New Report: Economic Analysis Reveals Wind Power 'Worse Than a Mistake'

Press release from The Global Warming Policy Foundation

Global Warming Policy Foundation
Image via Wikipedia

One of the UK’s leading energy and environment economists warns that wind power is an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions. In fact, there is a significant risk that annual CO2 emissions could be greater as a result of Britain’s flawed wind policies when compared with the option of investing in efficient and flexible gas combined cycle plants.

The study ‘Why is wind power so expensive?’ published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation is the first thorough analysis of the true cost of wind power.

In his report, Professor Gordon Hughes (Edinburgh University) finds that

  • Meeting the UK Government’s target for renewable generation in 2020 will require total wind capacity of 36 GW backed up by 13 GW of open cycle gas plants plus large complementary investments in transmission capacity at a cost of about £120 billion.
  • The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a cost of £13 billion, i.e. an order of magnitude cheaper than the wind scenario.
  • Under the most favourable assumptions for wind power, the Government’s wind policy will reduce emissions of CO2 at an average cost of £270 per metric ton (at 2009 prices) which means that meeting the UK’s renewable energy target would cost a staggering £78 billion per year in 2020.

“The key problems with current policies for wind power are simple. They require a huge commitment of investment resources to a technology that is not very green, in the sense of saving a lot of CO2, but which is certainly very expensive and inflexible. Unless the current Government scales back its commitment to wind power very substantially, its policy will be worse than a mistake, it will be a blunder,” Professor Hughes said.

The full report, with a foreword by Baroness Nicholson, is available here:

Professor Gordon Hughes

Dr Gordon Hughes is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh where he teaches courses in the Economics of Natural Resources and Public Economics. He was a senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank until 2001. He has advised governments on the design and implementation of environmental policies and was responsible for some of the World Bank’s most important environmental guidelines. Professor Hughes is the author of the GWPF report The Myth of Green Jobs.

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne

Emma Nicholson was made a Liberal Democrat peer in 1997. She was MP for Devon West and Torridge from 1987 to 1997, first for the Conservatives and then for the Liberal Democrats. From 1999 to 2009, she represented South East England in the European Parliament.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nick Luke
March 8, 2012 9:04 am

To the Mods: I’m sorry that I incurred you anger, I can only assume that the first line of my post raised your hackles. I wanted to shock people into reading the whole of my post which was not at all anti-sceptic. The thrust of the post was that this report clearly showed that wind generation is a costly mistake, and the only people making money from it are those involved with providing land and capital and that subsidy farming was the name of the game. I’ll try to flag my sarcasm next time, if you’ll allow me back.
[REPLY: It is sometimes very difficult to tell sarcasm from other things. Please read up on site policy here and be sure to end sarcasm with a /sarc -REP]

Brian H
March 8, 2012 12:17 pm

Power Engineer says:
March 7, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Cost of CO2 removal:
Wind- $300-450 per ton (simple calculation from data in recent studies)
Market- $ 10-50 per ton ( much lower cost solutions are nuclear, repowering old units with natural gas, fuel switching, etc)
Most studies don’t calculate the cost of CO2 removal….and one can see why. Policy makers should demand a cost of CO2 reduction metric.

The Green response is: “But someday it will be cheap! And we have to save the world from burning up! So, suck it up and fork over!”
Thanks, but no thanks.

Brian H
March 8, 2012 12:23 pm

DirkH says:
March 7, 2012 at 8:05 pm
JuergenK says:
March 7, 2012 at 10:30 am
“OT
An appeal to german readers. Please visit http://goo.gl/QgSx5 for a poll on climate change at the University of Hamburg.”
I went through it until they requested detailed information about the persons I communicate with. I aborted it there. Looks like a typical von Storch “bringing in the social sciences” type of thing. Exploring the communication networks of skeptics and all that.
Notice this: von Storch is a strong proponent of Climate Science as a post-normal science. He also parroted Revkin’s attitude on the Gleick affair. Don’t trust the people behind that survey, would be my advice.

I went thru it too, with a bit of backup from Google Translate. I called the contacts they wanted Alpha, Beta, and Gamma. They said pseudonyms were OK ….
As a reward I’m now in a draw for an iPad or 25 Euros worth of Amazon pelf.
🙂

Jessup
March 8, 2012 1:45 pm

“Global Warming” is nonsense. CO2 emmisions are also nonsense, jobs for the boys, a paradise for parasites all on the gravy train. Piers Corbyn is the man!

Dave Wendt
March 9, 2012 10:31 am

In regard to nonsense that fossil fuels are more subsidized than wind and solar
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2012/03/68-of-2011-tax-preferences-went-to.html
68% of 2011 Tax Preferences Went to Renewables
“The chart above is based on data in the Congressional Budget Office’s report “Federal Financial Support for the Development and Production of Fuels and Energy Technologies,” and displays the allocation of energy-related tax preferences for Fiscal Year 2011, by type of fuel or technology. Of the $20.5 billion in energy-related tax preferences in 2011, 68% and $14 billion went to renewable energy, and 15% and about $3 billion went to fossil fuels, for a ratio of more than $4.50 in tax preferences for renewable energy for every $1 in tax preferences for fossil fuels.”

jjthom
March 11, 2012 2:10 pm

kadaka (KD Knoebel) says: March 7, 2012 at 9:05 pm
A nuclear plant suddenly shutting down electricity production, especially a core shutdown “scram” (only one “m”), is incredibly rare. You’ll be lucky to see a nuke plant do that even once a year. The only instances I can recall in the US offhand involved a glitch in the power grid elsewhere registering as a surge causing an automatic shutdown. They don’t need spinning reserve
====================
If it is possible it has to be handled. The unexpected can bring down a large part of the grid.
Spinning reserve is used in the UK although it is possible to import power via other dc links from other countries.
An industry-wide rate of unplanned scrams (shutdowns) of 0.6 per 7000 hours critical means that such a shut-down without warning is expected to happen about once every year and a half.[11] However, no matter how low the rate of unplanned scrams, this is largely irrelevant – what matters is the fact that it can and does happen, and measures have to be in place to deal with it.
In 2008 both Sizewell and Longannet power stations both stopped unexpectedly within minutes of each other, in fact causing widespread power failures, as substations were tripped off using prearranged under-frequency relays.[12]
Reports of May 2008 outage
National grid http://www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/E19B4740-C056-4795-A567-91725ECF799B/32165/PublicFrequencyDeviationReport.pdf: