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.
“Question: If we leased our farm to Warren Buffett’s MidAmerican Energy Holdings how long would it take Buffett’s windmills to generate electrical energy equal to the all the electricity that could be generated by strip-mining the entire farm, and burning its coal? – A Physicist”
Why would anyone in their right mind want to do that?
Why would anyone in their right mind want to pollute Iowa’s night-sky with red blinky lights from windmills when they can have cheaper, cleaner power burning natural gas from North Dakota?
To keep electricity flowing when those crucifixes to eco-religion stop spinning, we have to build natural gas power plants like the one in Faribault MN. Why not just keep it running full time? It is cheaper, cleaner and does not pollute the night sky.
@a physicist:
“Hmmm … working the numbers, it appears that Buffett’s Iowa wind turbines are sufficiently reliable and profitable, as to induce Buffett to triple his 2011 investment in Iowa wind power. WUWT, indeed?”
this is another fine example of pretzel.logic.
sufficiently reliable waste of money is what you left off in your speciousness.
you are abusing language when you give loot or plunder the name ‘profit’,
did warren buffet tell you why he salted the mine? or was that a divine revelation that you heard from a cloud?
you can’t get a word out that isn’t contrived to deceive. my question is not if, but why are you such a liar? at least jon lovetz was endearing. you’re just foul.
Once again, ‘a physicist’ demands answers – but when asked for his own explanations, he tucks his tail between his hind legs and runs for the hills. For example, recently Steven M. Allen asked ‘a physicist’ how he can defend the following Climategate email:
The same question was asked repeatedly of ‘a physicist’, who as usual ignored questions put to him. It would be a step toward restoring ‘a physicist’s’ missing credibility if he would answer a question, rather than always demanding answers to his questions.
ScientistForTruth, please let me urge you to attempt for yourself the simple strip-mines versus windmills energy balance calculation … and, uh … report the results here on WUWT?
This calculation may help you to better appreciation of why Iowa’s farmers purely love windpower. `Cuz they’re no fools, these Iowa farmers, eh?
You call yourself, “A Physicist”? Do you think the acreage of “your farm” is a necessary parameter of the calculation?
A Physicist,
The utility I work for is one of the bigger producers of wind energy. We have invested in it for two reasons;
1) A government (state) mandate for renewables (which excludes hydro)
and
2) State and Federal subsidies and tax incentives.
Since we have exceeded the mandated percentage, as a bonus we get to sell the excess to California at premium rates. So for our rate payers it isn’t a bad deal – if you ignore the lost opportunity costs of the govt subsidies & tax revenue. I can’t speak for Californians however.
That said, wind generation isn’t the panecea some seemed to have expected. Turns out peak wind generation coincides with peak hydro. During peak hydro, it is not unusual for generators to be asked to idle their facilities (includes the nuclear plant in the region) so that water can be run through the turbines. (There are federal restrictions limiting releases through the spillways to protect fish.) In exchange, the transmission authority provided free replacement power, so no one loses revenue. Except, as it turns out, wind energy producers. The federal government pays them for each kilowatt produced, on top of what they get selling the electricity. The transmission authority gave them special treatment by putting them at the bottom of the curtailment list – ie they were the last to be forced to shutdown. Want to guess what happened? They sued because they were not given “negative” rates – paid to accept free electricity.
This might explain why Warren Buffit is bullish on wind energy. Where else do you get tax breaks to build something and then paid to sell your product? With more states adding renewable mandates, you also have a guaranteed market.
A physicist says: “coal mining is economically senseless…coal mining is economically senseless…coal mining is economically senseless…coal mining is debatable”
The true motive is unveiled.
I noted in an earlier post that since Wind plated capacity reached 4006Mw, for the first tome I have seen the OCGTs in use generating power.
Why use OCGTs?
Because like the primary stage of a CCGT, they can be ramped up to full power in ~15mins from cold.
The combined stage of a CCGT takes upwards of an hour to reach capacity, The OCGT buys you time to reach full efficient capacity with your CCGT.
DaveE.
A physicist says:
January 10, 2012 at 10:13 am
I’ve just done a calculation whose result is so amazing, that I challenge WUWT readers to repeat it for themselves (because I can scarcely believe it myself).
Background: Our family’s Iowa farm is underlain by a coal seam, at shallow depth, that is one meter thick (yes really, and during the Depression our family mined that seam).
===================================================================
I’m beginning to think your moniker is only that. Surely you’re not that dense as to make that comparison.
First of all, you didn’t give any information or calculations to make any determination, but worse, you’re dwelling in intentional ignorance. Read Lea ‘s arguments.
The question isn’t, nor was it ever, how much energy a windmill generates. It isn’t relevant. The question is how do you utilize the energy generated. So, in the scenario you presented, the question would be: How much utility would you gain in coal generation vs wind generation? This is the madness of the fringe. What good does it do to generate electricity at times when you don’t need it? And what disasters occur when the need for electricity is present but generation is not?
After you honestly answer those two questions, then you need to view the effects of the alternate energy advocacy has had on society. Its been horrible. It has caused unmeasurable harm. And this has occurred because of the vacant intellectual integrity of the lunatic fringe.
Re:A physicist says:
January 10, 2012 at 9:40 am
“So, whom should WUWT readers heed? Ruth Lea’s skeptical “nay” or Warren Buffett’s nonskeptical “aye”?”
If you understood tax credits and accelerated depreciation, you wouldn’t ask that question. Buffet will never turn a profit operating those wind machines. However, he will make very large, up-front profits by avoiding taxes on his other activities over the next five years simply by virtue of his investing in windmills. After that five years is past, he couldn’t care less what happens to those windmills. His avoided taxes on other, actually profitable, endeavors will be several orders of magnitude larger than his capital investment in windmills thanks to financial “leveraging”. Those taxes that one of the world’s richest men will thus avoid must eventually be made up for by the likes of you and me.
LOL … good thinking, Stephen … if you check my calculations, you’ll see I’m thinking the same as you!
————————————-
windPowerEnergyRules = {
paybackTime -> totalCoalEnergy/
windPowerMeanCapacity,
totalCoalEnergy -> iowaFarmArea *
iowaCoalSeamThickness * iowaCoalDensity *
iowaCoalEnergyDensity,
windPowerMeanCapacity -> iowaMeanWindPowerDensity *
iowaFarmArea,
iowaFarmArea -> theSizeOfTheFarmIsIrrelevant,
iowaMeanWindPowerDensity -> 350 W/m^2,
iowaCoalSeamThickness -> 1 meter,
iowaCoalEnergyDensity -> 2.0 kW hour/kg,
iowaCoalDensity -> 1506 kg/m^3
};
paybackTime//
ReplaceRepeated[#,windPowerEnergyRules]&//
ConvertToSI[#,year]&//
(Round[100*#/year]/100.0 years)&//
Print[“Iowa wind power versus strip-mine-the-farm payback time = “,#]&
Iowa wind power versus strip-mine-the-farm payback time = 0.98 years
————————————-
WUWT folks, that’s a one year payoff for wind-relative-to-Iowa coal … WHICH IS AMAZING!
Seriously, there’s not a single farmer in Iowa who wouldn’t appreciate that Warren Buffett’s energy company is offering a terrific deal.
That’s why my bet is, Ruth Lea’s so-fancy report is going to find mighty few Iowa readers. 🙂
“Critics were enraged at the decision, saying it would wreck miles of beautiful countryside, need vast public subsidies for years to come and have [a price] that would be too expensive for most”
A comment about wind farms? No, a comment about the new High-speed rail (HS2) announced in the UK this morning. Quote was taken from the front page of this morning’s Metro.
It is funny how the green brigade can use these words against a transport infrastructure project (which may or may not be a good idea) but not use them against wind farms when they are applicable.
Windmills are good for pumping water out of the ground.
The Dutch figured that out, and American farmers did too.
As long as you don’t care WHEN the water is pumped, and have a big tank.
If coal mining was unprofitable it would be subsidized by the U.S. Government.
Comparing the cost of coal to wind energy is impossible without talking of storage and availability. The coal is always there, ready to go. How do you place a price on that obvious value?
Why would anyone strip-mine their farm for a one meter seam of coal? I’m not an expert in coal extraction but you wouldn’t strip the surface unless the coal was only a few meters underground. And if that was the case you’d have stockpiled a few years supply of coal before the concrete on your wind turbine pad had even dried.
“iowaCoalSeamThickness”
Mr. A Physicist misses the obvious. Why would anyone mine coal in Iowa when they can buy coal from the Powder River Basin for less?
Perhaps, he is seeking a government subsidy for mining coal where it is not economical… that certainly would be consistent with his worldview.
…….
iowaFarmArea -> theSizeOfTheFarmIsIrrelevant,
iowaMeanWindPowerDensity -> 350 W/m^2, iowaCoalSeamThickness -> 1 meter, iowaCoalEnergyDensity -> 2.0 kW hour/kg, iowaCoalDensity -> 1506 kg/m^3};
paybackTime// ReplaceRepeated[#,windPowerEnergyRules]&//
ConvertToSI[#,year]&// (Round[100*#/year]/100.0 years)&//
Print[“Iowa wind power versus strip-mine-the-farm payback time = “,#]& ………
====================================================
Dude, you do realize that’s simply a bunch of gibberish, right?
Gleaning what I can from your word salad, you’re not making a proper comparison anyway. Watts do not equate with watthours.
Why is this so hard for warmists to understand?
Wind, solar and ethanol (and other biofuels) all suffer from the “stupid factor.” No sensible engineer would ever pursue these sources of energy while we’re sitting on mountains of coal, gobs of natural gas and nearly unlimited nuclear capacity. Start with some basic assumptions: 1) mankind’s emissions of CO2 will NOT cause catastrophic climate change or widespread environmental damage, 2) we have a boatload of available fossil fuels and nearly unlimited nuclear capacity and 3) that we have a very real and ever increasing need for electricity. Given these assumptions how can ANYONE make a logical case for pursuing wind, solar or ethanol? They are “stupid” technologies.
These technologies are not viable without taxpayer subsidies and mandated use (i.e. artificial demand). None could survive in a free market economy. These are economically non-viable technologies. The concept of “sustainability” is complete BS. I don’t even buy the concept of “renewable”. Windmills are probably the worst. Wind “turbines” are incredibly expensive and they’re very complex mechanical devices…that wear out. Imagine having a “green job” of servicing a wind turbine in Texas in the summer. I wonder what the internal temp is an a 400 ft. tower when it’s over 100 deg F outside and you have to climb up 400 ft to change the oil in the turbine’s transmission. If you ask me that’s a $100/hr job at least. Yeah…but wind is “free”…if you don’t count the costs to harvest it. If we accept assumption #3 listed above, the only logical conclusion is to make necessary electricity available as economically as possible. There is no valid reason to pursue wind, solar or ethanol. I don’t care if folks want to pursue these technologies. I just don’t want my tax dollars paying for them. The current situation reeks of crony capitalism…and neither party is innocent.
Finally, why are we so concerned about a future where all of us will be dead? I sometimes ponder what my grandparents were concerned about 90 years ago. I’m pretty sure it wasn’t the availability of early 20th century energy and resources. It was more along the lines of food on the table, potable water, sanitation and prevention of disease. All things their children figured out.
From A physicist on January 10, 2012 at 10:13 am:
Answers c and d are nonsensical as the turbines won’t last that long. For one hundred years the wind farms will have to be rebuilt at least three times.
By your wording, if it took one hundred years for Buffett’s windmills to make the electricity the coal would generate, coal mining would still be economically senseless. Yet that coal could be burned just about as soon as it’s dug up, the energy would be available now when it’s needed, rather than waiting 100 years for all the electricity you needed one hundred years ago. You know, you don’t seem to understand economics much.
JoeH says:
January 10, 2012 at 9:32 am
Where I grew up there had in previous centuries been dozens of factories running on water power. The water continues to flow yet there is now ZERO usage of it as an energy source, absolutely no power is being taken from a river that runs fairly consistently all year round. For negligible environmental “damage” many small manufacturing businesses could be run on the old factory sites, using updated technology akin to the old factories. It would difficult to find a more easily obtainable “green” tech – yet its not even being considered!
——————————————–
That time may come again. I believe we – the masses – are going to be forced back to low-tech, whether by economic collapse, or whatever.
I actually think free energy from wind is great, eg pumped water storage for agricultural use. That’s real innovation. The wind farm scam where the rich get richer and the pensioners die of cold in their homes is outrageous though. Perverted, in an economic and moral sense.
Will the scam (as mentioned by other commenters) fail? Really? I’d love to think so. I’d love to think sanity will be restored. There are a number of big scams going on which their controllers have no intention of giving up on, until something makes them collapse, probably all at the same time (think global derivative debt ponzi scheme implosion). If that time comes, then low-tech, small-scale power generation – including wind – will be a great idea, possibly a life-saver. Who knows what the future holds?
I looked at the complete report and unfortunately it did not break down the maintenance costs. The consulting firm Mott McDonald came up with the cost figures; I did not see specific details or a link to the raw data. Costs were separated into capital, fixed operating, variable operating, fuel, “carbon”, and decommission&waste. The “carbon” cost is strictly the UK/EU tax on CO2 production, so it is not a real cost in any engineering or technical sense.
We have a lot of experience with operating coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro facilities over a considerable period of time. We have much less experience operating large scale wind generation, and I suspect the maintenance costs are not as firmly established. Simply because wind generation is dispersed over a much wider area per megawatt than the other technologies, I would expect the labor component of maintenance to be higher per megawatt. The cost comparisons cited clearly show that both fixed and variable operating costs are higher for wind than combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT), ACS coal, or nuclear, but I expect the actual maintenance cost for wind is higher than the estimates.
Spent Christmas in Hawaii (the big island) and at South Point there is a defunct windfarm of 39 older turbines installed in 1984 (250 KW each, if I recall), and a new farm of 17 1.5 MW turbines. The older turbines are an eyesore and probably a hazard as well — many missing blades, some with lost housings, most with rust. The write up said the operator had managed to keep some of the older units running by salvaging parts from other dead ones, so clearly maintenance was a problem for a number of years before the new turbines were brought online.
I’d be interested to see the 10-year actual cost on the most modern turbines installed around 2000.
A physicist says:
January 10, 2012 at 10:13 am
I’ve just done a calculation whose result is so amazing, that I challenge WUWT readers to repeat it for themselves (because I can scarcely believe it myself).
Background: Our family’s Iowa farm is underlain by a coal seam, at shallow depth, that is one meter thick (yes really, and during the Depression our family mined that seam).
——————-
I don’t claim to be a physicist, but how can I make this calculation without knowing the acreage for the farm? I suppose I could create a computer model and make a number of runs with various assumptions, then take the average of the results. That sounds like a robust methodology.
Kadaka, your argument is good and correct, but none-the-less it is moot, because the (incredible!) answer is that in Iowa, wind-versus-stripmine energy breakeven arrives in just one year.
And this is why Iowa’s farmers just love Buffett’s windfarms.
You’ll find mighty few Iowa farmers with anything good to say about Ruth Lea’s white paper, compared with Warren Buffett’s cash payouts ! 🙂
@ur momisugly a physicist. Using my fancy computer algorithm (Excel), I come up with $1,250 per year of coal (or $0.025 per kWh) to satisfy an energy pig such as myself.
a = Coal energy density = 2.0 kWh/Kg
b = Coal density = 1506 Kg/m^3
c = My Annual energy use = 50,000 kWh
d = No. of Kg of coal needed per year = c/a = 25,000 Kg
e = Metric tonnes of coal = d / 1000 = 25 metric tonnes
f = volume of coal = d / b = 16.6 m^3
g = price of coal per tonne = $50.00
h = price per year of coal = g * e = $1,250
i = area to strip for one year’s worth of coal ~ 4.1 m x 4.1 m
Coal seems very cheap. If you owned 100 acres you would have 24,000 years of coal? That can’t be right. 1 acre = 4,046 sq meters. 100 acres is 404,600 sq meters. One year requires 16 sq meters assuming a one meter thick zone. 404,600 / 16 = 24,373 years. Hmmm.
Assuming your coal bed is close enough to surface to dig up with a back hoe, I would be using the coal, at least until you run out in the year 26,384.
Here’s an alternative problem for Physicist to work on:
How much money would Buffett be throwing down a black-hole if we ended the subsidies, mandates and tax breaks for wind power?
Remember, Warren Buffet is a big Obama supporter. Maybe the 99%-ers are right — all that money does buy you some dandy politicians!
~More Soylent Green for Everybody!
It’s a whole lot simpler than that, Alan.
Iowa’s average wind energy potential is (about) 350 Watts per square meter. And under one square meter of our Iowa farm, there’s enough coal to provide 350 Watts of electrical power for exactly … one year.
So over any time span longer than just one year, Iowa wind power makes a whole lot more energy sense than mining that Iowa coal. Not to mention, Iowa’s farmland doesn’t get destroyed!
The point being, that’s true no matter what the size of the Iowa farm, with no fancy models needed.