From Benny Peiser at The GWPF:
In a sane world, no one would dream of building power sources whose cost is 22 times greater than that of vastly more efficient competitors. But the Government feels compelled to do just this because it sees it as the only way to meet our commitment to the EU that within nine years Britain must generate nearly a third of its electricity from “renewable” sources, six times more than we do at present. Madness is far too polite a word. –-Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 21 August 2011
They are among the nation’s wealthiest aristocrats, whose families have protected the British landscape for centuries. Until now that is. For increasing numbers of the nobility – among them dukes and even a cousin of the Queen – are being tempted by tens of millions of pounds offered by developers. —Robert Mendick and Edward Malnick, The Sunday Telegraph, 21 August 2011
In the course of the 25-year lifespan of the wind farm at Fallago Rig it could net the Duke anywhere between £18 million and £62.5 million. One industry expert estimated Fallago Rig could generate about £875 million income over the next quarter of a century for the Duke and his commercial partner North British Windpower. —Robert Mendick and Edward Malnick, The Sunday Telegraph, 21 August 2011
The level of subsidy available to landowners to put up these turbines is out of all proportion to the public benefit derived from them and the temptation to ruin what is usually outstanding landscapes is overwhelming. It is a crime against the landscape. –Sir Simon Jenkins, National Trust, The Sunday Telegraph, 21 August 2011
Green taxes will make up more than a third of the price of electricity by the end of the decade, pushing up prices to new highs by 2020. Figures from Utilyx, the energy consultants and traders, forecast a 58pc rise in the cost of power by 2020, largely driven by the impending avalanche of green taxes due to come into force over the next 10 years. –Rowena Mason, The Sunday Telegraph, 21 August 2011
If Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has his way, Britons will be forced to subsidise renewable energy by approximately £100billion in the next 20 years. Electricity prices are likely to double as a direct result. The Government has to force energy companies to make electricity bills fully transparent so that the ever-increasing level of hidden green taxes are clearly listed for families and households. –-Benny Peiser, Daily Mail, 8 July 2011
Energy firms have been asked to clearly explain how they calculate bills after concerns were raised that customers may have been overcharged after price rises. —Totally Money, 20 August 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Not making any excuses for anyone . . . but, I happen to believe wind energy has it place.
For example, where there are no rivers for hydroelectric, where there is no easy cheap access to the grid, like in isolated low populated areas, where there may be wind and not much else . . . for example . . . . In the fields and plains weather public or private that would feed a watering hole for whoever, or whatever happens to be wandering buy . . . . for feeding Oasis’s’s’s in desert conditions . . . or just plain a one light settlement that is in the middle of “nowhere”!
Isn’t this why engineers are also trained in cost accounting, payback rates, cost/benefit analysis?
The way I see it, all sources of energy have their place.
Eco hypocrite-in-chief, Prince Charles, is a strong supporter of siting windfarms around Britain’s coast, no doubt because the Royal Family are due to receive, by 2020, an income of nearly £40,000,000 a year from these monstrous birdy killers.
This will take their income from the Crown Estate, which owns Britain’s territorial seabed, to nearly £70,000,000 a year. In this duplicitous manner, British taxpayers will be subsidising the Monarchy in the style which Prince Charles believes has been ordained.
Did someone say Bull***t…?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1323228/Queens-38m-year-offshore-windfarm-windfall–owns-seabed.html
Wil & Jay Davis,
That’s a little harsh. The problem is that politicians and factions have learned to game the system there, and they’re doing the same thing here. In principle it’s not much different than the Team’s gaming of the peer review/journal system. The result is one-sided groupthink.
And I’m not one of those who say that we get the government we deserve. I certainly don’t deserve the corrupt government I have to put up with. Every time I turn around some gov’t jamoke is trying to put his sticky fingers deeper in my pockets. Obama stated that electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket, and they are. None of us deserves that kind of government.
I’m inclined to favor Tallbloke’s remedy.
The truly unfortunate things is that the UK has cold snaps every once in a while where the whole country is under snow, nationwide temperatures are unusually low, and no wind blows. Sometimes these systems last for a week. If the electric system operator is counting on any portion of the wind generation as firm generation, there will be a shortage of electricity – meaning blackouts or brownouts. Either way, it will kill people. Most heaters don’t work when the electricity is off.
Usually, I’d agree with all this, BUT Britain has to be self-sufficient in electricity generation. We need security of supply. Don’t get me wrong, I know full well wind generation is a joke, as I am a heating consultant. We walk a tightrope of oil supplies from dodgy nations and gas from Russia. And we all know that almost anything can happen in Russia! However we generate electricity, it has to come from within our own shores as soon as possible. People cannot seem to grasp this. We do have coal reserves in untapped mines (because Thatcher closed them down as it was more economic to import it – but actually it wasn’t when all economic factors were taken into account).
To the Brit above whose wife stays up to plug stuff in: No, electric isn’t 20p/kWh, it’s 10p. I know because that’s what I pay. You need to shop around.
Bruce Rogers says: August 22, 2011 at 12:54 pm
[So how well do these things work when coated in snow and freezing rain?]
We expect them to be as stable and a safe as an aircraft with its wings unevenly iced over.
We expect that when the ice slips from one of the three wings the device will not disintegtate immediatly and that the ice on the remaning two wings will be cleared by the rotational out of balance vibration/shudder/grinding before any seriour harm is done to the device.
We expect that snow will be a thing of the past.
We expect that the tooth fairy will be able to avoid the blades.
So it is OK.
Here’s a comment made by economist Dieter Helm of Oxford University, talking to the BBC last week. He’s not an AGW sceptic, but is sceptical about the economic viability of electricity generation from offshore wind in the UK (apologies to those who have already read this in my comments on other blogs, but I think it’s worth repeating):
“Well, if you look at the costs of offshore wind, and indeed if you look practically at what is involved in building an offshore wind farm, it’s inherently complicated, it’s in a difficult environment, and it’s unsurprising that it is really, almost staggeringly, expensive. I mean, if you want a kind of, sort of ballpark order-of-magnitude of cost, here, offshore wind is one of the very few things that makes nuclear power look cheap – and it certainly isn’t cheap, nuclear power. And the only thing that makes offshore wind look a cheap way of reducing emissions is the kind of stuff being stuck on people’s roofs – solar panels and so on. So what we’re doing is choosing, effectively, the most expensive way of reducing emissions first. And we’re doing it by an enormous commitment to this one technology. And the sorts of sums involved are of the order of a £100 billion, to be spent by 2020. That’s just for the wind farms. Then you’ve got to put the transmission in place, all the systems, all the backup. That’s probably another £30, £40 billion on top, at least. So we want £150 billion to build these wind farms in less than ten years. You can work that out as billions per annum. And then, ultimately, you have to ask yourself: and who’s going to pay? And you might like people to pay. You might like customers to pay, you might like industry to pay. But they actually have to be able to do it. And given the extent of fuel poverty, and given the state of our economy, I doubt it can, in fact, be afforded.”
I was amused to find that all this had been predicted some 150 years ago by a chap called de Tocqueville.
He suggested that representative democracy could never work in the long term because in due course politicians would find that they could bribe the voters with their own money.
And so it is.
Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad – this is just another reason why any young professional should emigrate from the UK. That’s what I have been advising my kids.
I guess it is just the final shudders of a dying empire.
The so-called political elite in the UK refuse to realise their greenie whims will destroy the country’s industrial base and beggar the rest of us.
Perhaps it’s time for the US to colonise its former colonial master, but then again you guys still have the EPA and so you are probably doomed to follow our lead.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein to Face Climate Change Risk Disclosure
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Goldman_Sachs_050611.html
“Goldman Sachs has failed to disclose the significant risks associated with its climate change business strategy. With approximately $3 billion of investments in renewable energy, shareholders have a right to know that changes in the political and scientific landscape can have a significant impact on those investments,” said Tom Borelli.
“Shareholders should be advised that the profit potential of renewable energy is dependent on government action. Since renewable energy can’t compete head-to-head with fossil fuels, the use of wind turbines and solar panels is reliant on government subsidies and mandates. Accordingly, future budget cuts to address our massive government debt could negatively impact the use of renewable energy,” said Tom Borelli. Goldman Sachs petitioned the SEC to permit it to reject consideration of the proposal, but the SEC ruled in favor of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
NOTE: Lloyd Blankfein has retained a very high powered lawyer. Could a shareholder issue like above be why?
http://dailybail.com/home/lloyd-blankfein-hires-high-profile-defense-attorney.html
Mooloo says:
August 22, 2011 at 1:17 pm
I don’t get the aesthetic argument against them. They are far less ugly than the pylons that carry the electricity, and the nuclear stations that will eventually replace them.
Unfortunately, it maybe different where you are, in the UK the windfarms are built a long way away from the transmission lines. As the power doesn’t get from one to the other by magic additional transmission is also required. Pylons are the cheapest method. UK pylons are galvanised and not painted bright shining white, nor do they rotate at any time night or night summer or winter. The aesthetic argument is totally valid, spoil heaps from mining are regarded as an eyesore in my opinion so are useless wind mills. Wind mills are a medeveal technology which became obsolete in the 19th century, it is still obsolete in the 21st century, only politicians think otherwise.
tallbloke says:
August 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Problem is Wil, all the political parties subscribe to the green agenda. So it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
My preferred solution is to throw the useless lying thieving f—ers out of the windows of Parliament into the river Thames and form a national salvation committee.
Amen. As the saying goes: the only man ever to enter Parliament with honest intentions was Guy Fawkes.
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
August 22, 2011 at 1:51 pm
To the Brit above whose wife stays up to plug stuff in: No, electric isn’t 20p/kWh, it’s 10p. I know because that’s what I pay. You need to shop around.
Care to give a hint to those of us who are paying more? There are so many electricity suppliers in the UK nowadays, it’s hard to know where to begin.
On Friday I’m having a PV array installed on the roof of my house. This is not because I think that it will do the slightest bit of good for the environment, but because the return on investment, paid by the feed in tariff, is so much better than what I can get from the banks. That part of the population which cannot afford to make this sort of investment will end up paying for my good fortune through their higher fuel bills. Hardly what could be called a fair and equitable system.
Tallbloke, what is a “salvation committee”? Is it the same thing as a rescue committee? Or is it a committee formed to pray for the souls of those who were thrown into the river?
tallbloke says:
August 22, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Problem is Wil, all the political parties subscribe to the green agenda. So it doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.
My preferred solution is to throw the useless lying thieving f—ers out of the windows of Parliament into the river Thames and form a national salvation committee.
———–
Sorry to be so harsh – but I’ve been around long enough to know it is the people who drive political parties and not political driving the people’s agenda in the modern era. The Tea Party in the US comes to mind as a great example of representative elections. I stated I have no sympathy to the Brits nor the EU cousins because I believe, for what ever that’s worth, the Brits NEED the craziness and the utter disregard endemic to the present parties in the UK and the EU for their own citizen’s hurts and pains at a time of world wide economic instability are meaningless to the present political class in the UK and the EU.
Ten thousand articles cannot drive home the utter hopelessness to the broad base of citizenry of any nation to their personal situation better than the cold, callous, disregard of the British and EU politicians better than the idiocy and utter stupidity of government actions as highlighted in this column. And this is certainly one of those instances where the madness of the EU umbilical cord to Brussels is most certainly leading a once great nation to their demise. I believe the UK is very close to rethinking their entire EU experience and it is instances like this that will bring back common sense to UK citizens however painful the experience yet to come. This then is why I feel no sympathy for the UK nor their EU cousins – this is a self-inflicted wound – and only UK citizens like you and I believe many others there are finally beginning to awaken from their long slumber brought on by the “green liberal” group think destroying much of the EU itself.
I urge you never forget – ALL of the climate change madness – which BTW gave life to an Al Gore Demigod originated from the UK “green” machine in close association with the the likes of Hansen on this side gave rise to hundreds of millions if not billions of exported madness we’re still struggling to pay for. Unfortunately for you all – the Chickens have come home to roost.
Wil says:
August 22, 2011 at 12:41 pm
I think that’s harsh too Wil – though I agree in principle! The politicians did the same as all the tree hugging greenies in believeing the AGW scam. Most Mp’s can barely use a calculator (expenses scandal anyone?), let alone understand basic scientific principles! Politicians take up whatever ‘cudgel’ will get them elected, or at least win them a few extra votes, etc, etc.
So, whilst I agree with your sentiment, the politicians are either brainwashed (yeah, I know, that’s an oxymoron for a politician!) like the greenies – or malignant spongers feeding on the current (MSM induced) fear of the masses! If its the second, they are of course complete bar stewards – but if they are the former, they are no different to the sad misinformed masses…..
Just as a slight aside. I often wonder who will be paying for the clean up of the countryside when some ‘better’ fuel/power comes along. I mean, we have massive decom costs for nuclear power – what will the decom costs for all those derelict wind turbines be in 10/20 years time?
Over 60 years ago, Robert Heinlein wrote (as near as I can remember) “You have mistakenly assumed malice where an explanation of stupidity would suffice.” Given that most politicians have the IQ of a tennis ball, and an overpowering need to be seen as “doing something,” is the wind farm mandate really a surprise? After all, we have a “crisis”, can’t let that go to waste. Collecting a heap of extra income certainly adds to the allure, and if the supposedly watchdog media plays along, the folks in charge win. With the dumbing down of our educational system, who can blame the media? They are products of it. The people, also products of the system, vote for these smooth talking scamsters. When the roof falls in, they’ll just blame it on Bush. (or Thatcher)
In the words of John Derbyshire, “We are doomed.”
alexjc38 says:
August 22, 2011 at 2:08 pm
That’s true, yet “all the backup” means none of the existing power generating capacity can be retired because wind farms are notorious for significant periods of zero output. I can’t imaging why power plants in the UK and the US are scheduled for mothballing, especially with no plans for replacement.
Tallbloke: “My preferred solution is to throw the useless lying thieving f—ers out of the windows of Parliament into the river Thames and form a national salvation committee.”
Now that’s a policy I could get with.
The UK is generating 0.7% of it’s electricity from wind power at the moment…
– meanwhile 3.3% is coming from France, which is 80% nuclear….
The sad part of these wind turbines is their output is pathetic. From the UK:
Windfarms in UK operate well below advertised efficiency
Read the Full Report http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf
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.
Two quick comments:
First, to those who say the British are getting what they deserve for electing these idiot politicians. While there is a bit of justice in all this, the electorate in most countries are simply lied to, and there is little justice in punishing people who are the victims of media who cannot and will not report the truth.
Second, look at the damage that public subsidies for “sustainable” energy have done in Spain. Now it’s the UK, and, as I watch one wind turbine after another head west into central Wyoming along I-80, it will eventually be the US. What is unsustainble is not fossil fuels, but rather the subsidies for these mad projects.
So what to do?… ethical dilemma: don’t get involved and suffer the taxes on power, OR join the crowd and get in there! Generate the power and even waste it – to get some tax-money returned! approx 40p per kWhr generated whether its used or not – senseless waste of public funding – but pays for the equipment + money back to oil the tax wheel…………. I will no longer have to farm the soil / fields for which I learnt much, but now farm the subsidies as so many have done before me…… Milking the system…………… and people in the world are starving or roofless
Surely there is a lesson from Libya for governments that trample on the rights of ordinary people. Peoples natures are the same all over the world, and if enough is enough in one place, it could easily become enough is enough in another. I would be trembling in my boots if I was a member of the top in the UK. A sign that the stoic British are changing their attitude is the consignment to history of the orderly queue no matter how inconvenient. I shall not even mention the disorderly recent events in both countries named here!