Press Release
London, 6 August: The Global Warming Policy Foundations has warned policy makers that wind energy is an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions. In fact, there is a significant likelihood that annual CO2 emissions could be greater under the Government’s current wind strategy than under an alternative Gas scenario.
Professor Gordon Hughes (University of Edinburgh), on behalf of the GWPF, has also assessed the likely impact of wind power on household energy bills.
In his economic analysis, submitted by the GWPF to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee, Prof Hughes concludes that meeting the Government’s target for renewable generation would increase households electricity bills by 40-60% by 2020.
The necessary investment for this Wind scenario would amount to about £124 billion. The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion – the latter option is cheaper by an order of magnitude.
According to Professor Hughes, “the average household electricity bill would increase from £528 per year at 2010 prices to a range from £730 to £840 in 2020 under the Mixed Wind scenario. These figures amount to increases of 38% to 58% in the average household bill relative to the baseline under the Gas scenario. The equivalent ranges for the other scenarios are 29-46% for the More Onshore Wind scenario and 40-62% for the Future Offshore Wind scenario.”
“The key problems with current policies for wind power are simple. They require a huge commitment of investment 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 GWPF’s submission to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change public evidence session on the Economics of Wind Power Committee is available here: Gordon Hughes: The Impact of Wind Power On Household Energy Bills.
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 reports The Myth of Green Jobs and Why is wind power so expensive?
Kum Dollison says:
August 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm
That’s not how you figure levelized cost. Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelised_energy_cost
===
From your link:
“This calculation does not include wider system costs associated with each type of plant, such as long distance transmission connections to grids, balancing and reserve costs . . .”
So, they ignore the cost of the back-up coal and natural gas plants and the infrastructure? Where’s the justification for that? How can you ignore such costs? What happens when you include them.
Complete rubbish. More, made up, fantasy terms masquerading as science.
@Drakvag: Your rude and ignorant comment fails to understand that Sweden has some of the highest electricity costs in the world. If you look at just developed Nations, then Sweden pays pretty much the highest cost for electricity in the world. You pay on avergae 28cents per KW. The only countries with higher cost also use wind and solar for a large part of their energy costs.
Tell me the location of any “backup gas, or coal plant” that’s ever been built in the U.S.
Kum Dollison says:
August 6, 2012 at 7:01 pm
That’s not how you figure levelized cost. Go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelised_energy_cost
And what happens if you use a realistic capacity factor? Perhaps an order of magnitude increase in cost. Again, your estimates having nothing to do with this planet.
Why don’t you give us a “reference” for a “realistic capacity factor?”
Kum Dollison says:
August 6, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Tell me the location of any “backup gas, or coal plant” that’s ever been built in the U.S.
====
There are none. Because coal, gas and nuclear are constant energy sources. We don’t need them (backup sources). There is no need for backup\reserve\balancing power, unlike wind and solar which are highly variable and highly unreliable.
Kum, tell me what happens when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun isn’t shining how do we get our power from these “levelized” sources.
Ha, I read that Wiki page on levelised cost. Apart from being a political tool instead of an engineering tool, I found this little gem:
“It has little relation to actual price of power”
Further on, we get to the nub of the problem:
“Wind power has poor capacity contribution, so during windless periods, some form of back up must be provided.”
If I invented a car that got 500 mpg, but you could only use it on Tuesday mornings, it would still be a mostly pointless invention, unless you happened to have a Tuesday-only paper delivery run. That’s because everyone would have to buy 2 cars – and the cost of that far outweighs the savings of a couple of runs at 500 mpg.
Wind cannot produce sufficient load, so the cost of any wind production is always X 2 – because you need to build something else as well. The only applications for wind power are remote areas with suitable winds, or for batch-processing time-independent jobs like irrigation or perhaps waste disposal or something like that.
Usually, if the wind isn’t blowing, the sun is shining (and, vice versa.) Also, look at California; they get solar from Arizona, and wind from Washinton. Also, Hydro from Washington/Oregon, and Nevada. They will soon be getting Wind from Wyoming, and Solar from Nevada.
Then, there’s the 900 MW of Geothermal. They’re building Wave/Tidal in N. California. You stitch it all together using advanced computer software programs. Need I go on?
Oh, and Coal and Nuclear are NOT constant energy sources. San Onofre is having all sorts of problems, and it was Wind that bailed Texas out last Winter when the Coal, and Nat Gas plants froze up.
I am not so sure I would bother listening to kum dollison. He has been ‘promoting’ Wind and Bio-fuel for years here and on other blogs.
Here is an example from DomesticFuel.com
Sort of spotlights the “Dirty Tricks BAG” does it not?
A search for “Kum Dollison wind ” gives back 5,260 results so Kum has been busy.
I’m an old, retired insurance man with not a lot to do, so I gab on the internet. And I’m interested in Wind, Ethanol, Solar, and other Renewable Technologies.
However, while we’re doing ‘credentials:’ GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation) was founded by Nigel Lawson Who Does Have Financial Ties To The COAL INDUSTRY.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Nigel_Lawson
Kum Dollison says:
August 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm
yeppers, Wind Energy is so expensive that TXU Energy is giving it away for free from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM. Jes don’ know how we can afford it.
Kum,
You just can’t be that gullible…… There is NO free energy.
Wait – I’ve just read your responses on this comment thread. I take it back. You are that gullible and you want to convince equally gullible folks to your uneconomic views. You are part of the cadre bankrupting our country and your fellow citizens. You and your ‘free energy’ are the cause of high energy costs, low manufacturing output, a worsening unemployment rate, and impoverished families.
MtK
Before you get any deeper into invective, and ad hominem, perhaps you should go back and look at that link explaining “levelized costs of energy,” again.
It’s pretty simple. Wind power and PV solar have contributed to the increases in energy costs. It is intellectually dishonest to say that they are lower cost than coal, gas or nuclear. Now, some people may believe it… but then those people just don’t really know how to do research. Instead they look for answers they want to find… and become useful idiots. Let’s face it, if they were really competitive, they would not need Feed in Tarrifs, government subsidies (really tax payer money) and special tax status. In CA, we have a requirement for 30% renewables by 2020 (I think those are the correct figures.) Anyway, since the utilities are forced to buy renewables, PVsolar farms will be selling their electricity to the grid at 30 to 36cents per kWh. Coal and gas can sell to the grid for less than 5cents per kWh. So even with the subsidies, the rate payers get screwed… because we are stupid asses for voting on this stuff.
No they won’t; the last solar was bid in at $0.09/kwhr. Also, the utility with the lowest rates in L.A. is the one with the highest percentage of renewables in their power mix.
You call “just making stuff up,” research?
Re: Kum Dollison says:
August 6, 2012 at 11:13 pm
“No they won’t; the last solar was bid in at $0.09/kwhr.”
Nine cent solar power is net of obscene federal and state subsidies to the tune of 31-cents per Kwh. One way or another, taxpayers and consumers pay 40-cents. In the U.S., we disguise those subsidies in the form of obscene tax credits and accelerated depreciation to builders and investors, which have the effect of subsidizing through abandonment of otherwise collectable tax revenues. The consuming and tax-paying public public will pay that freight for that power, come hell or high water. At least Europe has had the decency to subsidize at the plant fence revenue stream for all to see.
I think if you’re looking for ‘just making stuff up’, this line fits the bill rather well:
“Usually, if the wind isn’t blowing, the sun is shining (and, vice versa.)”
Yeah, no.
The reason wind energy is given away for nothing or almost nothing is the same reason that hotels sell rooms at or below cost – when you have excessive supply and insufficient demand the price drops. It’s quite bizarre that someone would see this as an example of how good an industry is.
If I had a Halloween widgets company that produced it’s entire inventory in the first week of November, and sold each widget at 1c, it wouldn’t be an indictment of the success of my company. It would be a warning that my business model is hopelessly broken if I dump all my supply onto the market at the precise point of lowest demand.
Wind shill is obvious wind shill.
This argument is easily negated by the shill producing one single wind energy company that operates at a profit without any type of subsidy either at the producer or consumer side. As there is none, we can assume it’s a losing proposition as an industry, and only propped up with taxpayer money for vanity purposes.
Two days ago the total UK wind output was 55 Mw, which is essentially zero. These zero output days occur quite a few times each year.
Days with outputs less than 200 Mw occur quite regularly.
This is complete nonsense. And yet the UK government is squandering a billion pounds every year on this nonsense. Do these morons never look at the data?
Chris
As a Swede I must say, that “Drakvag” writes pure bullshit. Swedish windpowerlessnessplants are extremely unreliable, expensive and totally rely on subsidies coming from idiot taxes on the reliable powerplants (Nuclear and hydro).
@Mario Lento: If you look at just developed Nations, then Sweden pays pretty much the highest cost for electricity in the world. You pay on avergae 28cents per KW. The only countries with higher cost also use wind and solar for a large part of their energy costs.
Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark are one common market with good connectivity between them. Especially Sweden, Norway and Finland have one of the lowest electricity costs in the world. For example, our household (living in Finland) pays around 9 cents per KW. We have direct electric heating.
Low electricity cost is due to nuclear plants in Sweden and Finland and hydro power plants in Norway, Sweden and Finland. Denmark has the highest electricity cost of these four countries due to high dependency of wind power. When the wind blows well, they sell excess electricity to other Norduc countries and Germany. When it doesnt, they buy thatever they can from nordic grid.
Heh, he makes it up in volume. Meanwhile, old folks freeze and children starve.
=====================
Gail Combs says:
August 6, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Yeah, I used to have a car like that … 🙂 (sorry — I couldn’t resist).
You’re absolutely right that by far the best use of wind is to lift water into a pumped hydro resevoir. So if you have hydro locations with good wind conditions, go for it. Might as well kill both birds and fish at one location.
Kum Dollison says:
August 6, 2012 at 9:10 pm
So I guess the theory is if we gang enough unreliable power sources together then on average we’ll have enough power?
You’ve listed geothermal, wind, tidal and solar. We’ve already discussed wind and solar — intermittent and unreliable, and also very much tied to favorable locations. Tidal is also location specific — won’t help Montana for example. Most places have approximately two tides per day so there are four slack periods when a tidal facility will produce no power at all. Tides are governed by the lunar cycle which does not line up with the solar day by which most human activities are scheduled. There will be times when the maximum tidal production will conincide with the maximum demand and times when it will coincide with the minimum demand. I’m not familair with geothermal to comment intelligently, except that like the others high output is very much location dependent.
We’ve built an electrical system that is governed by the demand side, and utilities alter the supply accordingly using a mixture of constant baseload sources and quickly variable peaking load sources. What we will end up with if we follow the demand for “renewable” energy with these technologies is a grid controlled by the supply side: you run your business, home, etc based on the power we happen to have available at the moment. This is where we are heading with the much vaunted “smart grid” — the ability to control demand to meet the supply.
We will become energy nomads — migrating from activity to activity based on power available. No power; time to sleep (everything is shut off automatically). Lots of power; rush off to your shift at the factory or office and work as long as conditions permit. Run a Google search on “US energy grid before renewable mandates” and you might get back “not enough power to run search at this time; please try again later”. Instead of a clock regulating our day we will have a power display telling us how much energy is available and our activities will be determined accordingly. Flip a switch and you might get room lights, or your energy optimizer might decide that powering the TV to show the latest speech by the head of the UN Energy Agency is more important.
Kum Dollison says:
August 6, 2012 at 2:16 pm
yeppers, Wind Energy is so expensive that TXU Energy is giving it away for free from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM.
Jes don’ know how we can afford it.
___________________________
Typical socialist. If We STEAL the money to pay for it from someone else then it is “Free”
So how is the “FREE” wind energy actually paid for? (We know a Corporation ain’t giving anything away for free.)
In 2006 for wind
Federal Taxpayer Subsidies: $457,924,289 (11.6% of total spending)
Total Energy U.S. Consumer Spending: $3,502,105,629
Lets look at the other forms of Energy and the % paid by federal tax payers.
Oil and Gas – – – – – – – – – – 0.5%
Coal – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 6.9%
Nuclear – – – – – – – – – – – – 20.9%
Hydroelectric power – – – – 0.5%
Ethanol – – – – – – – – – – – – – 26.5%
Biodiesel – – – – – – – – – – – – – -9.9%
Biomass – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.4%
Subtotal – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 36.8% (Plants > fuel)
Wind – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 11.6%
Solar – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12.3%
Geothermal – – – – – – – – – – – – – 0.5%
How about the state of Texas?
Oil and Gas – – – – $1,417,434,337 – – – 1.5%
Biodiesel – – – – – – – – $2,107,420 – – – 3.1%
Wind – – – – – – – – – – – $1,508,800 – – – 0.2%
Solar – – – – – – – – – – – $2,574,101 – – – 9.2%
Coal NONE
Nuclear NONE
Ethanol NONE
SOURCE
I’m pretty overwhelmed by all the negative feelings against wind energy but I have to admit my eyes are opened a little bit. I don’t think that I realized the costs were so much more compared to normal gas plants to produce the same amount from wind turbine production. There are a lot of really good debates here! I actually found this article search for more information on the Colorado 57% peak of wind energy production breaking a record. Instead what I’ve found is a sub-community that is very anti-wind, thanks for opening my eyes. Where have you all been hiding!? 😛
Joel:
Did you also read the part of the article that said the 57% was only in the early morning when few people were using electricity and that it dropped to 17% when people started actually using electricity? Statistics can make really great headlines but the reality behind them is not so great. If we could train people and business to operate only at high wind times, there might be value. But I don’t think people are going to shop the mall at 4 AM because the wind is blowing. The reason wind is a problem is it is available only on its schedule, among all the other shortcomings noted here.