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.
Re wind power surges and negative electricity prizes in Germany: To clarify things, it’s the bulk prizes on the electricity exchange in Leipzig. As soon as supply exceeds demand, prizes will drop and can become negative. The energy is then taken by Swiss and Swedish and Norwegian Hydro utilities who use it to run pumped storage (and get some money for taking the excess energy).
German article:
http://www.microtarife.de/node/114
It’s not part of any end consumer tariff by now.
Roger Sowell says:
June 14, 2010 at 1:54 pm
Instead of being abusive you could,as I did, give a link to an independent source of real time power output from all of the sources feeding into the grid. Here is the link again http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
You see the 52,000 Giga-Watt-hours means absolutely nothing if that power was not available when needed.Power usage is constantly variable and if the power source is incapable of meeting the demand then it is not viable,realistic or economic.
Above, Charles S. Opalek, PE says: “If 20% of America’s electric generation was replaced by wind power our oil imports would be reduced by a paltry 0.292%. ” and all you can offer is this rather rude “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. ”
Let me put the outputs that you are using into a perspective. If you are freezing your butt off in the depth of winter and there is no wind to deliver the power needed to keep you and your family alive then you need real power and that can come from nuclear .coal or whatever.Without it you die. Wind has to be backed up by conventional means at all times and as I have pointed out above 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. ]
Right now wind is producing 0% of the demand in the UK O f the demand for 34199Mw it is producing just 13 MW,thats correct THIRTEEN Mw.
Someone above asked about the Irish capacity factor – the source for the capacity factor figures in Ireland are from http://www.eirgrid.com and they are not fantasy.
The historic figures are in the generation capacity reports, and the current figures can be obtained from the 15 minute data Eirgrid publishes. The irish wind energy association has info on installed wind (IWEA). The very cold january, february, and march we had in 2010 are traditionally the times when wind is strongest. This year, those winter storms didn’t come – lots of high presssure, frost, and snow, but not much wind.
@ur momisugly Mack. ok, hey, you’re the expert, obviously. You apparently can not read what I wrote that wind-power production is very site-specific. I could care less if the wind is not blowing in some certain spot where a windmill was built. If the UK builds windmills and gets nearly zero output, that’s their problem. Somebody should have done a proper wind-availability analysis beforehand. Also, using bold type to emphasize and repeat your point is childish. Look, dude, I read it the first time, and responded to it.
The indisputable point is that wind does work, and quite well, where it is sited properly. You can disparage wind all you would like (and apparently you like that considerably), but the hard facts are that wind in Texas provides approximately 5 or 6 percent of the total grid power, and in California it is approaching 2 percent. You could also look at the daily chart from the link I posted earlier showing California’s daily wind production. You could look it up.
George Turner says:
June 13, 2010 at 1:32 pm
‘Hey, why not just install little generators on the turnstyles at the EU borders?’
Because it would only generate electricity for a couple of seconds per persons, which would equal some 2.5 million times per year, which mean they’d only generate electricity every ten second or so. Be easier and much more efficient to install a smallish 2KW windmill for a smaller sailboat on top of the border gate since it would be affected by the up draft as well as wind from anywhere else.
The real ironic seem to be that if the rest of the western world allowed people in Africa to actual develop in the same way the western world has they wouldn’t need to move, and (and this is the actual irony) EU wouldn’t need em. A bigger irony is, if the rest of the world doesn’t let Africa develop with oil, coal, and even nuclear, where will the industries go (India, China, and Mexico are getting “too” expensive faster than most seem to have expected. Look at China, 20 years ago nobody expected China to be where they are today technological and economically, and India isn’t far behind.) Imagine this that EU with 500 mil, US with 300 mil, Russia with 122 mil, Mexico with about 112, Ukraine with 46 mil, Canada with 35 mil, Australia and New Zeeland with 27 mil, spells the need of the western world of only about one billion people. China and India have the need of about 2.5 billion. Add Africa with about 1 billion, and South America with 385 mil, Central America with 42, south east asia with 590 mil. Add two geographically small countries (less then Texas and New Mexico) like Pakistan and Bangladesh and you add more ‘an 330 million people.
Greenies thinks it’s ok to undermine the people of Africa, Asia, and the Americas, and pretty much all western governments listen to greenies these days. That’s why the numbers add up the way they do, because how the policy makers act today project the numbers of tomorrow.
So if you want to make fun of something, make fun of yourself for not making sure other people have what you have, like the need to not have to move not just to a neighboring county, not even a neighboring country, but half around the world to live in your backyard–is your backyard any good at all?
Sry couldn’t resist the rant. :p
@ur momisugly P Solar
Actually, nuclear plants can adjust load quite well to match demand. It’s just that demand is always there to run them at 100% power 24/7/365. They are the cheapest power to run. So, they’re always the first to load and the last to unload.
True, we can’t change power level as fast as fossil units. But, we can change it fast enough. We’re out of practice doing it, though, unless you consider the French.
Once we double or triple the number of units in N. America, we’ll have to dust off those load follow procedures and perform a few PM’s on some little used equipment. Those will be slightly more interesting times.
Mike G says:
June 13, 2010 at 2:54 pm
My power station is replacing its main turbines due to age. The 900 MWe turbines are being replaced with new more efficient turbines which will result in a 23 MWe increase in station output (we operate at a 95% capacity factor). Done on each unit, this is a 46 MWe increase in capacity. How many multi-million dollar wind turbines, operating at some ridiculously low capacity factor, does it take to equal 46 new MWe of emission-free electricity?
If our governments were truly in this for the environment, they’d take these subsidies and use them to upgrade the existing coal, nuclear, and natural gas powered stations, not that we need any subsidies, but we’re more than willing to do our part in this.
The only problem with this is our economies would survive and greenhouse gas levels would not go down to the levels they can achieve through economic ruin.
—…—…—
An 1100 MWatt nuclear power plants in Spain completed generator upgrades in November 2009 to a higher density stator design and gained 56 Megwatt increase for the same rated nuclear fuel consumption as before. Its sister plant is scheduled to get the same upgrade this year. A third just overhauled their HP turbine, condensate, and feed pumps to improve efficiency (reduce waste) and that gained 4 MegWatt each “free” energy.
So, from just these fice power plants, we have created 150 MegWatt of “free” energy, at 95% power on-line efficiency, continuous delivery. No government subsidies. No tax monies. Profit to the companies involved. Pay to the mechanics, millwrights, machinists, pipe fitters, crane operators and truck drivers and cafeteria workers and everybody nearby.
Five widely-separated wind turbines charging 3 times the price of nuclear electricity have to be built (around the country) to deliver rated power of one. And regional wind loss kills all 5. Line losses of resistance and transformers limit electric power distribution to just over 600 miles: Beyond that point, you lose more than half your electric power to (useless) heat in the copper in the power lines. (Sure, you can get voltage through incredible distances with no losses, but not power. I can run a garden hose two miles down the road and get water pressure at his house to fill a pot of coffee. But I get no flow to fight the fire in his kitchen.)
150 MegWatt of free power at 95% reliability.
And to equal it with 2 MWatt windmills, we need to build 375 wind turbines.
At 1 km spacing between windmills, we need nearly400 km of high voltage power lines to hook up these new wiindmills.
400 km of new roads and mountain cuts and bridges and access points to service them.
400 km of concrete, copper, and steel WASTED on “feeling good” with government subsidies. To “maybe” produce “some” power at times of the day when nobody wants it.
Roger:
When you tried to show the energy in the jet streams (the cross-continental 30,000 foot high speed winds blowing from west to east), you followed Gore’s methods and conventiently forgat a few practical things.
They are at 30,000 feet. You can’t get that energy from 30,000 to ground level.
How do you create that energy at 30,000 in the first place? The blades and rotor and stator of wind turbines weight more than contemporary jets.
The jet stream move daily, hourly, and seasonally. They move unpredictably and uncontrollably. How do you “anchor” a VERY LARGE NUMBER wind generators while letting all of them move hundreds of miles north and south continually? How do you anchor a wind generator to create the relative motion required to spin the blades?
Can you tell me how to harness the energy in the storms and winds of Jupiter?
To expound on some comments and correct some misconceptions:
I have worked in the nuke industry for 25 years. Mike G is correct we can load follow but we don’t typically since we have the lowest variable operating cost out there, save hydro. Therefore, if we can operate at 100%, we do operate at 100%. A nuke plant costs a lot to build (we have a high levelized capitol cost) we, as a country, should not build nukes that have to load follow. This creates too much idle capitol, in simple terms they are too costly to build to allow to sit idle.
People are paid to buy wind power because the grid operator has no place to put it. This is because of the inadequacies of the grid in these areas. This is not completely unheard of in the power industry. It is not unusual for the cost of electricity to be negative in areas when you are trying to transport large quantities of power through that area. Power companies need real load to be used along the line to control system voltage.
Finally, wind can produce some power where it is appropriately cited. However, it is not economically competitive by any reasonable measure. It costs a fortune to build (more than nuclear) and it is not dispatchable – the wind blows when it wants to. Therefore, not only do you have to pay for the wind farm, you also have to pay for back-up power capacity – probably nat gas. When wind is available it will displace the power with the highest variable operating cost that is operating at the time. This will almost certainly be nat gas and almost certainly not “dirty” coal.
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978 at June 14, 2010 at 4:49 pm; re wind power at 30,000 feet.
I’m not advocating wind power from 30,000 feet altitude. The point in an earlier comment was that wind-turbines disrupt the local wind and adversely impact the environment. My point in response is that air masses are much larger than merely the first 600 feet, where wind-turbines operate.
But as a speculative exercise, yes, I have read of schemes to tap the wind energy from very high altitudes. I don’t believe they will ever exist, but in theory they could.
@ur momisugly Henry chance June 14, 2010 at 5:57 pm;
“Wind generated electricity doesn’t reduce dependency on forein oil.”
Yes, it does, as I wrote above, and as T. Boone Pickens advocates. Your saying it doesn’t does not refute the facts.
“Apparently you don’t know how little oil we obtain from the middle East either. ”
You have no basis to make such a statement. If you read my blog, you will note that I am very much aware of the USA’s petroleum industry, having worked in it for decades.
“My company was involved in ramping up Enron and it’s wind fiasco in California.
Between government subsidies, legislation and mandates, California has no idea how much damage Enron did to them financially.”
No comment.
” Coal isn’t from the Middle east oil.”
Very true.
” We don’t import NG.”
False. Apparently you have not kept up with the LNG import terminals built in the USA. There is also one in Baja California, Mexico, which gasifies then transmits via pipeline the natural gas into California. (presumably you mean the USA by the term “we.”) And, as you used the term “NG,” you apparently are not aware of the large gas pipelines from Canada through which natural gas is imported into the USA.
” Pickens got smart and is backing out of his big GE wind turbine order.”
Pickens does what is best for him, as should we all. My guess is that Pickens was counting on the price of natural gas to keep increasing, but the abundance of shale gas and imported LNG surprised him. That is one of the risks one takes in business, that technical innovation will happen and make one’s plans obsolete. Had natural gas price increased, Pickens would have his wind-turbines operating.
“Obviously Sowell hasn’t read an engineer study that tells us why wind turbines produce so little of name plate capacity.”
Again, you know very little about me or you would not make such a statement. I am an engineer (and an attorney) and I have rather extensive experience in design, finance, economics, permitting, and legal aspects of renewable power projects, not just wind. But in short, poorly-sited wind-turbines have low capacity factors. Well-sited wind-turbines have much better capacity factors. For example, when offshore wind-turbines are eventually installed offshore Corpus Christi, Texas, in shallow water, their capacity factors will be very high. That is a very stable wind.
“The final stupid move is to store electric in a battery before it powers the wheels of a car. That is incredibly wastefull.”
Wasteful is not the proper criterion. Economics is the proper criterion. The higher efficiency of electric motors compared to piston engines, plus no power consumed for idling, plus partial recovery of energy losses in braking, make electric-driven cars advantageous. Batteries are but one of the many types of power storage system. Batteries are used in some applications, such as Catalina Island offshore Los Angeles. The choice of batteries at Catalina was driven by environmental regulations that preclude starting diesel-powered generators as demand increases.
“Do we see any arguments other than emotional to support going to wind farms?”
Reducing imported oil from the Middle East comes to mind.
In the current, July issue of Popular Mechanics, p. 73, it states:
I’m skeptical. Comments?
For heavens sakes. By Roger Sowell’s own figures California gets 1.4% of its electricity from wind. This is meant to be a *good* place for wind. Two thirds of three fifths of four sevenths of SFA.
We’re going to have to build the nukes sooner or later, better sooner and we can forget all the alternative (non)energy scams.
NETA wind figures for all of Great Britains wind fleet (last half hour)…0.0% (9MW)
fenbeagle says:
June 15, 2010 at 1:34 am
Reading some of the comments above ,that would suggest that someone made a miscalculation in locating the UK where it is 🙂 🙂 .I hope you noticed my reference to the Lincolnshire Alpine District as a suitable location for pumped storage, as a former member of the Royal Leamington Spa Mountain Rescue unit I am familiar with the topography of the Fens.
But to wind.It would seem that all the folks who have made knowledgeable comments here are aware of the failure of wind to deliver any worthwhile power when needed.The story is the same all across Europe and most of North America and Canada,only California and Texas seem to have tamed the wind .
@ur momisugly Roger Sowell says:
June 14, 2010 at 8:07 pm
“For example, when offshore wind-turbines are eventually installed offshore Corpus Christi, Texas, in shallow water, their capacity factors will be very high. That is a very stable wind. ”
When and will you say,now where have I heard those words used about wind before?? Oh yes,It was in Germany ,Norway, Finland , Scotland, England, Ireland etc etc.Wind has not delivered in any worthwhile fashion ,anywhere. It is a parasite on the grid and a net consumer of electricity and no amount of wishful thinking will make it otherwise.
From http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm,
for the past 30 minutes the total UK wind power output was a massive 30 MW, about 0.07 per cent of total. And over the last 24 hours wind output was also 0.07 per cent of total.
These Martian monstrosities are destroying our precious countryside and yet they’re barely capable of powering more than half a dozen hair dryers (okey, a slight exaggeration).
Is the world – and, more importantly, our government – going mad?
Chris
Here is a reference to the Ontario Grid:
http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/genEnergy.asp
Go to the link. Choose one of the last few days and look at the wind grid output. Just scroll through the display until you see “Wind Power” it is laid out as 24 hours of production. Compare it to the other generation options, such as Nuclear and Hydro.
It is not significant when you consider that the claim is that we have 1,089 MW of installed capacity. I know how to read a load graph. We have at best 550MW and we routinely get close to zero output.
I made a previous link to a paper on the Ontario Experience. Wind Power does not work. It is about the subsidies and who can rake off the most cash through tax-payer subsidies.
Our politicians enable the carpet baggers.
Mack says:
June 15, 2010 at 3:16 am
says… as a former member of the Royal Leamington Spa Mountain Rescue unit I am familiar with the topography of the Fens.
…Yes, the Fenland mountain rescue team, has hit hard times, and may have been ill conceived, but currently is being retrained to rescue stranded motorists on the Fens with electric cars charged by wind turbines.
WillR says:
June 15, 2010 at 5:20 am
Thank you indeed for that link ,the data therein confirms that it is not just in Europe that wind fails to deliver.The data for June 13th shows that wind is indeed sucking power from the grid.
@ur momisugly Mike Borgelt, re California wind at 1.4 percent.
Yes, that is a fact. It approaches 2 percent in some years. The fact is that California has very few places where wind energy is viable – and as dumb as California is sometimes, it is not so dumb as to build wind-turbines where there is zero or insufficient wind. I cannot say the same for some other countries, as others mentioned in earlier comments. California’s wind-turbine installations are not expected to increase much, ever. Until, that is, the second generation of turbines become economic, those that produce power from mid-level winds.
Thus, wind energy as a percent of California’s total electric power will likely decrease in the future. That is not a slam on California, but is a reality of the available wind resources.
Ok folks,looks like wind is not going to supply any worthwhile power at any location. But your common purpose politicians will continue to hand out massive subsidies to their cronies and others how ill continues to build these useless eyesores all over the most beautiful parts of YOUR countryside and mountain wilderness.
who will, fingers are bad today 🙂
.
I shall post this link again – Why Wind Power Does (NOT) Work in Denmark
(don’t be sucked in by odd the title – it is about wind power NOT working)
http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/DocumentLibrary/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf
.