It’s damning, and published by a green group. The study cited by the BBC is from the John Muir trust of all places. This would be a good place to point out what I posted a few days ago: The reality of wind turbines in California. Told ya so. From the BBC:
BBC story here (h/t to WUWT reader Wayne)
James Delingpole quips that “Official: wind farms are totally useless” Well, maybe not totally useless (unless he’s talking about the ones in Hawaii from my recent article) but these efficiencies are proof positive that the current wind power technology will never be anything but a small sporadic supplemental power source.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010. The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.
1. “Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year.”
2. “The wind is always blowing somewhere.”
3. “Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.”
4. “The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.”
5. “Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.”
This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
1. Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
2. There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).
3. The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.
4. At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
5. The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
OTHER FINDINGS have emerged in the course of this analysis in addition to the Principal Findings which related to the testing of five common assertions. These Other Findings are listed below.
1. During the study period, wind generation was:
* below 20% of capacity more than half the time;
* below 10% of capacity over one third of the time;
* below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve;
* below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month.
The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.
2. Among the 124 days on which generation fell below 20MW were 51 days when generation was 10MW or less. In some ways this is an unimportant statistic because with 20MW or less output the contribution from wind is effectively zero, and a few MW less is neither here nor there. But the very existence of these events and their frequency – on average almost once every 15 days for a period of 4.35 hours – indicates that a major reassessment of the capacity credit of wind power is required.
3. Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter. They can occur at any time of the year.
4. The incidence of high wind and low demand can occur at any time of year. As connected wind capacity increases there will come a point when no more thermal plant can be constrained off to accommodate wind power. In the illustrated 30GW connected wind capacity model with “must-run” thermal generation assumed to be 10GW, this scenario occurs 78 times, or 3 times a month on average. This indicates the requirement for a major reassessment of how much wind capacity can be tolerated by the Grid.
5. The frequency of changes in output of 100MW or more over a five minute period was surprising. There is more work to be done to determine a pattern, but during March 2011, immediately prior to publication of this report, there were six instances of a five minute rise in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 166MW, and five instances of a five minute drop in output in excess of 100MW, the highest being 148MW. This indicates the requirement for a re-assessment of the potential for increased wind capacity to simulate the instantaneous loss (or gain) of a large thermal plant.
6. The volatility of wind was underlined in the closing days of March 2011 as this Report was being finalised.
* At 3.00am on Monday 28th March, the entire output from 3226MW capacity was 9MW
* At 11.40am on Thursday 31st March, wind output was 2618MW, the highest recorded to date
* The average output from wind in March 2011 was 22.04%
* Output from wind in March 2011 was 10% of capacity or less for 30.78% of the time.
The nature of wind output has been obscured by reliance on “average output” figures. Analysis of hard data from National Grid shows that wind behaves in a quite different manner from that suggested by study of average output derived from the Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) record, or from wind speed records which in themselves are averaged. It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future. There is an urgent need to re-evaluate the implications of reliance on wind for any significant proportion of our energy requirement.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In a sane world the media would be harrying these politicians over this at every turn. On every tv interview they would be skewered with these facts. Every time Huhne or Cameron is taking questions they would be demanded to explain the contradictions in their policies. Every newspaper would be letting loose their attack dogs. Documentaries exposing the madness would be airing weekly on tv. The scoundrels would be hounded out of office.
In a sane world.
I analyzed the 1993 Embodied Energy Analysis for the Livermore Pass CA wind facility, which claimed an EROEI of 14.87, and showed the true EROEI was 0.29.
On 02-21-09, the http://www.windpower.org web site claimed that wind power pays for itself in 2 to 3 months. My subsequent analysis showed that the payback was really 130 years. This web site has since gone from English to Dutch and the claim has – rightly so – evaporated.
When discussing wind power, it is critical to ask the burning question on any proposed wind power facility: What is it’s EROEI?
It’s easy for a windmill to store energy. Just attach a large rubber band. When the windmill generates more power than is demanded, use the excess power to wind the rubber band.
Full disclosure note. I’m heavily invested in a company that makes rubber bands. Our latest model, the “stretch 1000” can store 1000 Joules of energy; and from a fully wound state, unwinds in 10 seconds. That’s 100 watts for 10 seconds. We’re making billions–both rubber bands and dollars.
/sarc
ew-3 says:
“Washington – President Barack Obama announced today that the U.S. government will buy only advanced technology vehicles — such as hybrids and electric plug-ins — by 2015.
Just got a vision of the army trying to fight a war with solar-powered tanks and electric bombers. Not sure if that’s good or bad…
HAHAHAHAhahahahaaaaa!
When all you TV Zombies have to wake up when the haunted fish tank goes dead, stupified from years of XFactorDancingOnIcePopIdolFootballLottoCelebShagMania, and you come ’round MY house jonesing for a bowl of hot stew … press the doorbell marked GFYS!
thanks.
Just look at this data from the German Wind Power Asociation themselves:
http://www.wind-energie.de/de/statistiken/
Scroll down to the third graph titled:
Die Einspeisung von Windstrom
meaning wind energy production.
This graph shows the yearly averaged actual energy production of wind power in Germany (black line) and the forecast production (orange line).
Not even once since this data set starts in 1993 has the actual production reached the forecast production. The text above the graph states in German “below average wind years have so far prevented wind power from reaching its full potential”.
Meaning there has not been an “average” wind year since 1993???
Only a mathematically illiterate politician can believe that.
Designing the perfect source of dependable power….
…and coming up with windmills
Is like designing the perfect pet…
…and coming up with a cat
As far as I can tell, the full report commissioned by the John Muir Trust blames the shortfall in generating capacity almost entirely on the intermittence of wind (e.g., “low wind events”.) However, Anthony has posted evidence that non-functioning turbines may be a huge factor if the 1 in 4 ratio of “dead” turbines he observed in California is typical of the industry. As far as I can tell, this factor is not mentioned anywhere in the Muir report. Maybe someone should send them a copy of Anthony’s post.
This raises a related question. The report based its results on a comparison to the 30% generation capacity used as a “constant” by the industry. How was that percentage calculated? Does it include an allowance for non-functioning turbines? Probably, but is it high enough? I did a quick Google search on windfarms and the 30% capacity constant and found no mention of such an allowance. If Anthony’s observed ratio of non-functioning turbines is typical, the constant may be too high.
The key point of this is that to the extent that shortfalls in wind farm capacity are due to mechanical failures, the problem is solvable compared to”low wind events.”
KLA says:
April 6, 2011 at 2:49 pm
“Just look at this data from the German Wind Power Asociation themselves:”
It looks like they’re slowly depleting the wind in Germany.
That’s good. It’s too windy here in Northern Germany anyway. So they’re good for something, at last.
And now even the Europeans are agreeing that the entire wind power supply system can drop out over large areas.
http://www.powergenworldwide.com/index/display/articledisplay/5842512851/articles/powergenworldwide/t-and-d/t-and-d-infrastructure/2011/03/poeyry_-european_.html
Pöyry says that while improved interconnectivity between countries could help protect supply and provide support to regions that are facing shortages, often multiple countries across Europe experience similar weather patterns and so several could face shortages at the same time. Better interconnections in isolation would therefore not be an effective solution.
Funny thing that — just like the Ontario, Canada wind power system.
Click on my name — look at section 3.1 in the table of Contents — Powering Ontario.
Industrial Wind Turbines are a waste of money!
‘Whoa, windfarms in UK operate well below advertised efficiency’
Somebody should tell Pres, Obama:
“Pitching the promise of energy independence, President Barack Obama cautioned Wednesday that it’s going to be tough to transition from America’s oil-dependent economy and acknowledged there’s little he can do to lower gas prices over the short term.
“I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now,” the president told workers at a wind turbine plant. It’s a theme Obama’s struck before as he tries to show voters he’s attuned to a top economic concern with gas prices pushing toward $4 a gallon.
Obama said he wants to move toward “a future where America is less dependent on foreign oil, more reliant on clean energy produced by workers like you.” That will happen by reducing oil imports, tapping domestic energy sources and shifting the nation to renewable and less polluting sources of energy, such as wind,…”
How many of these ………wind power is the future….. types have noticed the number of windmills in Dutch paintings from the 17th century?
How many farms and ranches in 18th and 19th century America had a windmill?
Give me AC electricity!
Yes, Obama once again made a fool out of himself today. Not only did he hype wind energy but the company he visited is a foreign owned company.
TonyG says:
April 6, 2011 at 10:57 am
Yes, a decrease in efficiency, however a stockable inventory and “point of use” adds to overall efficiency. It enables wind power transportation without the restrictions of sails.
James Sexton says:
April 6, 2011 at 11:42 am
Hence the advantage of choosing hydrogen production instead of MWe. Hydrogen is easily bottled.
MikeinAppalachia says:
April 6, 2011 at 11:13 am
Yes, exactly so, I think all generators should run flat out. Grid voltage can be maintained/regulated by dumping surplus MWe into electrolysis. This would be ideal.
I am not a fan of wind power under the current paradigm. I am only suggesting an alternate way of utilizing them. All inventions must await for the suitable application before achieving utility. We know hydrogen can power cars, trains and planes cleanly (I refer to real pollutants NOT CO2). Maybe, we could then stop, the funding of our enemies. GK
Today I gave a lecture on medieval water and wind mills to first year students. I linked these technologies to our modern energy-dependent society, with images of modern electricity-generating turbines and wind turbines. I also discussed the unreliability of wind power. My last slide showed five images of burning, blown-out or collapsed wind turbines.
I should have had a camera to record the utter shock on my students’ faces.
From ec on April 6, 2011 at 5:41 pm:
Hey, if Obama manages to blow away another massive chunk of America’s wealth, that of the present to three generations hence, and afterwards we have a pile of recyclable steel, copper, and some aluminum that’s worth perhaps one-thousandth of the original cost, it’ll be an improvement.
Looks like the Chinese government figured this out, too, and perhaps rolled back the subsidies:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/AMSC-shares-tumble-as-top-rb-1291701152.html?x=0
G. Karst says: April 6, 2011 at 7:14 pm
“We know hydrogen can power cars, trains and planes cleanly (I refer to real pollutants NOT CO2). Maybe, we could then stop, the funding of our enemies. ”
Agreed. And my point was that given the installed cost and O&M requirements of even the latest wind turbines, with a 20-24% load factor, that would be an uneconomical source of H2 compared to the use of off-peak Nukes, run-of-river hydro, and (yes, even) coal and gas-fired generation. If the current “windfarms” are producing below 30% and assuming the “better” sites are those being installed initially, then the more marginal sites will certainly produce at a lower load factor. Have to wait and see when (if) offshore sites are developed, if their supposed better load curves can off-set their increased costs and O&M. And I haven’t even gotten to the (presently hidden) added costs of all the added transmission and substations required to add these big fans to the grid.
G. Karst says:
April 6, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Hydrogen is easily bottled.
=============================================================
Maybe. But it is not easy to keep bottled. Earlier in this thread someone suggested mixing the hydrogen with natural gas and using the natural gas pipline system.
H2 is a very much smaller molecule than CH4. Fittings that are natural gas tight are not necessarily hydrogen tight. Much of the hydrogen will leak out the system.
I had personal experience with this a number of years ago working at a pipeline compressor test facility that used nitrogen and helium to simulate natural gas for safety reasons. The helium (which while a small molecule, is still larger than hydrogen) would continually leak out of the system (but not the nitrogen), dispite our best efforts. Natural gas piping and fittings are not designed to contain molecules as small as H2.
@Labmunkey says: April 6, 2011 at 9:22 am
Wow- not that the findings are suprising- any idiot knew this already; but that it is SO damning.
Let’s see them spin this one then.
You’ve missed the point, mate, they’re not spinning 😉
/Mango
I don’t deny climate change, I know climate changes
>>ew-3 says: April 6, 2011 at 12:19 pm
>>Suspect it will be the “Chevy Volt” that will get the government largess.
I hope not. Electric cars pump out more emissions and CO2 than a standard European diesel. There are too many losses in the electrical cycle – and from where does the car get its elecricity! Hmmm, yes, from coal, oil or gas.
.
There’s nothing new in this report to anyone that has the minimum knowledge of Wind energy.
On energy matters, WUWT seems to have befriended its algorian nemesis in the support for Gas and other fossil fuels. In 5 to 6 years the UK grid shall become permanently intermittent due to lack of Gas imposed by the decline in the North Sea. I wonder what will WUWT be writing about by then.
The claim that large arrays will negate the variation of wind strength has been blown out of the water in Australia where one wind farm complex is 1000km across but still fails to produce power most of the time.
As far as UK turbine efficiency is concerned I was told during an alternative power teach-in that 20% was about right for wind turbine efficiency. So a 1Mw turbine will produce 200Kw. So we have to multiple all government quoted turbine numbers by 5 to get the correct result.
The next tax grab is for the large arrays to be built and linked in the North Sea and to other countries like Norway which, thankfully for the UK, has some surplus hydro generated power which can be switched through this new grid. (If it is ever built)
From the Principal Findings:
“The discovery that for one third of the time wind output was less than 10% of capacity, and often significantly less than 10%, was an unexpected result of the analysis.”
This suggests to me that finding less than 20% of output for more half the time wasn’t unexpected. I would bet it is news to the politicians and proponents of wind power.
The findings also highlight in no uncertain terms the variability of wind. The average, expected output is all but irrelevant to our daily lives – if there is no wind now there is no output and we would get nothing done. That is no way to run a first world country.
ec says:
April 6, 2011 at 5:41 pm
“I’m just going to be honest with you.” (quoting Barky Oblasmo (sic)).
When a politician says this, run like hell.
Has anyone forwarded this to the British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, Chris Huhne? He must surely soon start acting with common sense and responsibility and get rid of the silly notion that wind power is going to be the saviour of our forthcoming energy crisis.