In the UK, the CIVITAS group has just released an economic analysis of wind power. The scathing report confirms what we have been reporting for years here on WUWT: wind power is expensive, inefficient, does little or nothing to offset CO2, and isn’t economically viable without taxpayer funded subsidies. Oh, and they kill birds and bats, plus blight the landscape too.
They report:
[Wind-power] is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions. The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU. [p. 30]
Energy experts warn that unwarranted support for wind-power is hindering genuinely cleaner energy
The focus on wind-power, driven by the renewables targets, is preventing Britain from effectively reducing CO2 emissions, while crippling energy users with additional costs, according to a new Civitas report. The report finds that wind-power is unreliable and requires back-up power stations to be available in order to maintain a consistent electricity supply to households and businesses. This means that energy users pay twice: once for the window-dressing of renewables, and again for the fossil fuels that the energy sector continues to rely on. Contrary to the implied message of the Government’s approach, the analysis shows that wind-power is not a low-cost way of reducing emissions.
Electricity Costs: the folly of wind-power, by economist Ruth Lea, uses Government-commissioned estimates of the costs of electricity generation in the UK to calculate the most cost-effective technologies. When all costs are included, gas-fired power is the most cost-efficient method of generating electricity in the short-term, while nuclear power stations become the most cost-efficient in the medium-term.
…
Besides the prohibitive costs, the report shows that wind-power, backed by conventional gas-fired generation, can emit more CO2 than the most efficient gas turbines running alone:
In a comprehensive quantitative analysis of CO2 emissions and wind-power, Dutch physicist C. le Pair has recently shown that deploying wind turbines on “normal windy days” in the Netherlands actually increased fuel (gas) consumption, rather than saving it, when compared to electricity generation with modern high-efficiency gas turbines. Ironically and paradoxically the use of wind farms therefore actually increased CO2 emissions, compared with using efficient gas-fired combined cycle gas turbines (CCGTs) at full power. [p. 30]
This means that the cost of having wind is not just carried by consumers but by the environment as well.
…
The report concludes:
[Wind-power] is expensive and yet it is not effective in cutting CO2 emissions. If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity or cutting emissions. The renewables targets should be renegotiated with the EU. [p. 30]
More here (and the report itself):
http://www.civitas.org.uk/press/prleaelectricityprices.htm
h/t to Brian H.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Ah but if we don’t believ in how effective wind power is, we are all cranks, according to RenewableUK (BWEA), the trade body which profits from the huge wind subsidies. According to Dr Edge, Director of Policy at RenewableUK:
“It is surprising that a think tank such as Civitas has published a report based on the work of anti-wind cranks, repeating the same discredited assertions. The UK’s energy policy over the next ten years will play a critical part in our economic success – offshore wind in particular has the potential to revitalise our manufacturing sector, with the promise of over 70,000 jobs. This report, based on outdated and inaccurate information, does nothing to advance the debate.” Dr Edge concluded.
We’re cranks to think that wind power is intermittent, doesn’t reduce CO2 emissions, doesn’t ruin the countryside and needs huge subsidies to make it viable.
More from the Mail on why we’re not cranks to hate wind turbines.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2084204/Will-winds-change-finally-blow-eye-sores-away.html
There are some problems with the assumptions used in the study. The results over-estimate the inefficiencies. There are, without question, significant inefficiencies, but the study has been seriously criticized for the assumptions and this takes away from the utility of the study.
To understand our efforts to combat AGW, just look up China’s “Great Leap Forward.”
GPlant
Be thankful we were ever prosperous enough to contemplate windpower. It’s not going to last. I shall be very pleased if we’re still having this squabble come April/May.
This is when the word “folly” is used not just as a synonym… And once the madness is over, the taxpayer will still have to pay the decommissioning costs…
Chris Huhne wants to build 32,000 of windmills here in the UK – the nation will face ruin if he succeeds.
Good luck changing the whole windfarm ethos in UK, when all the main parties suport it, and so does the media. Even evil right-winger Murdoch supports Cameron and will never go against the Prime Minister in his propaganda media.
There’s too much money involved, and I doubt this whole expensive fad will ever go away.
A man from the British Wind Energy association stated that this report was obviously written by a stupid skeptic in the pay of the fossil fuel companies and that his association’s data were the only true facts about wind power.
The irony of his statement was lost on him.
Next, they have to determine that solar is not a viable replacement at all. Thus, they will nt run off in a useless direction again.
And, finally, they need to learn a little science and discover that CO2 is NOT warming the climate, but is actually feeding the people, greening the planet, and fertilizing the oceans.
There is no downside to CO2. We need more, lots more!
“And once the madness is over, the taxpayer will still have to pay the decommissioning costs…”
Aw, let the windmill owners deal with that part. After all, they reaped huge subsidies from the people, they should give some back.
“offshore wind in particular has the potential to revitalise our manufacturing sector, with the promise of over 70,000 jobs.”
Most of these jobs will be maintenance for the wind towers and the ridiculous related infrastructure and distribution network and back up power and lobbyists. These are not real jobs as they create no wealth of any kind.
The “Green Jobs Revolution” is all about creating busy work with no product; a society of janitors and repairmen.
Wind, geothermal, and solar power generation are most effective on-site and at a small scale. It works quite well if your goal is to stay off the power grid or are in a location where electrical power is not available (and there are several areas in NE Oregon where this is the case). On a larger scale, the inefficiencies multiply and the environmental footprint enlarges, overwhelming advantages. That this escapes environmentalists and green power advocates speaks to their rose colored glasses. That it became a part of large power generating company speaks to their willingness to swallow knowledge in order to gain subsidies. Money trumps truth and belief trumps facts.
D. W. Schnare says:
January 10, 2012 at 6:03 am
“There are some problems with the assumptions used in the study. The results over-estimate the inefficiencies.”
Who says this? What are the real inefficiencies? According to whom? Links? Sources?
It’s interesting that proponents of CAGW are quick to
throwpull out the precautionary principle, but those sharing their beliefs are not willing to do so when it comes to issues like wind and solar energy.Unfortunately, when their windfarms go bust, they too are gone with the wind. There’s not there there to “deal with” anything.
Edit note:
The “conclusion” is quoted twice in the posting, at the top and bottom.
@Pamela Gray:
Wind, geothermal, and solar power generation are most effective on-site and at a small scale. It works quite well if your goal is to stay off the power grid or are in a location where electrical power is not available (and there are several areas in NE Oregon where this is the case).
You succinctly state what I think of wind power generation.
We will hear, once this report is accepted, that skeptics had nothing to do with this realization. But at the same time, we will be told that the problem is actually the fault of skeptics.
Unfortunately they way the UK power industry is structured and the way the renewables obligation works, means that Electricity companies benefit from renewable subsidies so they are happy to build wind farms and pass the excessive costs to customers. Worse still, the additional power network infrastructure requirements to support wind farms are part of the industry’s regulated income. They are therefore allowed to make a virtually guaranteed rate of return on these assets. What this means is that the electricity generation and distribution industry supports something that most electrical engineers recognise as fundamentally flawed.
There is a reason why T Boone Pickens, who controls lots of Natural Gas, is a big supporter of Wind. They are co-dependent on each other.
At its root, wind is both a maintenance headache – lots of and lots of big structures that must be maintained – and has a very low ROI – unless the wind blows ALL THE TIME.
Eventually a report like this might spark the media blitz that will make windfarms an election loser rather than a winner. Nothing quite like trying for re-election in a marginal with an albatross hanging round your neck to show you the error of your ways. Probably not this time if the Mail is the only taker, but one day, maybe…
The Superfund cleanup program will be the final chapter of wind and solar panel farms. And yes, it will come out of our pockets. The government has become the biggest credit card carrying 16 year old I have ever seen.
1) In Holland the windmills have been employed to pump water out to sea to keep flooding from happening. It does not matter if this stops for hours or even days.
2) In India (and other places) where power is intermittant, apartment blocks and businesses set up their own diesel generators–not exactly the cleanest unintended consequence of intermittancy.
Pamela Gray says:
January 10, 2012 at 6:25 am
You are spot on Pamela. I have no problem with wind, solar and geothermal used locally and for specific sites where they make economic sense. For large scale use, they are not economically viable without huge subsidies.
Wind energy is no energy at all.
What we need is base load energy capacity.
The big lie is in the fact that people are told wind is a replacement for coal, gas, nuclear and hydro. Unfortunately it’s far from that.
And there are those unpleasant side effects.
A California wind farm jest celebrated the killing 3000 Stone Eagles.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fclimategate.nl%2F2012%2F01%2F06%2Fdrieduizend-steenarenden-gedood-door-een-californische-windfarm%2F
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394945/The-green-killer-Scores-protected-golden-eagles-dying-colliding-wind-turbines.html
Today bird kills have become part of the permit
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2017179273_apuswindfarmeagles.html
Environmentalists must be proud of their achievement.
What a useless bunch of clowns.
Anyone using a hand-held calculator and in possession of a rudimentary understanding of “capacity factor” and the effects of “energy density” on “capital costs” could have reached conclusions similar to those in the subject report years ago. Further, it can be easily demonstrated that there is no conceivable solution to either the “capacity factor” or “energy density” problems for both solar and wind generation. That brings into focus the following disturbing questions:
“Have the government institutions of the advanced nations of the world no concern for the economic survival of their citizenry?”
“Is it possible that entire civilizations are periodically destroyed by bizarre fads and fashions?”
“Has a cat got a tail?”