From Viv Forbes of Australia’s Carbon Sense Coalition comes this new document intended as “a submission to the Australian Senate Enquiry into Wind Farms” on the extraordinary costs of wind power generation both economically and environmentally:
Wind power is so dilute that to collect a significant quantity of wind energy will always require thousands of gigantic towers each with a massive concrete base and a network of interconnecting heavy duty roads and transmission lines. It has a huge land footprint.
Then the operating characteristics of turbine and generator mean that only a small part of the wind’s energy can be captured.
Finally, when they go into production, wind turbines slice up bats and eagles, disturb neighbours, reduce property values and start bushfires.
Wind power is intermittent, unreliable and hard to predict. To cover the total loss of power when the wind drops or blows too hard, every wind farm needs a conventional back-up power station (commonly gas-fired) with capacity of twice the design capacity of the wind farm to even out the sudden fluctuations in the electricity grid. This adds to the capital and operating costs and increases the instability of the network.
The entire document is 30 pages long.
Can I suggest that rather than just read and comment on the document, perhaps some talented WUWT readers could help Viv by doing some fact-checking or provide some further concrete examples of how wind power will cost the Earth.
Viv’s email address is in the doco (as they say in those parts)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Turitea wind farm in Palmerston North, New Zealand has after a protracted and debilitating battle just been approved. We did our best to stop it. The likelihood that Kyoto will not be renewed next year could be the wild card. Lots of info on useless wind farms here,
http://www.palmerston-north.info
Any source info on the great photo of the destroyed windmill?
The report is a great summary of the inherent problems of windmills. My take, is that it is so confrontational and judgmental in its unvarnished assessment that it will simply be ignored, unfortunately.
Murray Grainger says: February 14, 2011 at 4:53 am
“Obama’s goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015”
I expect that this will be achieved by giving 500,00 essential goverment employees two vehicles each, one will be at home charging up (at taxpayer expense) and one will be in the office car park charging up (at taxpayer expense).
I’m offering a friendly wager that 5 years from now, all wind turbine farms world-wide will be eliminated–replaced with safe, eco-friendly and very cost effective E-Cat units. Then all of those ugly, expensive, noisy, destructive and inefficient wind turbines can be scrapped and the land returned to pristine vista again.
http://pesn.com/2011/01/17/9501746_Focardi-Rossi_10_kW_cold_fusion_prepping_for_market/
http://pesn.com/2011/01/19/9501747_cold-fusion-journals_warming_to_Rossi_breakthrough/
Oh, this little wager also applies to all those carbon-burning electricity-generating plants, too (coal accounts for almost half of the electricity generated in the United States)–but instead of scrapping these facilities, they’ll simply be retrofitted with cold fusion devices. Think of the benefits–no more effluents to impact the surrounding countryside except waste heat, which could be put to agricultural use. Electricity rates will go down, too, and coal and petroleum can be saved as raw materials for much better uses than simple combustion.
Think what this will do to current energy policy in every nation of the world.
Five years from now–anybody care to refute this prediction?
Viv Evans says:
February 14, 2011 at 3:08 am
> Forgive me for being a bit facetious, but that dead wind mill in the photo reminds me powerfully of a giant frozen leek ….
Missed it – I was too taken with the GoogleAd on the main page just above this post that goes to http://simbio.com/promos/climate-change?gclid=CLe35q7ih6cCFQl_5QodAg7FfQ – uses the Ursus bogus image of a polar bear on a chunk of ice that we destroyed here after Science used it in a lame attempt to tame acrimonious discussion.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/12/new-bear-species-discovered-ursus-bogus/
A downed tower like that would make a heck of a poley bear den!
—-
An aside – my website was essentially taken down by a false report about some of my wife’s legal pages. I’m in the process of moving things to a better ISP, but it looks a bit challenging to repoint and transfer the domains. For now, http://werme.bizland.com will have to do, the old site is kinda, sorta running and might get restored to its old glory (hah!) for a while.
Check these sites:
http://www.stopillwind.org/lowerlevel.php?content=topten_intro
http://www.masterresource.org/category/energy-sources/wind-power/
Pumped hydro was big in the 1960’s and 70s in the US to accommodate the big ordering boom in large nuclear plants. The ideas was to pump up to the upper reservoir at night when prices and demand were lower and let it down during the day. Efficiencies were about 70-80% all in (energy input as pumping vs energy output). The real value of pumped hydro was not energy storage but fast response to load changes so if a power station tripped off line, the hydro storage could make it up quickly. Costs were high since you need a large reservoir at a higher elevation, dual directional turbines (pump/turbine), tunnels/pen stocks etc. The all in capital of wind + transmission + pumped storage would be unaffordable.
A bit of digging on Starfish Hill in South Oz came up with some interesting figures. That sales pitch for $4-5mill asking price was actually in late 2009 and no takers apparently as Transfield Infrastructure Fund still own it here-
http://www.tsinfrastructurefund.com/page/Infrastructure_Assets/Starfish_Hill_wind_farm
Now note the initial owners/builders coughed up $65mill in july 2003 which included the cost of a transmission line to Yankalilla which we know from here-
http://solarenergypartners.co.uk/about-us
was $20mill max because the 23 Vestas NM64C turbines were at least S45 mill (perhaps not including installation or local pylons, etc). Transfield bought them in late 2007 and by late 2009 wanted to flog them off for only $4 to $5mill with that $200k mooted annual income but no takers. Makes you positively green with envy as an investor now doesn’t it? As well you need to bear in mind all this fabulous green return was also being forcibly subsidised by power consumers to prop that up, while the props stop turning. Welcome to the greens Industrial Devolution folks!
@richard verney – too true. The life of a lead acid battery is determined by a number of things, but first and foremost is the number of charge cycles times the depth of discharge. I have a 100 KWH bank of Rolls cells around. Out of interest, I asked Rolls what the lifetime/discharge characteristics were so that I would know if I should be pulling from the bank at night when my solar system was not operating. I got back a curve that gave me the number of charge cycles versus the depth of discharge. If you drove the bank flat, you would get 1500 charge cycles at 100% discharge and 6500 cycles at 10% discharge. Of course, you have to maintain them too. Keep the fluid level in the correct and periodically perform an overvoltage charge cycle to keep the plates clean. Lead acid is nice for casual backup but a total loser for continuous usage.
Way too much misinformation and exaggeration on this blog…
Yes, wind power is intermittent, but wind parks are developed where the wind profile has been studied and measured. Thus, the wind is predictable, and the task for utilities is to match demand with the multiple resources at hand. It is true that when the wind blows, utilities back off their most expensive resource, typically natural gas. In America, studies have shown that wind diversifies energy sources, so that as a replacement for gas, it actually reduces the cost of natural gas. Also, fossil fuel-fired power plants often go off-line, sometimes without notice, creating rolling black-outs and power failures.
Second, the speculation that when turbines are not spinning that it “must be because the wind turbines are broken” is silly. The reality is that often wind turbines will be taken off line when too much power is being generated for demand load. That is, like throttling back on a gas power plant or reducing the amount of water through a hydro facility, wind turbines are often turned off to balance generation with load.
Third, regarding the visual impact, have you seen a strip mine coal field or the pollution generated from a coal-fired power plant? Not pretty either. Wind power produces no stench, pollution, toxic chemicals or mercury, greenhouse gases, nor does it use precious water in dry climates. Indeed, agriculture and energy are constantly at odds about regions’ water budgets. Water guzzled from conventional power plants reduces what can be used to produce food. Wind is one energy source that does not threaten ag needs.
Fourth, the subsidies for coal, oil, nuclear, and natural gas far outstrip subsidies for wind. The need for government built railroads and pipelines are eliminated with wind, as well as diesel fuel to transport coal from mines to power plants.
Fifth, it is true that bats continue to be a problem with turbines, and the industry is working on that issue. The situation with birds, however, can be addressed with proper siting, and many bird advocacy groups actually support wind. Additionally, other things, such as cats, cars, and buildings have significantly higher bird kill rates compared to wind power plants, and these things are rarely criticized for their impact on birds.
Finally, the “land footprint” for wind turbines is actually embraced in many communities as it allows the economic benefits for wind to be spread around among many landowners in a community. Of course, no one will get rich with a handful of turbines on one’s property, but it can be a very helpful economic supplement for agricultural lands. Indeed, some studies indicate that wind can be a significant economic boost in rural communities, creating local jobs and opportunities for “farm kids” seeking to stay in the very communities they grew up in.
Wind power is not a replacement for stationary power generators, but it can be a useful supplement. It increases the diversity of energy sources, making the supply less dependent on price shocks and cutoffs of fossil fuels. In some cases, for particular installations, where sell-to-grid arrangements are in place, it is very economical. Wind power isn’t all that hard to predict, and the negative effects cited in your excerpt could be laid to many other power generators and public works ‘improvements’ in general. Nothing is without cost.
More energy diversity, pursued with proper costing methods, is good. Seeing windpower as a panacea and replacement for our current system is ridiculous. And this paper, from your excerpt, sounds over-the-top.
Farmers and land owners have been flocking to the money. That tells me that price constraints (read subsidies that keep consumer costs at the market low) on food keep farmers from making a decent wage when food production costs soar as they do now and then. But they are buying a pig in a poke. There is no easy money.
Farmers and ranchers must learn to diversify what they produce so that they have a mix of subsidized and non-subsidized products, as well as a mix of raw and finished products. This job is similar to teaching. Everybody hates what you do but needs your product anyway, you are severely limited in what you can do because of regulations, and somebody else controls how much you make. But you do it anyway because it is your passion.
From the good folks over at The Resilient Earth:
“If all German wind power projects are realized as planned, the country will incur economic losses well over 100 billion Euros by 2030,” says Thomas Heinzow, an environmental economist at the University of Hamburg. “The only word that describes this ‘world improvement’ strategy is suicidal.”
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/dying-breeze
and
“The toughest challenge facing turbine builders may be mitigating the noise associated with the coming wind storm. People who live near turbines can be subjected to an annoying mix of whooshes, whines, and “thwumps,” depending on the model and wind conditions. Wind developers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and New Zealand have all faced “vehement” local opposition due to noise, says Jim Cummings of the Acoustic Ecology Institute in Santa Fe, New Mexico.”
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/fighting-co2-endangers-raptors
Viv Evans says: February 14, 2011 at 3:08 am
‘Forgive me ….., but that dead wind mill in the photo reminds me powerfully of a giant frozen leek ….’
Forgiven, since no-one else did. I thought you were just being truthful.
What’s your take on the vulture video then?
Harold Pierce Jr says: February 14, 2011 at 4:25 am et al
Re: Metal Thieves
That’s interesting. Here in Australia a school that burned down during holiday times someone had mentioned that the copper had been taken also. As does, in some suburbs, the copper from the gas cylinders.
Apologies Antony and co, I had posted the Forbes Senate submission on Willis’ post in response to a commenter, before reading this post. I guess I just enjoy Willis’ articles and didn’t scan the day’s postings. Also the bones reaching to the groin, extra bones, ?broken neck and the oversize scapula was a good take. I didn’t count the ribs.
In particular note in The Register article I linked to first about the Dutch finally ditching wind for nuclear it’s reported-
“Critics of wind turbine expansion have found it difficult to get figures to judge whether the turbines are value for money. In January, Ofgem refused to disclose the output of each Feed-In Tariff (FiT) location.”
Judging by those Starfish Hill figures is it any wonder politicians and wind-farm operators everywhere are stony silent about this? Not hard to whiff a scandal of international proportions here and why the Hell have all our paid journos and investigative reporters rolled over and accepted being fed like domestic chooks on this?
Eric Worrall says:
February 14, 2011 at 4:41 am
For hydro electric powerplants you can use the following formula.
P=pφgh
Wher P is power in watts.
p is the water density in kg/m^3, lets use 1000 which is density at sea level.
φ is the flow per second in m^3/s
g is the acelleration under gravity 9.81 m/s^2 lets use 10 for simplicity
A one cubic meter/s powerplant with a 30 m drop then gives.
P=1000*1*10*30=300,000 watts
The throughput is constant so the flows gives a daily water usage of 1 m^3 * 86400 seconds in day (24 hours), which amounts to 86,400 m^3 a day or 86,400 metric tons of water a day for a 300,000 watts power plant.
Wayne Job, Many thanks. I was thinking of using exisitng hydro installations, which would then require the wind pumps to be installed at the already existing hydro site. I suspect, not very practical.
Rocky Road,
Five years from now–anybody care to refute this prediction?
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=2829
I can’t be sure, because it’s been 8 years since I left Australia, but in the half a magnitude or more time I spent there, I think I developed the feeling that the doco refers to documentation in general rather than a specific document, which I believe is your intended meaning. Thus your usage would be grammatically incorrect.
Of course, I am sure there are Aussies who would disagree with me.
At least that windmill won’t kill any more birds.
Here is a recent paper from MIT related to the subject matter. I did not see it posted prior. So here it is
Potential climatic impacts and reliability of very large-scale wind
farms
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/10/2053/2010/acp-10-2053-2010.pdf
*****
Jim Cripwell says:
February 14, 2011 at 4:01 am
wayne job writes “These are state of the art wind turbines, totally useless as generating equipment. However they make excellent water pumps”
I am intrigued by this statement. First, I know nothing about the subject, so I am really seeking information. Here in Ontario, Canada, we have an ideal situtuation to use wind power for pumped storage, but there are absolutely no such facilities operational or considered for the future. And I wonder why. I suspect that wind power cannot be used DIRECTLY to power any sort of electric system, such as a water pump. The output is far too variable.
Does anyone know whether my guess is anywhere close to reality?
*****
I have doubts about this too. I don’t see how an electric motor of sufficient size (say at least 100 HP) to pump significant water volumes could last long or even work when directly connected to the variable output of wind turbines. Those motors need constant power supplies.
Instead of water pumps – big flywheels?
The entire installed electricity generating capacity of the UK has to be replaced in the next ten years. It’s big money, in control of the government, and the newspapers are the public battleground where the battle is being fought for our opinions. But everybody is fighting dirty, so the victim is the truth. Ordinary people have no real way of knowing what the truth is.
What I can say is this, after doing some “back of a cigarette packet” calculations that suggest wind power in the UKwill pay for itself over its lifetime – you’ve got to do a lifetime costing because windpower is expensive upfront but very cheap in running costs. That’s at today’s prices – we can expect fuel costs to rise dramatically over the next decades making windpower in the UK look like a great investment. No big surprise that so many windfarms are being built in the North Sea right now by big concerns that have done the calculations for themselves. But bear in mind that this small island gathers 35% of all Europe’s wind energy -so what works here won’t necessarily work elsewhere.
Ryan says:
February 14, 2011 at 8:25 am
No, it’s horribly expensive. Just what do you do when there’s absolutely no wind across the UK? If you rely on wind power for all your electricity, you’ll have to have 100% backup of conventional baseline capacity. And that doubles the cost because of the unreliability factor. Wind is so unpredictable all that backup baseline has to be ready at a moment’s notice–either to go offline or come online. Talk about inefficiencies.
Wind power is not the answer.