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.
A physicist says:
January 13, 2012 at 1:26 pm
—————————————
Meanwhile, in other breaking news, the cost of electricity in Iowa has increased more than 50% over the past decade from $0.06 to $0.0975 per kWh and Buffet’s MidAmerican Utility is seeking a further increase in those rates to cope with the expensive environmental requirements being imposed upon them by the State government.
“The increase is necessary in order for us to comply with expensive environmental requirements and because of increasing energy production costs,” Potthoff [MidAmerican spokesperson] says.
Not exactly locking-in low prices for Iowa farmers is it?
Article here:
http://www.radioiowa.com/2011/12/07/midamerican-seeks-iowa-electric-rate-hike-parent-company-buys-california-solar-farm/
Prices were low at around ($0.06 for years):
http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2010docs/100303-IPP-wind.pdf
Now they’re over $0.095 on average and rising rapidly.
http://www.energyboom.com/policy/special-report-us-eia-data-provides-state-electricity-generation-price-scoreboard
Buffet sure is smart. Just as governments have started raising electricity rates to help sinking renewable companies, he jumps in and buys solar and wind farm projects at a substantial discount and then petitions the government to raise rates even more. No wonder the guy pays less tax than his secretary.
Business Week says different: “Wind energy keeps Iowa power costs down”
WUWT?
A Physicist, if you live in Iowa don’t feel bad. Every state in America is getting fleeced. It’s OK if you think Iowa electricity rates are low and if it makes you feel good, well that’s even better. You don’t have to question why rates have increased by more than 50% in less than 10 years, before which rates were quite steady. It shouldn’t bother you that MidAmerican is asking for higher rates to pay for unproven infrastructure (wind, solar) that is more expensive to operate than conventional infrastructure (fossil fuel). I’m sure Obama really is pro-business and that Warren Buffet is basing his decisions on how to offer the lowest electricity prices to well deserving and hard working Iowa farmers.
As was written so well in 1949 by George Orwell (not H.G. Wells):
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
Have a great and very non-skeptical day. Everything is all right…
A physicist says:
January 11, 2012 at 4:22 pm
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: [after a lengthy calculation] … each square meter of ground would yield just $1.27 a year from wind power.
LOL … $1.27 per square meter?
————————————————————–
A real example (above) gave $12,800 per acre. With 4,047 sq m per acre gives $3.16 per square meter. So he was a little low. I should add that the $12,800 per acre is nicely subsidized by the government.
Someone with a physics degree calculated $89,437,500 for 60 acres. This works out to $368 per sq m or out by a factor of 100. Not bad for a physicist.
Teenagers have non-functioning frontal lobes. As the ability to anticipate more than 2.3483672 minutes into the future matures, things change. The mechanic/tech was citing his experience on the job, as an adult.
(I clearly remember loving crazy rides at the amusement park in my youth. Decades later, I rode a couple of the medium to milder ones, and barely managed to avoid voiding my belly. Things change.)
The article sez rates went up less than elsewhere. I.e., wind power costs hosed Iowans less than other consumers. Aren’t you lucky?
Also, getting a breakout of what portion of what state’s costs are from wind is non-trivially difficult. “One shortfall the study found was determining how much of the electricity produced in the state is actually consumed within its borders. When power is shipped into the electrical grid it is pooled together and it’s difficult to determine which portion of the power comes from which source.” So quite possibly Iowans were externalizing their wind costs onto others.
Mathematical proof completed. Quod erat demonstratum, That which was to be domonstrated.
A Physicist says: The point being, Brian, if you’re offering $100/hr for high steel work, then I don’t reckon there will be any shortage of Iowa farmboys wanting the job. Cuz there are folks who do like that view. Brian H says: Teenagers have non-functioning frontal lobes. As the ability to anticipate more than 2.3483672 minutes into the future matures, things change. As someone who’s done both &mdash climbed an Iowa tower and gone down into an Iowa coal mine &mdash I have to say that for $100/hour, my personal preference (by far!) would be to work everyday in the sky, versus go down every day into the ground. And I will bet you that the overwhelming majority of Iowans would say the same.
No, AP, YOU”RE missing the point. What teeners think is a lark is not so much when your brain grows up. People who thought they could/wanted to do it have routinely “frozen” halfway up similar structures. The % who can actually handle it is small. Maybe the Mohawks could provide quite a few, but they’re already manning much of the high-steel construction work in the country. And high-windmill work is FAR riskier and less organized. No safety rigs, no elevators, no cranes, no portapotties, no ladders even. Rope-climbing the whole way up and back, with a long difficult-access repair job, with nowhere to set aside parts and pieces …
Your opinion is bootless. The professionals think it’s a nightmare.
VESTAS SLASHES THOUSANDS OF JOBS
The wheels are coming off the $500 billion a year global warming racket as the true costs of so-called “renewables” start hitting home.
Danish wind turbine maker Vestas will cut 2,335 jobs in a bid to restore profitability after rising costs wiped out its 2011 earnings. Vestas said the cuts, about 10% of its workforce, would help it reduce costs by more than €150m (£125m) by the end of the year. The world’s biggest wind turbine maker is facing competition, particularly from China.
about maintainence problems and seawater.
the windmills situated near or in the ocean will have a grade a bitch of a time with corrosion.
seawater acts as a mild acid. then there is this condition (very much like fretting corrostion) where by a particle of corrosion forms and the seawater washes it away. another particle forms and it washes away also. after enough of this there is a hole/crater that has to be replaced. if there is electricity involved or dississimiler metals present the process is accellerated.
the results can cause massive structural failure.
this can be avoided by constructing the structure out of nickel alloys or coating the construction with corrosion resistant paints, metalized aluminum, whatever.
guess which works the best and which is cheapest.
C
Steve from Rockwood Says:
” These costs alone total (9.8+1.9+6.2+3.8) $21.7 million which is consistent with the utility burning through $3 million in cash. The utility is spending 112% of its revenue and has been in business for almost 10 years….. ”
The problem is subsidies neither this poor company nor the windmills. All your accounting figures are correct. These all results are the aftermath caused by an energy source which is subsidized even when we are in a glorious golden rates era of fossils.The windmills are comparing with a subsidized electricity rates, which is not fair at all, I’m sure you know it. Cheap fossils have their own benefits and the other sources can never live together with them at all.
I have some news for you:
1- GE is celebrating for its 15,000th 1.5MW wind turbine.
2- Siemens is launching its new 6.0MW offshore wind turbine with direct drive, it was specially designed for tough offshore conditions.
3- We know “design” would go on and technology solves many things.
4- If we have a shock in fuel rates like what Robert Hirsch is claiming, where is the place of windmills. Although we know windmills can never provide us our demands.
Wind Fields, same as oil fields should be considered as a source.
All my above assumptions are based on:
Electricity rate produced by Hydos/Fossils primarily is subsidized by the government. The taxpayers are not paying the real costs of this energy. If you confirm this matter, then we can go on.
For the Kind Attention of Steve from Rockwood,
GE the 15,000th 1.5MW wind turbine:
http://www.elp.com/index/display/article-display/4892802393/articles/electric-light-power/renewable-energy/wind/2011/02/GE_using_its_15_000th_1_5_MW_wind_turbine_to_train_wind_technicians_.html
SIEMENS after 700 offshore units wind turbines, now launching the new offshore 6.0MW direct drive:
http://www.elp.com/index/display/article-display/5734118325/articles/electric-light-power/renewable-energy/wind/2011/11/Siemens_launches_6_MW_direct_drive_offshore_wind_turbine.html
Caroline says:
January 14, 2012 at 2:15 am
“VESTAS SLASHES THOUSANDS OF JOBS
The wheels are coming off the $500 billion a year global warming racket as the true costs of so-called “renewables” start hitting home.
Danish wind turbine maker Vestas will cut 2,335 jobs in a bid to restore profitability after rising costs wiped out its 2011 earnings. Vestas said the cuts, about 10% of its workforce, would help it reduce costs by more than €150m (£125m) by the end of the year. The world’s biggest wind turbine maker is facing competition, particularly from China.”
The true costs is now defined by China not the so-called “renewables”. As you said it is because they are facing competition particularly from China.
I’m sorry, but this has been the problem for the Italian Shoemakers as well! Isn’t it?
ACCKKII says:
January 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm
——————————————————
I agree that electricity rates are being subsidized. It becomes clear when you compare which states in the US have high rates and which have low rates. In general, rich states have high rates (less subsidy needed) and poor states have low rates.
I think natural gas is an excellent fuel – cheap and abundant.
China is now heavily subsidizing its “renewable” exports and this is hurting North American and European manufacturers.
The problem I have with renewable subsidies is the fact that they are so high (suggesting there are no limits to subsidies), governments are running high deficits and still support these programs, and in some cases semi-public companies are being formed, or monopolistic private partnerships with groups that live from the government trough. The result has been an increase in the cost of electricity that is unprecedented. In Ontario the government was so aggressive in raising rates that it gave back 10% as a green energy rebate just before the election in 2011.
Steve from Rockwood says:
In reply to “ACCKKII says: January 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm ——————————————————”
“I agree that electricity rates are being subsidized. It becomes clear when you compare which states in the US have high rates and which have low rates. In general, rich states have high rates (fewer subsidies needed) and poor states have low rates. I think natural gas is an excellent fuel – cheap and abundant. China is now heavily subsidizing its “renewable” exports and this is hurting North American and European manufacturers. The problem I have with renewable subsidies is the fact that they are so high (suggesting there are no limits to subsidies), governments are running high deficits and still support these programs, and in some cases semi-public companies are being formed, or monopolistic private partnerships with groups that live from the government trough. The result has been an increase in the cost of electricity that is unprecedented. In Ontario the government was so aggressive in raising rates that it gave back 10% as a green energy rebate just before the election in 2011.”
Steve from Rockwood,
This was a successful surgery on ELECTRICITY and SUBSIDIES by now.
I would like to show the ANATOMY of the above title and what we have discussed :
1:A-Power Plants Line of production:
!!! NO SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY FOSSILS
2:A-MAX tendency(MIN Rate):
!!! MAX SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY FOSSILS
3:B- Windmills:
!! NO SUBSIDIES.
4:B-MAX tendency(MIN Rate):
!!(1)——>! (2)
Line 1: We have analyzed no subsidy rate for 1KWh from a fossil based power plant assuming as Base Price.
Line2: The max tendency of line 1 is when the government can put the rate of fossils as ZERO. That part of the unit price that is for the utility cannot be subsidized.
Line3: Windmills for 1 KWh as we agreed together can be max same as line 1.
Line4: The MAX tendency of windmills can be; position (1) that is the same rate as line 2 (utility + zero fossils) and or position (2) that is greater than line 2.
The difference between { line 2} and { line3 position (2)} is the definition of your OBJECTION. This must be subsidized as well, but a fewer than the line 2! What is your objection about?
There is one important issue; the fossil part of electricity rate, makes the rate as high as enough that the line 3 would remain always in a safe condition. And the share of fossils is increasing time to time, and this makes better prices for windmills. Or, it means the government should pay more subsidies on fossils and maybe no subsidies for windmills in the future, because we agreed together this is the market that is the ruler, and we know the market is the colony of fossils.
Now I want to find more about fossil power plants and windmills:
1- We know that ON/OFF of a power plant is in our hand. In peak time we work by full force and in low/down condition no.
2- We know that the ON/OFF of a windmill is not under our control.
So what:
1- In both cases we have IDLE TIMES. That makes sense.
2- Power plants are considered as FAST MOVING systems, it means more maintenance fees.
3- Windmills are not fast moving, it means less maintenance fees.
4- Power plants need a huge amount of cash flow, windmills never.
5- In both cases the availability is the main factor, if there is no wind then no way out we need to have fossils.
The government performance is very important here. I’m not going to write a white cheque to the beneficiary of the government, but it is clear that subsidy and all other instruments are for regulating the rates for keeping the life style of the people and saves the society away from economical impacts. You said there are low/high rates of power for poor/rich people in the states, it is a regulator. Even there are different rates for hot climates in summer and in cold weather.
Finally, subsidy is subsidy…we have reached to this point that in a SUBSIDIZING ENVIRONMENT, we can never formulate the subsidies and expand it to all apparently the same systems. The reason is the involved factors and their nature is completely different. You know how many turbines are necessary to blow the same wind which we are trying not to believe it? If our technology is not the one that we need it, this is not a proof for “wind is not an energy source”, we should pay for it same as what we did in the past to flying, same as what happened to go to the moon and many more.
Only GE with 15,000 the 1.5MW wind turbines and Siemens with 700 offshore wind turbines and now launching 6.0MW new offshore with direct drive, although all these are not a powerful rival against power plants with fossils and nuclear but this baby energy is most welcome.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin: “The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”
China has come up with a much improved version. It is selling the rope to the West with which it is hanging itself! Efficiency squared …
I regularly monitor generation by fuel type here…
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
I noted in the last couple of days, generation by wind dropped to ~5% of installed capacity, I’ve seen it as low as 1%.
Something that is not available anywhere is bi-directional metering information., ie how much power is consumed versus power produced? It’s not available by FOIA as these are private companies, though someone with more imagination than I may think of a way around this.
As I noted earlier, I also noted OCGTs being used, never seen that before.
DaveE.
Steve from Rockwood says:
In reply to “ACCKKII says: January 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm
“I agree that electricity rates are being subsidized. It becomes clear when you compare which states in the US have high rates and which have low rates. In general, rich states have high rates (fewer subsidies needed) and poor states have low rates. I think natural gas is an excellent fuel – cheap and abundant. China is now heavily subsidizing its “renewable” exports and this is hurting North American and European manufacturers. The problem I have with renewable subsidies is the fact that they are so high (suggesting there are no limits to subsidies), governments are running high deficits and still support these programs, and in some cases semi-public companies are being formed, or monopolistic private partnerships with groups that live from the government trough. The result has been an increase in the cost of electricity that is unprecedented. In Ontario the government was so aggressive in raising rates that it gave back 10% as a green energy rebate just before the election in 2011.”
——————————————————————-
Steve from Rockwood,
This was a successful surgery on ELECTRICITY and SUBSIDIES by now.
I would like to show the ANATOMY of the above title and what we have discussed :
1:A-Power Plants Line of production:
!!! NO SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY FOSSILS
2:A-MAX tendency(MIN Rate):
!!! MAX SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY FOSSILS
3:B- Windmills:
!! NO SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY
4:B-MAX tendency(MIN Rate):
!!(1)——>! (2)
UTILITY
Line 1: We have analyzed no subsidy rate for 1KWh from a fossil based power plant assuming as Base Price.
Line2: The max tendency of line 1 is when the government can put the rate of fossils as ZERO. That part of the unit price that is for the utility cannot be subsidized.
Line3: Windmills for 1 KWh as we agreed together can be max same as line 1.
Line4: The MAX tendency of windmills can be; position (1) that is the same rate as line 2 (utility + zero fossils) and or position (2) that is greater than line 2.
The difference between { line 2} and { line3 position (2)} is the definition of your OBJECTION. This must be subsidized as well, but a fewer than the line 2! What is your objection about?
There is one important issue; the fossil part of electricity rate, makes the rate as high as enough that the line 3 would remain always in a safe condition. And the share of fossils is increasing time to time, and this makes better prices for windmills. Or, it means the government should pay more subsidies on fossils and maybe no subsidies for windmills in the future, because we agreed together this is the market that is the ruler, and we know the market is the colony of fossils.
Now I want to find more about fossil power plants and windmills:
1- We know that ON/OFF of a power plant is in our hand. In peak time we work by full force and in low/down condition no.
2- We know that the ON/OFF of a windmill is not under our control.
So what:
1- In both cases we have IDLE TIMES. That makes sense.
2- Power plants are considered as FAST MOVING systems, it means more maintenance fees.
3- Windmills are not fast moving, it means less maintenance fees.
4- Power plants need a huge amount of cash flow, windmills never.
5- In both cases the availability is the main factor, if there is no wind then no way out we need to have fossils.
The government performance is very important here. I’m not going to write a white cheque to the beneficiary of the government, but it is clear that subsidy and all other instruments are for regulating the rates for keeping the life style of the people and save the society away from economical impacts. You said there are low/high rates of power for poor/rich people in the States, it is a regulator. Even there are different rates for hot climates in summer and in cold weather.
PLEASE NOTE: I made some simple linear schematic shapes to show the start-end of RATE of electricity. I posted my comment but I did not see the lines. So I tried once again, in case of any problem please accept my apology.
Finally, subsidy is subsidy…we have reached to this point that in a SUBSIDIZING ENVIRONMENT, we can never formulate the subsidies and expand it to all apparently the same systems. The reason is the involved factors and their nature is completely different. You know how many turbines are necessary to blow the same wind which we are trying not to believe it? If our technology is not the one that we need it, this is not a proof for “wind is not an energy source”, we should pay for it same as what we did in the past to flying, same as what happened to go to the moon and many more.
Only GE with 15,000 the 1.5MW wind turbines and Siemens with 700 offshore wind turbines and now launching 6.0MW new offshore with direct drive, although all these are not a powerful rival against power plants with fossils and nuclear but this baby energy is most welcome.
Steve from Rockwood says:
In reply to “ACCKKII says: January 14, 2012 at 4:43 pm
SCHEMATIC LINE OF PRODUCTION AND THE RATE OF ELECTRICITY (hope it works)
This was a successful surgery on ELECTRICITY and SUBCIDIES by now.
I would like to show the ANATOMY of the above title and what we have discussed:
1:A-Power Plants Line of production:
!!! NO SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY FOSSILS
2:A-MAX tendency(MIN Rate):
!!! MAX SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY FOSSILS
3:B- Windmills:
!! NO SUBSIDIES.
UTILITY
4:B-MAX tendency(MIN Rate):
!!(1)——>! (2) MAX SUBSIDIES
UTILITY subsidized
pk says:
January 14, 2012 at 11:01 am
“about maintenance problems and seawater.”
pk,
SIEMENS solved this problem. Please see their website.
Steve from Rockwood,
Further to the recent posts I made in reply to your comments, as the schematic drawings could not be presented here, so I tried to prepare a complete article for you. It is with regards to Anatomy of Electricity and the Subsidies.
http://acckkii.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/anatomy-of-electricity-and-the-subsidies-3/
http://wp.me/p1P1AQ-8u
Please feel free and do not hesitate to send your nice responds, I see good results.
Thank you.
General rule when reading blog comments:
Anyone who CAPITALIZES a lot is an IDIOT!
And anyone who CAPITALIZES his “NAME” is a RISIBLE IDIOT.
I would like to know where to find the out put data on what wind turbines produced historically from the power companies that own them? Here in Colorado it is not uncommon to see them not moving. Also would need to know how much power they require to maintain themselves when not moving. Seems like there should be a real time website showing their production of power. I suspect this info is top secret.
I’ve seen a few sites, e.g. Ontario, and the UK.
e.g. http://www.ieso.ca/imoweb/marketdata/windpower.asp At the moment, 1,500MW capacity producing 486MW.