its output at times when demand is low and none when it is actually needed. In Western Europe cold weather is normally calm,thus when demand is high there is no wind which means in simple terms that wind is an expensive folly. Wind has not enabled the closer of a fossil fuel power station anywhere in the world. Germany ,as has been pointed out ,is building 4 new coal fired stations to supply the power needed to keep the idle turbines ‘alive’ as they can consume as much as 50% of their rated power to keep the ‘permanent’ magnet alive . to turn their 160+tons into the wind to stop them falling over ,the heat the blades in cold weather and to start them rotating when the wind starts to blow. The ‘best located’ windfactory in the UK only managed 7.5% of its rated output last year ,the others considerably less as can be seen in real time at http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm This site shows the reality as opposed to some sales pitch.
@MACK,
Thanks for the link, it’s very useful. I see that currently wind power is contributing a massive 0.2%.
Does anyone have a link that shows graphs over weeks and months of total windpower generation, both for the UK and other countries? This site does have a graph but, because the wind component is so tiny, you need a microscope to see it.
**********************
This is a very good article by Gilligan, a journalist I respect. It took up a whole page in yesterday’s printed Sunday Telegraph. I really hope that our politicians wake up to the nonsense that wind power is, but I’m not very optimistic. And having a Lib Dem in charge of our energy: now that really is a climate disaster!
I learned something else elsewhere in the Telegraph yesterday: Prince Charles is also strongly opposed to wind power. Maybe there’s hope for him yet….
There was another bombshell in yesterday’s Telegraph, courtesy of Christopher Booker. Mrs Thatcher, together with Houghton, had a major part in the establishment of the IPCC, a fraudulent organisation that threatens to cost the world countless trillions of dollars. AGW was very convenient for her in her fight with the miners. She spoke of our obligation to save our children from the horrors of global warming.
But it appears that in recent years she has seen the light and has become a climate change sceptic. Booker reports that towards the end of her last book (Statecraft, 2003) she makes it clear that she does not believe in AGW and even pours scorn on it. As an example, she quoted the 2.5 degree rise of the MWP and stated that the effects were beneficial. She also poured scorn on Al Gore.
From Booker’s quotes, it seems that most people here at WUWT would agree 100% with what Mrs Thatcher wrote about climate change. If only she would speak out about this more publicly….
Chris
Anthony Scalzi says:
June 13, 2010 at 10:43 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aGDZMpv5Y9Vo&pos=13
Windmill Boom Curbs Electric Power Prices for RWE
On windy nights in northern Germany, consumers are paid to keep the lights on.
While that is all very interesting, it really has nothing to do with the COST of producing wind power. The fact that some customers may benefit at particular times from an overabundance of supply is immaterial.
There is a study of wind power in Onatrio Canada that will be of interest to some people.
Watts with The Wind is available at the Ontario Wind Concerns site. Further information is available at the main page.
At times as little as 4MW of the 1,100 MW name plate capacity is unavailable.
Wind conditions in central Canada provide little opportunity for power at peak load factor times. Mostly the power is available in the evening and early morning hours. Hot weather and cold weather usually indicate that wind power will not be available.
This would likely indicate similar conditions in the bordering states of the USA.
I think Pickens has Pickens’ best interest at heart; since most likely he’s not the Christ reincarnated (is he?)
For instance:
Does T. Boone Pickens Have A Personal Agenda? by Dan Bimrose
A Reality Check on
the Pickens Energy Plan by Vaclav Smil
.
Note 1:
It is dirty coal, evil natural gas(CO2), death nuclear, good renewable s (that don’t work), and clean oil. The Middle East Countries spend billions to buy our politicians and citizens.
The beginnings of World War 3 are on the horizon. Iran said it is OK to lose 50 to 70 million of their people to achieve their objectives.
As the War begins, Middle East Countries are funding climate change studies. They feel that they have nothing to lose, since all they have is sand and bad climate. Our politicians want to stop using Middle East Oil, but the alternatives (example: clean coal, nuclear) are dismissed due to the BILLIONS of “under the table money” from the OIL industry.
Until a break-through technology is created, we will continue this climate change pseudo-science religion.
Note 2:
Could it be possible that the oil spill in the Gulf was sabotage? Most man-made crisis are “set up” by putting low-intelligence people in charge that follow the politically correct agenda.
Just a thought…
Ric Werme says:
June 13, 2010 at 5:53 pm
Really we are witnessing tha eternal fight between EROS (Life) and TANATHOS (Death), between a Nobel Knight and his not less noble esquire and evil. This why we now understand what Nobel men and women are: Noble is who can not EVER abandon his or her ideals, who fights for them, and who can not even imagine or figure out to exchange his/her ideals for a retribution. It´s really impossible for them such a thing.
This is why, under the perspective of the evil ones, a nobel being will always seem like Don Quixote of La Mancha, a madman running after phantoms.
This is a QUEST!, and a Quest though initiated by Anthony Watts and his nobel esquires, we do follow!
Roger Sowell says:
June 13, 2010 at 8:10 pm
‘Note that the higher wind speeds, 55 knots at 30,000 feet have extremely high potential for wind-turbine power production. What the existing wind-turbines extract from under 1000 feet and winds of 10 to 25 miles per hour is trivial in comparison.’
You have forgotten that the air at 30,000 feet is considerably less dense than the air at sea level therefore the energy in the wind is probably little changed. So unfortunatley, windmills at 30,000 feet are probably as useless as windmills at ground level.
That ain’t capitalism. At best, it’s crony capitalism. A better description is economic fascism.
True capitalism relies upon the free market, not favors bought and sold by politicians.
Oh, summer breeze
oh, windy nights,
we´ll have you no more,
those evil giants swallowed you up,
killed you down….
just for nothing,
for the pride, the money, the pleasure
of those silly few
who cried the world was warming
only to please their evil heart
and not only removed forever wind and breeze
from lives of men, women, kids,
but Sun and warm, trees, life.
“like so much else in the climate change debate, the emotions – on both sides – get in the way. Presenting wind farms as either an alien scourge or a moral crusade obscures what is surely the real question: are they effective at reducing CO2 emissions? Do the benefits they bring outweigh the costs they impose?”
That’s funny, those aren’t the questions that come to my mind at all. But then, I’m not a believer in the C02 bogeyman. The real REAL question is, why would any nation in its right mind want to sabotage their own economy in this fashion? Gilligan, like a lot of his fellow travelers seem oblivious to the fact that their cozy CAGW/CC craft is about to be shipwrecked. Perhaps he’ll get emotional about that.
Since KE= 1/2*m*v*v wind demands a v of some level to work. No v no energy. You pay twice for the same energy with wind. Once for the gas/coal etc plant that must be there and once for the wind. Very inefficient.
As someone above noted m (mass) in the formula above is a cylinder described by the blades of the windmill times the density. Less density less KE.
There is no benefit to have wind as a primary, secondary or any ‘ary for general use. Put it on your house if you want but if you’re a believer stay unplugged from the grid and see what happens.
@jim, re Pickens Plan for Pickens’ pocket.
What difference could that possibly make if Pickens grows richer, especially as it is the American dream to start a business, provide a valuable product or service, and grow rich, as Pickens has done incredibly well. Probably the same dream exists in most other countries.
The reality is that, at least in California, the elements of the Pickens Plan have existed for decades. We have wind-turbine generators, reducing the natural gas burned in power plants, and gas-powered vehicles reducing the demand for petroleum-based fuels. There is nothing wrong with his plan, especially the part about reducing imports of oil from the Middle East.
@ur momisugly Billy Liar: you have a point at the 30,000 foot level. Air is thinner up there.
But the main point is that even from 10,000 feet and below, there is a huge amount of energy in the wind that is never disturbed by man’s tiny wind-turbines. Wind-turbines are like specks of dust on a flea climbing an elephant’s back. The elephant won’t notice it at all.
So, 30,000 feet is the ideal place to site wind turbines? Qomolangma Peak is about 1000 feet short of that but I can’t see there being room for more than one turbine there.The repair crews would need to be rather fit to access the tower.Come to think of it ice might be a problem,oh,and what about transmission losses ? 30000 feet is a long cable.Can we work on this a little?
Roger Sowell says:
June 14, 2010 at 9:03 am
“We have wind-turbine generators, reducing the natural gas burned in power plants, and gas-powered vehicles reducing the demand for petroleum-based fuels.”
Any verifiable data on that please? I have given a link to the real-time data on wind in the UK and from this you will see that wind is not making any contribution towards closing down any fossil fuel plants. It is actually a parasite on the national grid as the idle turbine are leeching power to stay ‘alive’ .You may sometimes see windmills slowly rotating when there is little or no wind,they use electricity form the other power sources to do this.[ it keeps shafts from bending and bearings from getting flat spots etc. ]
Someone gave a link, time ago, here in WUWT, to a Finland page which showed that windmills’ efficiency in Finland reached only 2.35%, that means almost 50 times more hardware to get the same amount of energy. It would be good to have that link again.
Subsidizing CO2 Emissions via Windpower: The Ultimate Irony
by Kent Hawkins
June 10, 2010
“In general, the studies show that as wind penetration increases, the effect on fossil fuel and CO2 emissions worsens. Specifically, at wind penetrations of about 3% (as is the case in the Netherlands), the savings are zero. At 5-6% (as for Colorado and Texas) the “savings” become negative, that is, emissions actually increase due to the presence of wind power.”
The above can be found at http://www.masterresource.org/2010/06/subsidizing-co2-emissions/#more-10349
“Anthony Scalzi says:
[…]
Just posting this as a counterpoint to those who are claiming that windpower causes more expensive electricity. Now, the overproduction at off-peak hours might be matched with underproduction at peak hours. This might also explain why the apparent capacity factor for wind power has been declining recently. As installed capacity increases, the utilities are taking turbines offline at off-peak hours because of the overproduction of power.”
Please note:
-There might already be variable tariffs with smart meters in Germany, but i have never been offered one so i can’t profit from this. I also have never heard of anyone taking advantage of this.
-I pay a premium on my electricity like every over consumer in Germany (except for energy-intensive industries – they are excempt) to finance the feed-in tariff for wind and solar.
-The utilities are obliged to take all “renewable” kWhs produced. They can’t just order wind turbines offline in Germany except for when they own them.
So electricity for the consumer does not become cheaper but more expensive. The market gets distorted by political prize-fixing and this results in a less efficient market. Otherwise, there would be no money in the game to build wind turbines. Actually, the entire purpose of the German Renewable Energy Law is the distortion of the market.
At the moment, 2 cent per kWh are the tribute we pay to the green religion; this is expected to grow with 6 % a year. See
http://www.bee-ev.de/3:333/Meldungen/2009/EEG-Umlage-steigt-Erneuerbare-Energien-sind-keine-Preistreiber.html
(for non-German speakers, you’ll understand the figure anyway)
This source says 9% of the consumer end prize is for renewables:
http://www.der-strompreis.de/zusammensetzung-strompreis.html
So that’s what we have to pay. I’m not saying it’ll destroy our civilization but that’s the cost at the moment in Germany; it’s another levy so the green industry can get its subsidies.
“Anthony Scalzi:
“That hurts profit for wind-farm operators, said Christian Kjaer, head of the European Wind Energy Association, which represents RWE AG of Germany, Spain’s Iberdrola SA and Dong Energy A/S of Denmark.
“We’re seeing that wind energy lowers prices, which is great for the consumers,” Kjaer said at his group’s conference in Warsaw this week.””
Oh yeah, and your source is a wind industry lobbyist. So he’s probably not living in fantasy land; he’s getting paid to spread this strange twist on reality.
Anthony Scalzi says:
“Twice this year, the nation’s 21,000 wind turbines pumped out so much power that utilities reduced customer bills for using the surplus electricity. Since the first rebate came with little fanfare at 5 a.m. one October day in 2008, payments have risen as high as 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, about as much as a small factory or 1,000 homes use in 60 minutes.”
—…—…—
Er, uhm, OK. So watt?
At least twice (in the past two years!) 21,000 wind turbines (at how million dollars/Euro’s/wasated money each for construction and at three times the price of un-subsidized power!) allowed a reduction in electric rates “as high as” (a tricky little phrase there that can hide all sorts of maipulations in rates and times, eh!) 500 Euro per MWatt-hour – about what 1000 homes use per hour.
Ok.
So, a reduction of 500 Euro for each MegWatt-hour saved, or 500 Euro’s for that hour divided among the energy used by 1000 homes for an hour.
21,000 windmills running for two years saved the average household 2.00 Euro for one hour’s electricity.
Twice. In the whole year!
Wow. Is that a selling point or for wind turbines
Wind power by my calculations has an Energy Returned On Energy Invested ratio of 0.29. It will take more than 3 times the amount of energy to manufacture, install, operate, and decommission a wind farm than the energy it ever produces. This alternative energy, like solar, hydrogen, and so many others, is unsustainable, and thus a total waste of money and resources.
If 20% of America’s electric generation was replaced by wind power, CO2 emissions would theoretically decrease by a measly 0.0094%. In reality, CO2 emissions are not reduced at all, but increase due to fossil power plants running in ‘spinning reserve’ or cycling erratically trying to keep up with unpredictable and undispatchable wind power.
If 20% of America’s electric generation was replaced by wind power our oil imports would be reduced by a paltry 0.292%.
Wind power will not reduce our reliance on fossil power plants. Germany’s experience has shown that by 2020, up to 96% of any new wind power brought on line, will have to be backed up by coal fired power plants.
The only thing wind power does is make developers, manufacturers, land owners, brokerage houses, and banks rich at the expense of tax payers and electric bill payers.
Get the facts. Read Wind Power Fraud.
Anthony Scalzi says:
June 13, 2010 at 10:43 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aGDZMpv5Y9Vo&pos=13
Windmill Boom Curbs Electric Power Prices for RWE
On windy nights in northern Germany, consumers are paid to keep the lights on.
Twice this year, the nation’s 21,000 wind turbines pumped out so much power that utilities reduced customer bills for using the surplus electricity. Since the first rebate came with little fanfare at 5 a.m. one October day in 2008, payments have risen as high as 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, about as much as a small factory or 1,000 homes use in 60 minutes.
The wind-energy boom in Europe and parts of Texas has begun to reduce bills for consumers. Electricity-network managers have even ordered windmills offline at times to trim supplies. That hurts profit for wind-farm operators, said Christian Kjaer, head of the European Wind Energy Association, which represents RWE AG of Germany, Spain’s Iberdrola SA and Dong Energy A/S of Denmark.
Utility companies don’t exist to pay their customers to take their product. The fact that they are resorting to these extraordinary measures suggest the presence of severely distorting externalities at play which are forcing these decisions. I’m not familiar with all the facts in these brief incidents, but a couple scenarios come to mind.In many jurisdictions utility operators are under increasingly onerous quotas for purchasing “green” energy, which the inherent inefficiencies of alternative energy generation make harder and harder to meet. The utilities in these cases may have felt the need to purchase wind generated energy they didn’t need when it finally was available in quantity, figuring the hit they would take for giving it away would be less than the penalties they would face for failing to meet purchase quotas.
A more ominous scenario is that the systems they have in place to shutdown wind turbines to balance the electrical grid were not up to the task in these high wind situations and they needed to create instant demand to keep their entire grid system from doing a nice imitation of a ball of steel wool in a microwave oven. I really hope that was not the case because, while the first scenario I suggested could be cured by a rather simple legislative fix if they ever wake up, trying to balance your electric grid by calling up people in the middle of the night to have them turn on lights and ac is a recipe for only one thing in the long run…maximum darkness
@ur momisugly Mack, what kind of verification do you require? Are you incapable of doing your own research?
Here’s a link to California source of energy from 1997 through 2009. You can see for yourself if wind made any contribution to California’s energy portfolio. The total for the 13 years was 1.4 percent – not much as a percent, but the quantity was 52,000 Giga-Watt-hours. The Texas experience is much greater, both as a percent and total power production — you could look it up.
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/electricity_generation.html
For natural gas vehicles in California, I suggest you do a search for natural gas vehicles California. Or you could just look up the metropolitan bus statistics for Los Angeles, San Diego, and cities in the Bay Area.
Then, note that the buses previously burned diesel fuel – which they obviously are not burning after conversion to CNG. You might also look into the Pickens Plan website as I gave above.
I am beginning to wonder, do you think I make this stuff up? On Anthony’s website, with millions of readers each month?
As to wind shutting down fossil-fired power plants, that will not happen until grid-scale storage is available and economical, as I wrote earlier. Wind does not do that. You could do a search on electrical power storage, perhaps at one of the US National Laboratories.
What wind-power does, as Pickens says, is allow a country to avoid importing oil from the Middle East. You could look that up, too.
As has been well-known for decades, wind-power production is very site-specific. (you could look that up, too). Where wind-turbines are sited in areas with calm air for long periods, the parasitic action you describe could occur. There are thousands of unexploited sites in the USA with good wind, both onshore and offshore. (perhaps a search of the wind map of the USA would be useful to you here). These can and will be developed to reduce Middle East oil imports, but only when vehicles are converted to natural gas, or electricity.