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.
“Roger Knights says:
June 15, 2010 at 12:28 am
In the current, July issue of Popular Mechanics, p. 73, it states:
“One of the best ways to balance wind’s now-it’s-here-now-it’s-not quality is to construct grid connections between different regions of the US. … A recent Stanford University study found that when many wind farms are interconnected through the grid, about one-third of the electricity they generate can be counted on As a reliable source of around-the-clock power.[…]”
This is the same vision Merkel has sold the UK. German and Norwegian and other companies will build large offshore windfarms for the UK and Siemens will build lots of high voltage DC lines, a European Supergrid. The hope is that by shifting the power around Europe it becomes less intermittent. I think they expect losses of 5% per 1000 km. Got that number from the desertec page, the Club Of Rome pet project in Hamburg that wants to extend the system by solar thermal power in the Sahara.
Regarding wind turbine capacity factors:
A well cited wind turbine will have a capacity factor around 30%. This is a function of wind speed distribution. A typical wind turbine will have a cut in speed around 8 mph and a full load speed around 20-25 mph and a cut out speed around 50-55 mph. The cost of manufacturing a wind turbine is not dominated by the size of the generator. Therefore, the generator is over sized to capture the extra energy available from the wind when it does blow at the relatively high velocities. However, these high velocities occur relatively infrequently. This simple fact is why wind turbines have a relatively low capacity factor. There are a few locations that have a more steady high velocity wind resource but these are very limited. Offshore resources may have a higher average velocity but I doubt that makes up for the extra construction and maintenance costs, which are substantial.
Some facts about the wind energy industry are at this link, from the State of Texas, USA. There is an extensive bibliography at the end.
http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/renewable/wind.php
A reference for wind energy in California, USA, from the California Energy Commission.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2003-01-17_500-02-034F.PDF
@ur momisugly Roger Sowell:
June 13, 2010 at 8:10 pm
Roger, I’m not worried about how much energy is collected from the wind, your right, it’s tiny. In fact I’m not worried at all. Concerned with the SURFACE winds, yes. That may have an effect on evaporation and then we MIGHT have some bad effects. Just that simple.
By the way, I took a momoent to calculate 55 mph at 35600 compared to 25 near surface and it’s not that much increase due to the 250 mbar not 1000 mbar pressure. That was interesting. Then it made sense, (55^2/25^2)*(250/1000) = not much.
@ur momisugly Wayne, not to be too much of a critic, but a calculation such as you did above needs relative air densities, not merely air pressure. The air is far colder at altitude, which increases the density. Therefore, one must also account for the difference in temperature, and do this in absolute degrees, either Rankine or Kelvin.
Also, the proper valuation of wind for wind-turbine purposes uses the wind speed cubed, not squared. But, you are on the right track.
As to changes in evaporation due to diminished winds caused by wind turbines, again, zero cause for alarm. Dust on a flea on an elephant.
Roger Sowell says:
June 15, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Thank you for this link.However it is of historical interest only as it is quiet a few years out of date. Just for some perspective on wind in California, the claims of 30% efficient for Altamont Pass have been steadily reduced to 9% now as the the results are not as had been claimed .Would anyone correct this with hard fact if I am incorrect?
I can’t remember how many years ago, but I first became involved in looking at wind turbines when a couple were mooted close to a friend’s house. At first, being a bit of a greenie, I thought they were a good idea but as I became more involved I learnt more and more about them and became thoroughly disillusioned with the idea. The developer termed it in the huge numbers of local homes that the turbines would provide green electricity for (based on the installed capacity), never mentioning the load factor, about 20% around here; a massive PR exercise in persuading the locals that it would be a good thing to have them, even going so far as to claim they would be good for local tourism. The one thing about this area is that it is beautiful in that gentle english way with some fabulous views unfettered by pylons or other monstrosities and many of the local people rely on tourism as their source of income. The thought of these mega-structures dominating the landscape for miles around was too much, especially as they are not static. (I drove to Germany recently and found my eye being distracted by these rotating beasts as I belted down their motorways – not good). Anyway, we fought off the application but were not too euphoric as the developer said he would be back. And back he came with a vengeance – an application triple the size having persuaded a different landowner to sign a deal (I think the rent is about £25k per turbine but someone may correct me there). That application was fought off and the developer withdrew the application at the final hour but is back, AGAIN, with a slightly reduced number.
The profits that can be made from the turbines regardless of the load factor are so huge that it is worth their while to keep banging on at it until they finally get permission and the last government was adept at moving the goalposts to make it more and more difficult for local people to find planning grounds on which to object. The rent that landowners receive is peanuts compared with the profits the developer receives and most of that profit is derived from the huge subsidies paid for by UK residents surreptitiously concealed in their electricity bills. This new coalition government seems little better in the “greenie” department and have been equally persuaded by the wind lobbyists.
When I was first researching government policy, I discovered just by trawling the UK Parliament website that the renewable energy committee was sponsored by all the green energy companies, so what chance was there ever of hearing a dissenting voice. All such details now seem to have been removed from the website – funny, that.
I have been reading these comments and trying not to add my own but the anger and rage I feel when wind turbines are mentioned has finally got the better of me. If there were no such massive subsidies around then developers would not be so frantic to screw the public and it really makes me angry that I am paying these damn subsidies to them through my electricity bills for the negligible benefit in power generated. We are facing a time bomb in this country when we shall be forced to close power stations to meet some EU emissions directive and we will be facing massive power shortages. The last government did not face up to its responsibilities in resolving this issue and this new one better wake up PDQ or we will be in real trouble.
netdr says:
June 13, 2010 at 8:37 am
This was a possible fraud in Spain involving a small amount of power but it was not proven.The story was carried by El Mundo last April but I do not speak Spanish so can’t help further with this.
biddyb says:
June 16, 2010 at 4:36 am
I fully sympathise with your comment, the fraud has to be seen first hand and up close. The outlandish claims made by the proponents of wind power do not stand up to scrutiny in the UK where you can see the damage caused to the environment for no return. The former member of the British Government [soon to be a lord if you don’t mind] John Prescott has been very prominent in the land grab, his connections to common purpose are well known so this will come as no surprise. Science and Engineering have been swept aside by politics yet again
Wind projects thrive – at least they do in the U.S.A.
“The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and the governors of 10 East Coast states signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on June 8 that formally establishes the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium. The new consortium will promote the development of wind resources on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) along the East Coast, primarily by coordinating state and federal efforts relating to permitting, environmental studies, technical and financial barriers, and the infrastructure needed to deploy and maintain offshore wind power plants. The MOU was signed by the governors of Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. ”
source: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/news/news_detail.cfm/news_id=16093
Roger Sowell says:
June 16, 2010 at 10:35 am
“Wind projects thrive – at least they do in the U.S.A. ”
You confuse an extension of the scam to fresh fields with actual benefits to the general population. Wind is a parasite on the grid and its proponents are parasites on the wealth of the public.
@ur momisugly Mack, re confusion. I sympathize with your plight. It has to really be sad to know that some wind-turbine installations actually do work as advertised, and contribute to the grid. One must wonder, then, why the others do not. It is not the technology.
Three words come to mind: Location, location, location.
Dear Mack,
Please don’t mention that ghastly man’s name again. Prescott (there, I’ve said it) should be ashamed of himself, but I suppose someone who is so irrational will never be able to see and understand the damage that he has done because of the massive chip on his shoulder. He was only in Government to make Blair credible to the unions. He was supposed to be in charge of transport policy – um, what exactly did he achieve? Exactly nothing. But he went on to batter the environment through the planning process, all because he thought he would be destroying the privileged middle classes. I can’t quite believe that someone could be so small-minded but he went on to prove it time and time again.
At least Regional Spatial Strategies are scrapped and local councils can make their own planning strategies, but whether that will include being able to resist wind turbines remains to be seen, given the way the coalition seems wedded to green policies to hold back climate change (small quantity of scarc, please note).
This is probably piling on at this point, but on June 15, 2010, wind produced just under 5 percent of the total kWh in California, or 3000 MW average output over 24 hours. That is just a bit more than three times the annual average of 1.4 percent. With a rough value for average capacity factor of 24 percent from several industry studies, that would imply that the capacity factor for that day was a bit more than 75 percent.
The technology works.
Correction, just over 1,000 MW, not 3,000 MW. Mea culpa.
Roger Sowell
Is it possible to supply a link or referance to that information please? (The 1,000MW, not the 3,000MW obviously)
@ur momisugly Fenbeagle, yes, of course. See link below. This is updated daily and shows the previous calendar day’s renewable energy production in California. Thus, the data for the 15th is not shown today, but at the bottom of the page there is a link to earlier dates.
The 16th is shown as I write this, with wind production of 25, 809 MWhs in the 24 hour period. This of course averages out to just over 1,000 MW of steady production. About the size of one nuclear reactor’s output.
http://www.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch.pdf
Roger Sowell
Thank you, I am obliged to you, that link is most helpful and informative.
Some time ago a few members/posters at this blog had the pleasure of calls and visits from the police regarding Climategate.
At least, some people believed that a crime had been committed. This morning this story appeared in Wind Concerns Ontario regarding police of The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) visiting members of Wind Concerns Ontario (WCO) to determine if a crime was being contemplated.
It makes for an interesting morning read over coffee when you realize that you are now likely the target of background searches and criminal investigations for a crime that you might contemplate in the future. I have variously seen this in fantasy and science fiction described as “Future Crime” and “Thought Crime”. What more could I say?