Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t michel – Britons are experiencing first hand why wind is utterly unsuitable for reliable electricity production.
Britain Has Gone Nine Days Without Wind Power
By Rachel Morison
7 June 2018, 14:00 GMT+10
- Forecasters see wind output staying low for at least two weeks
- Wind generating 4.3% of U.K. electricity on Wednesday
Britain’s gone nine days with almost no wind generation, and forecasts show the calm conditions persisting for another two weeks.
The wind drought has pushed up day-ahead power prices to the highest level for the time of year for at least a decade. Apart from a surge expected around June 14, wind levels are forecast to stay low for the next fortnight, according to The Weather Company.
U.K. turbines can produce about as much power as 12 nuclear reactors when conditions are right. During the “Beast from the East” storm that hit Britain in March, they generated record levels of power and at times provided the biggest share of the nation’s electricity.
…
Wind droughts can last for months. The Australian CSIRO BOM recently explained a three month wind drought in South Australia, with more to come in the future, was an inevitable consequence of climate change.
Unfortunately for anyone looking to the CSIRO Australian government agencies for climate guidance, this was a revision to a 2011 CSIRO prediction that climate change would create stronger winds.
Luckily the current British wind drought occurred in Summer, but wind droughts can occur any time of year.
If countries like Britain go 100% renewable, its only a matter of time until a prolonged winter wind drought coincides with near zero solar energy availability, leading to weeks or even months without power at the coldest time of the year. Low wind conditions in Britain sometimes coincide with winter high pressure systems, which can be extremely cold.
No conceivable battery backup would bail a country out of a disaster like that.
Update (EW): Fixed the link to the Bloomberg article (h/t Latitude)
Correction (EW): BOM expert Darren Ray explained that the drop in winds was because climate change, not the CSIRO. The reason provided was “The tropics expand as the planet warms and that sees high pressure systems staying throughout the south longer than they used to.”. The original article quoting Darren Ray is unfortunately paywalled but if you search Google you will see the quote. (h/t Nick Stokes)
Will Roger Sowell check in to tell up how practical wind turbines are?
The problem is that we don’t believe enough.
If we all clap our hands the fairies will live, err, winds will blow.
Actually you have to click your heels together three times and say “There’s no power like wind” over and over.
the song goes
there’s no power like wind power.
There’s no power. That I know.
The sun isn’t shining.
The wind does’n’t blow.
The weather here is freezing.
We might just have some snow….
I am reminded of the curious 1st grader who, during an class instruction on CAGW, raised his hand and asked the Question “But teacher, how do we turn on the wind?”
Why aren’t all the greens out there blowing .. just saying.
Sowell here. A bit late to the discussion.
One can only wonder if the same snide commentary would be made for, say, hydroelectric power plants during a prolonged drought?
Or, would the naysayers on wind power be equally vociferous in proclaiming hydroelectric power plants are a waste of money (after all, they are almost 70 percent subsidized with government money — you could look it up) due to their complete unreliability during those oh-so-unpredictable droughts? Would the naysayers be opposed to hydroelectric because they must have 100 percent backup to allow reliable power production during the prolonged droughts?
Or, would the learned naysayers admit the obvious: rain is an intermittent resource, wind is an intermittent resource, solar is an intermittent resource; with the primary difference in economics being that hydroelectric plants were built with government funding (for the most part, see e.g. Hoover Dam, Bonneville Dam) while wind turbine power projects are typically built with private investor funding and a small boost via government subsidies. Also would the learned naysayers admit the obvious: the small wind power subsidies accomplished their intended goal of allowing the wind industry participants to develop, test, and install ever-better systems so that today or in the near future, zero subsidies are or will be required?
One waits for a response.
Sorry, your comment is not worthy of a response . . .
I’ve never heard of Hoover Dam shutting down because of a drought. Hoover Dam was still delivering 75-80% of capacity in 2016 at the tail end of one of the worst droughts since the dam was built. Hydro doesn’t stop because the rain stops. That’s because hydro can store reserves, something wind can’t do very well.
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2016/ph240/brackbill1/
a lot of hydroelectric is pumped-storage variety, so long as some idiot doesn’t drain the reservoirs during the drought there will be power, because it serves as its own battery backup
Not true. Very, very little pumped storage is actually available. Please provide any figures for any country showing evidence of your statement. Flow-assisted storage (as at the two big power plants downstream of Niagara Falls) is not pumped storage, but is – if anything – even more rare.
Helms PP in California is Pumped Storage though I don’t know how many there are world wide
Try: https://www.hydropower.org/hydropower-pumped-storage-tool
We have a pumped storage one over at Dinorwic in the days when instead of prattling renewable and eco we repaired stuff and built renewable sources that worked. It was started in 1974 reportedly.
Dinorwig Power Station in the UK is a very well known pumped storage source.
On the other hand, Norway has no pumped storage to speak of due to the high rainfall totals we experience. Wind power makes up 1% of the 100% energy requirements of Norway with the other 99% coming from hydroelectric. At the moment we’ve had had no rain for 3 weeks ( and no wind to speak of) and yet our electricity prices have remained stable indicating that water levels are not causing any concern.
Difference in time scale.
Droughts can be planned for. You know months in advance that you are going to have a problem and how severe it will be.
Wind, you’re lucky if you have a couple of hours.
Your attempted analogy is amazingly pathetic.
PS: A grand total of nobody has proclaimed that we need to get rid of all other forms of power and rely solely on hydro.
It takes YEARS worth of drought to render some hydroelectric dams with too little water to generate but it only takes weeks worth of Lack of Wind to do the same for Wind Generators.
Hydro can be easily stored or used a little more slowly to prolong depletion during drought years while Wind can’t be stored to use when needed it can only be used when the wind is blowing sufficiently.
Since there is at present no storage for wind, it only takes minutes for a lack of wind to start creating a problem.
I would have said seconds, but the momentum of the blades themselves is a form of storage.
I was just trying to give them the benefit of the doubt. But it is a HUGE doubt
Ah, it is worthy of a bit of a response, and polite at that.
The difference between Hydro vs Wind and Solar is fairly obvious. But first acknowledging that hydro dams were subsidized also is important, as were some of the first nuclear reactors, and many forms of energy generation through history. The difference is in the time we have been subsidizing the solar and wind vs other technologies, and the end result is still significantly more expensive and we do not have much control of it. Right now, vs when we did large dam projects as a nation, we have lots of cheap options (and some expensive ones) to produce energy, and we had fewer versions of in the past in a nation that strongly needed power generation. But that really is a different discussion than the technical one that the reply is due.
The major and fairly obvious reply would be one discussing the finnikyness of any system that harvests nature’s energy and is at the whim of it.
In that, Hydro does have a very distinct advantage vs Wind or Solar, and that is the knowledge of the reduction of power comes far in advance. Because Hydro generation comes with its own energy reserve, or battery for simplicity’s sake. This battery can contain weeks or months of reserve power, and it also can be turned on or off at will.
Now, solar or wind can be turned off at will, or not used. But it can’t be turned on as needed so much because the there is no reserve attached to the design. In a damn you can know, years in advance on some of them, just how much power you have on tap, and you can throttle it on or off to reserve more during droughts or otherwise. Say, using it for the peak times during the day from 4-7 when people come home. Or when it is extremely cold or hot out.
There is both control and reserve in the Hydro system which is not present, and most likely never will be present, in a wind and solar at any price that would make it a reasonable power source like hydro is. That is why it really occupies a completely different position in the power generation niche than Wind or Solar.
(As a side note I have worked on controls for dams and pumped water storage, so I am familiar with their operation, this isn’t a hypothetical for me. In addition to designing power stations and other grid related items, I have about 20 years designing for power or energy (Oil/Gas) systems.)
And therefore, every hydroelectric power plant that is subject to periodic droughts must have backup power; the reasons are obvious. When the lake gets low, the power plant must reduce output or risk running the lake dry.
Niagara River power plant, of course, does not periodically run dry due to droughts (to the best of my knowledge).
The entire theme of the post is that wind is unreliable and must have 100 percent backup.
So what, everyone knows that going in. Hydroelectric dams in drought areas need 100 percent backup, too.
40-plus years engineering in oil refineries, chemical and petrochemical plants. Design, operation, maintenance, optimization, planning, construction, startup. Reliability of power to the plants, economics of building our own power plants (which we did in many cases based on my analyses). It’s not a theoretical exercise for me.
Repeating a lie does not make it the truth.
As pointed out, you don’t need 100% back up for hydro as the long lead time gives you plenty of time to make other arrangements.
The other difference is that even if you did need back up, the long lead time allows you time to bring a plant up from cold instead of having to constantly shift them from partial to full power as wind and solar do, which is very expensive.
Hydroelectric ‘in drought areas’ is a decent modifier to the conversation, but doesn’t really change my point, and only really weakens yours. The reason to build a dam in drought areas is generally for agriculture benefits, not power generation.
But MarkW does repeat the point I made that you are avoiding: The lead time is months to years before there is an effect, and baseline backup power can be brought into play.
Which, and you obviously know with 40 years of experience in the area, makes a huge difference. As well you should know the problem California forecasts with the ‘Duck Curve’ and the development of the ‘fast on’ gas turbines plants (without the combined cycle which is significantly more efficient), simply because solar and wind need them as a backup as they are the only fast power source to turn ‘On’ besides industrial diesel, but that is not needed with Hydro generation because, as you know, that is not a problem. You can back up hydro with any slow start up baseline power adjustment, and plan for it weeks in advance, instead of having to do it within half an hour.
Which is the point I think you are trying to poorly avoid.
But you know what I noticed? The standard WUWT reader and commenter also know that – without either of our backgrounds. It is that simple a position to grasp.
Why would you even try to take such an easy to see through position? It is obviously a weak point to make, so why defend it so hard? Do you really think the WUWT readership are both that ignorant, and also unable to use the internet? (Which, since they are here, shows at least a baseline capability?)
I think your point is only minorly valid, and I think you know that – a semantic argument, vs. a substantial one. The scale of control and times that the dam may have to be shut down are on a glacial scale compared to wind or solar, if you pardon the exaggeration. It doesn’t play in the same realm as wind or solar for solid reasons, which you obviously already know. So, why point it out? The pure joy of being a contrarian? That I can understand completely. 🙂
“One waits for a response”; in other words, better described as sheer hubris.
“One can only wonder if the same snide commentary”; speaking of “snide commentary“.
especially since you use your “snide commentary” to inject specious strawmen distractions from the nether region sources.
As Hoyt Clagwell describes, hydro-power generating plants are extremely reliable. Unlike bird and bat killing, land wasting very unreliable and expensive wind farms.
Then there is your misrepresentation of wind farm investor funding. Investors, by and large, will not invest in wind farms unless they are backed with government guarantees, grants, benefits, preferred delivery position to customers and subsidies.
Nuclear, fossil fuel, hydroelectric and geothermal generating plants pay back their government loans, with interest, while maximising low cost rates to customers.
Just how many wind farms are reimbursing government and taxpayers for wind farm costs; and how long do government and taxpayers have to wait for full recompense?
Hydroelectric, geothermal, nuclear, fossil fuel generating facilities produce extremely consistent, very high quality electricity that commercial customers can depend upon with minimal frequency and amperage conditioning.
Wind and solar farms are unable to produce quality consistent electricity required by industry; which is why wind farms can not support the industry required to mine, smelt, refine, form the metals required for wind farms. Nor can they supply the refineries and chemical industries that produce the advanced resins, epoxies and coatings wind turbines require.
Fortunately, government is waking up to progressive legislator and activist abuses forcing unreliable low efficiency land wasting animal destroying wind farms upon citizens. Eventually, even the most delusional regressive governments will be required to receive full benefit and compensation from those redundant renewable energy sources.
As the becalmed wind farms demonstrate, all renewable energy sources require 100% reliable energy source backup; i.e. hydro, nuclear, geothermal and fossil fuel.
Expensive, unreliable, unable to stand alone without reliable backup, one wonders why such delusional waste of taxpayer funds is allowed, anywhere.
Making wind power a classic example of government representatives forcing personal opinions and choices upon citizens in the form of immature or less capable technology; at higher cost.
Straw man. Which you knocked over with way too much energy. And completely failed to answer, what are we supposed to do when the wind doesn’t blow? With a hydroelectric dam running out of water there is at least enough predictably to shut down the fossil fuel fired backup when the hydro is producing.
And when the wind power developers constructed their financials did they include the cost of mandatory back-up that will be required, not just constructed and ready, but actually fired up and spinning at zero load, for when the wind doesn’t blow?
A short response to the learned, and esteemed commenters on WUWT re wind power and the various pros and cons.
Surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that European nations are woefully short of oil, and that oil itself is seldom used for electric power (or must one say electric energy to satisfy the pedantics in the audience? But, one digresses) due to the high fuel cost and much greater value for oil as transport fuel and petrochemical feedstock?
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that coal in many EU nations is a scarce resource already, and growing more dear by the passing year? (as Germany, for one, now subsidizes the otherwise unprofitable mining of coal; UK has shut down the deep coal mines as unprofitable but not worthy of subsidy)
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that nuclear power in the EU is vigorously opposed on safety grounds, and modern efforts at construction of the most advanced nuclear power plants are mired in long delays and horribly expensive cost overruns (e.g. Finland with the Olkiluoto fiasco, France with the Flamanville fiasco, and now UK with the Hinkley Point C financial monstrosity)
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that natural gas in the EU is a scarce natural resource, therefore gas is imported either via gas pipelines from Russia, or via LNG from far away lands? (and that either source of gas is problematic due to shut-off fears by Russia, and high costs of LNG imports)
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that hydroelectric power resources in the EU are essentially tapped out at this time, with zero room for additional production?
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that the several years, indeed decades, of various EU governments’ subsidies for wind power generation (there’s that difficulty again, must one say wind energy instead of wind power? One strives to be grammatically correct to please the esteemed and learned colleagues of WUWT) has finally resulted in the bidding of new offshore wind leases with zero subsidy in the winning bids? In short, the subsidies accomplished the intended purpose of having wind power (that semantic difficulty again) be economically viable without need of government support.
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that grid designers and those that approve changes to the grid generation mix are and were keenly aware of the operating characteristics of wind power systems, and that grid regulators maintain their requirements that the grid provide safe, reliable, low-cost, and environmentally responsible power (or must one say energy at this point also?)
And need one point out to my esteemed and learned colleagues that the UK grid, the subject of this particular negative post on WUWT, had zero reported blackouts or even brownouts as a result of the recent lack of wind?
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that wind power systems produce sufficient revenues that the lending institutions receive their contracted-for payments; else notices of defaults on loans would be highly publicised?
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware that the subsidies for wind power facilities pales in comparison to the subsidies for nuclear power plants, for hydroelectric power plants, and the coal power plants that enjoyed many decades of exemption from pollution laws? One expects, of course, that the esteemed and learned colleagues are fully informed on this matters and acknowledge, as they must, that the various forms of electric power production are essentially all subsidized. France, in particular, actually nationalized their entire electric industry (the ultimate form of subsidy) and only recently (and one must add, reluctantly) privatised at least some of the industry. One must of course credit the esteemed and learned colleagues for certain knowledge that France’s electricity prices were subsidized to an extent that prompted the EU regulatory body to charge France with a legal violation and forced the French to increase prices.
And surely my esteemed and learned colleagues are aware of the recent Lazard study, and also the recent study by Morgan Stanley, each concluding that unsubsidized wind has the lowest LCOE (one references p. 45 of the MS study, “Equity Research Spring Training Energy Teach-In, April 30, 2018. )
Surely my esteemed and learned colleagues do not wish to be lumped into the category of buggy-whip proponents in the early days of automobiles, at which time the buggy-whip proponents argued (futilely, as it turned out) that nothing could ever replace a reliable horse and smooth-running buggy?
In short, the esteemed and learned colleagues argue futilely and yet with vigour, against the highly competitive, safe, and economic power source of today and the future, wind. One hesitates, indeed, to ask if the learned and esteemed colleagues are aware that they are very often wrong, but never in doubt.
And now to revert to American English; stay tuned sports fans. You ain’t seen nothing, yet. Wind is here to stay, it is growing, and grid prices are falling as a result.
Wind ‘droughts’??? We are linguistically creative, aren’t we?
As for “No conceivable battery backup would bail a country out of a disaster like that.”, that would indeed be a mann-made catastrophe, would it not? And a ‘renewable’ catastrophe at that, if the lesson is not heeded.
That was always the problem with relying on wind. Look up the word “doldrums”.
I would add the old sailing term: becalmed
Ahh, the doldrums. Enemy of every wind powered sailor that has ever plied the oceans. An explanation might be found in the Atlantic SSTs, no?
I don’t know, man. The Concorde has been retired for a while.
Given that it is from jolly olde…
Perhaps
DrollDums
Yes that raised my eyebrows a wind drought what is next a sun drought formally known as night or a cloudy day. Renewables comes with it’s own terminology always implying it isn’t the technologies fault.
Whilst May was exceptionally sunny, certainly in our part of the UK on the South Coast we have had several days of cloud AND no wind this week. That is unusual at this time of the year but not so much in the winter when a high pressure sits in the wrong place.
Wind and solar might be ok as ancillary power but you need other sources as a base power, where the energy output can be reliably created, measured and maintained.
tonyb
Wind drought is a common term in inland Australia where many pastoralists still rely on windmills to pump water for their stock.
Doldrums is a sailing term with a specific geographical reference to the zone 5 degrees north and south of the equator
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/doldrums.html
Any nation considering going 100% recylable without fossil backup is a fools errand. It is a given the sun doesn’t shine every night. Wind is even more unperdictable. How can government leadership be so willing to take such extreme risks?
And if you’re going to have fossil, or nuclear, backup, there’s no point in the renewables.
Conversion of renewable drivers can still serve niche applications, where reliable, consistent performance is not a factor.
yes but NOT wholesale wind and solar farms that are subsidized so that everybody’s electricity prices are doubled and tripled.
Agree wholeheartedly, n.n, to your comment
“Conversion of renewable drivers can still serve niche applications, where reliable, consistent performance is not a factor.”
But, also, please review Alan Tomalty’s valid – indeed precise – comment –
“yes but NOT wholesale wind and solar farms that are subsidized so that everybody’s electricity prices are doubled and tripled.”
Niche jobs – on an Outer Hebridean Islet, perhaps – will be fine, especially given a decent battery.
But no nation even as big as the Vatican City can run off renewables alone!
Auto.
V. Happy to have reliable power, especially in October to May [in South London, with our variable weather].
I agree, n.n. I live in the country, and having solar to run the pump that pulls water up 1,100 feet to fill my cistern has been quite adequate. I can go for weeks without the pump working under nominal conditions.
Obviously, a solar farm is not needed for that operation. I somehow doubt the electric company would pay to run parallel power – one set reliable, the other renewable. But then, the reason I’m on solar is that it would cost me $75k to get reliable power here. Unreliable power would be an additional cost – and be unreliable, good only for pumping water. I’d just settle for reliable power everywhere.
No there is a point in having some limited renewable energy sources if only for development to see if that percentage can be realistically increased with newer technologies.
Keep an eye on this page.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
Note that much of the time coal is contributing nothing, or negligible amounts. At times of low demand, like a bank holiday weekend, when wind is actually being productive, the media is full of propaganda stories about how the grid is managing without coal because of renewables. They don’t point out that demand could actually be met at these times without coal OR wind.
Similar lies, the UK media reportsd that the USA’s drop in CO2 is down to closure of coal and installation of renewables, no (or very vague) mention of gas.
There is also the problem that there is never any mention that when the wind does blow the coal fired plants still need to be kept running at “idle” ready to take up the slack as the wind dies. The carbon dioxide production at this time should be credited to the wind plants.
Thermal stations take a long time to come on line from cold, usually in the order of 24 hours. If thermal plants were turned off as soon as their production was not required because of wind over production, the grid would collapse every day or so.
Richard of NZ, utility planners and schedulers disagree with your view. What happens in most cases is the coal-fired plants or gas-fired plants, or hydroelectric plants (but not the nuclear plants) will decrease output slightly while wind power is produced. Placing thermal plants in hot stand-by or cold status is not favored.
There is considerable literature published of operation of modern grids. See terms such as spinning reserve, hot stand by, and cold stand by.
Also, a good overview is here:
“The “backup power” myth–
Sometimes wind opponents claim that because wind energy output varies with the wind speed, wind plants require an equivalent amount of “backup power” provided by fossil fuel plants, negating the environmental and fuel savings benefits of wind energy. Understanding why this myth is false requires some explanation of how the electric utility system operates.”
https://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5454
Roger Sowell
Not true at all. The gas-fired plants (and, increasingly, major coal plants) DO shutdown completely – and then start up again from cold conditions on the turning gear. Often twice per day. Small, single cycle GT are the preferred quick-shutdown plants. However, most GT’s are combined cycle (gas turbines feeding a steam turbine regenerative heat exchanger), so the three are started up and completely shut down. GT’s (and ST’s) can cycle up and down across the power cycle a limited amount, but they CANNOT “just idle” on standby. Their air permits do not allow operation below 40%. Three typical 200-250 Meg combined cycle plants – each at 40% minimum combine – into an uncontrollable cycle of out-of-spec feedbacks. Thus, the entire plant shuts down prior to being tripped.
You claim a power system background. Surprised you believe the wind industry hand-waving propaganda.
One word reply to refute everything you just wrote:
Iowa.
You could look it up, they’ve been running wind turbine generation plants for many years, at 30 percent or more of annual electrical demand.
Another area in which your comments are false: California, although there it is a combination of solar and wind.
Surprised you act like such an expert, when the actual operating practices in states with substantial wind power refute your statements.
Roger Sowell
Countered by: 1/4 of the US, Only one county across the entire southeast United States (Mississippi, LA, AL, GA, SC, NC, southern VA, FL, TN ) has any wind potential of any kind – excepting that one county in NC on the cape itself. And you’ll play h*ll getting the enviro’s to approve their windswept beaches polluted by ugly windmills spanning 2 football fields each.
If that is what they are doing, then no wonder electricity is so expensive.
The cost of a coal plant does not go down just because it is running at 90% capacity. Beyond that, running a plant that was designed to be run at full output at less than full output increases wear and tear tremendously.
This link seems to be a highly biased website. Large fluctuations in near instantaneous wind power can lead to grid instability, as has happened on a regular basis in Germany with their large number of wind turbines.
Roger, coal fired dipping to lower output to accommodate wind vagaries is less efficient and per unit CO2 is increased. But the main issue here is you are only correct about “slight” because wind is such a marginal supplier. You cant logically select a “benefit” available only because wind is such a small actor and use it for promotion of wind. You have been smitten by accounting methods of scoundrels to square the circle the way the windeologues wish it to be (Ive tead your other wind support stuff).
Roger, it doesn’t matter how you try to justify it, wind requires even more expensive storage and/or other generation sources that could do the job anyway. It’s a ludicrous situation. No sane person would design an electricity generation system like that. It’s actually insulting to the intelligence to try and justify wind. It simply defies all logic, it isn’t justifiable. It is a symptom of a delusional ideology. It also hurts the poorest in society the most and transfers more wealth to the richest.
Mr Nasty,
You could hold that view, or you could read the justification for wind at this link:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/08/offshore-wind-turbine-project-statoils.html
The host here, A. W., also posted that on this blog in August, 2017, to which more than 600 comments were made.
The case for wind is sound, both economically and strategically.
The main points are as follows:
” Below are listed a few reasons in support of wind power. Point 4, the reduction in natural gas demand and its price, is the most important (in my view).
Onshore wind farms have benefited greatly from private and public funding over the past decade. The wind turbine generators are already low-cost to install and operate. Projects are profitable in the Great Plains region of the US where the sales price for power is 4.3 cents per kWh. (source: 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report https://emp.lbl.gov/sites/default/files/2015-windtechreport.final_.pdf ) The federal subsidy is to end in 3-4 years. Most importantly, the installed cost has steadily decreased over the years, by a factor of 3 in the past 7 to 8 years. The low capital cost is the primary reason that wind power is being installed at 8 to 13 GW per year in the US. It must be acknowledged that the reductions in capital cost per kW occurred only because the federal and state subsidies for wind technology allowed developers to design, build, and install better and better designs. Whatever arguments there may be against subsidies, wind turbine generators have benefitted substantially from the subsidies.
Installed costs will continue to decrease as more improvements are made. Designers have several improvements yet to be implemented such as larger turbines, taller towers, and increased capacity factor. Oklahoma just announced a 2,000 MW project with 800 turbines of 2.5 MW each. Onshore wind farms will soon have the larger size at 4 MW then 6 MW turbines similar to those that are installed now in the ocean offshore.
Wind repower projects have even better economics. Repowering is the replacement of old, inefficient wind turbine generators with modern, usually much larger, and much more efficient systems. The wind will not have changed, was not used up, in the same location. In fact, the taller turbines reach higher and into better wind that typically has greater speed and more stability. The infrastructure is already in place for power lines and roads. Repowering may be able to incorporate legacy towers as the upper section of new, taller towers for larger wind turbine generators.
Wind power extends the life of natural gas wells. Wind power creates less demand for natural gas. This reduces the price of natural gas. That helps the entire economy, especially home heating bills, plus the price of electricity from burning natural gas. But, this also reduces the cost to make fertilizer that impacts food, since natural gas is the source of hydrogen that is used to make ammonia fertilizer.
Wind power is a great jobs creator. Today, there are more than 100,000 good jobs in the US wind energy industry. Many of the wind industry jobs are filled by aeronautical engineers. Instead of designing airplanes with two wings that fly in a straight line, they design wind rotors with three wings that turn in a circle. There are approximately 1.2 jobs per MW of installed capacity, with 84,000 MW and 100,000 jobs. That’s approximately the same ratio as in nuclear power plants, with 1 job per MW.
Wind provides security of energy supply. No one can impose an embargo on the wind. There are no foreign payments, and no foreign lands to protect with the US military.
Wind provides a good, drought-independent supplemental income via lease payments to thousands of families nationwide, due to the distributed nature of wind turbine projects. Almost 100 percent of the land can continue in its original activity, grazing cattle or farming. Marginal land with no economic activity now produces income for the landowner. 85 acres is required for 1 MW of WTG.
Wind power promotes grid-scale storage research and development. Wind energy generated at night during low demand periods can be stored then released when demand and prices are higher. As always, some losses occur when energy is stored and released later. Storage and release on demand has spinoff into electric car batteries. EVs will reduce or eventually eliminate gasoline consumption, and that will spell the end for OPEC. The entire world’s geopolitics will change as a result. Recently, the CEO of BP, the major international oil company, predicted that the next decade or two would bring such a surge of EVs that oil demand would peak, then decline. The CEO is right, too. When it becomes patriotic to drive an EV rather than a gas guzzler, EV sales will zoom. A gas guzzler will be seen as an OPEC enabler.
Wind power hastens nuclear plant retirements as electricity prices decline. Nuclear plants cannot compete with cheap electricity from cheap natural gas. As stated above, wind energy keeps natural gas prices low by reducing the demand for natural gas.
Power from wind is power without pollution. Wind power has no damaging health impacts from smoke, particulates, or noxious sulfur or nitrogen oxides. The American Lung Association encourages clean, pollution-free wind power.” — R. E. Sowell
Every “justification” in that list – each sentence by sentence claim made by the wind power industry as a sales presentation/projection/propaganda piece – is merely projections and sales. They are not physically true, economically correct in today’s real world.
The Australian CSIRO, a once respected organisation, has lost its way scientifically due to being staffed by the left. Will science ever recover from the current political pollution corrupting the discipline? Who would want to take science as a career? I certainly would advise anyone seeking that path to think again.
CSIRO was once a respected scientific organization, but they began the process of self-destruction by acquiring too many investigative projects and staffing them with un/under-qualified staff. As noted by Wallaby then made it worse by mixing in a left slant. CSIRO says climate change causes wind droughts but convert to wind anyway? Looks like the birds are the only ones getting a break here.
Ron,
Yes, that was the bit that made me laugh.
“…….CSIRO BOM recently explained a three month wind drought in South Australia, with more to come in the future, was an inevitable consequence of climate change.”
“……..this was a revision to a 2011 CSIRO prediction that climate change would create stronger winds.”
So they build wind farms, at great expense to the taxpayer, tell us they won’t work because of ‘wind droughts’, and in the same breath, the alarmists assure us that extreme weather will be greater and more frequent, when wind turbines won’t work either.
Doubtless, windless days will be re-designated a form of extreme weather rendering climate change culpable for the failure of any type of renewables to provide stable power.
Nothing to do with 14th Century technology of course.
Wallaby Geoff : I agree with you in that THE CSIRO should be avoided
IF someone wants a science-career BASED IN SCIENCE and not based on
providing “evidence” for a political-ideological-driven bureaucracy !
However , NOW that the HUMANITIES only exists to propound “green”
(“watermelon” ) ideological nonsense then I especially ENDORSE SCIENCE
as there are many other channels of employment and you can MAINTAIN
your own ideas and ideals and actually HAVE A LIFE !
Fortunately , scientists NOT BEHOLDEN TO BUREAUCRATS AND
DEPENDENT on GOVERNMENT GRANTS enjoy well paid and satisfying
work in the commercial sector.
dunno about that..when csiro was ONLY govvy funded n answerable to public it had to get it right or get defunded/fired offenders
since it got “techie and FOR commercial profit” its turned to crap.
science shouldnt be about money or fame.
Oil companies shouldn’t hire their own geologists?
Pharmaceutical companies shouldn’t hire their own doctors?
Chemical companies shouldn’t hire their own chemists?
“U.K. turbines can produce about as much power as 12 nuclear reactors when conditions are right. During the “Beast from the East” storm that hit Britain in March, they generated record levels of power”
LMAO…..sorry, that cracked me up
The “right” conditions are when everyone’s roof is gone!
BTW…this is the link to the article
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-07/u-k-wind-drought-heads-into-9th-day-with-no-relief-for-weeks
Fixed, thanks!
…and a nice quote from the article
“” Elchin Mammadov, analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence said. “This shows that relying on wind, solar and batteries to supply the majority of our power is reckless for energy security.”
One might even say feckless.
Consider how well that concept worked for Costa Rica last year…..
Aargh! Should be ‘Puerto Rico!’
Ah, the green blight is a wholesome occupier. Perhaps on land that people, animals, and plants, do not want. It will be a hard environmental sell.
And also: If this is so; then it must take 12 Nuclear Power Stations to renew the renewable energy lost when conditions are NOT right.
Yes Latitude – hilarious and misleading hype. The theoretical, fairy tale, capacity may well be 12 nuclear reactors, bloody well should be given the countless billions of cost thus far. In practice, however, it would be good to find out what that “record level” of power equates to in terms of those nuclear reactors and just how long that “record level” lasted, before fossil fuels stepped up to the mark, as ever.
As an aside, given the hysterical coverage when renewables do adequately, isn’t it remarkable how the BBC hasn’t obviously covered this no-wind power story?
Ian Magness
“……..isn’t it remarkable how the BBC hasn’t obviously covered this no-wind power story?”
No.
However, there was an article on Radio 2 a day or two ago from a political correspondent on Trump. To my amazement, it wasn’t littered with sneering references to the man, instead, it was almost (but not quite) complimentary. Assuming the lack of sneering can be considered such.
Latitude
Cranking up my old brain cells, I seem to remember ‘the beast from the east’ lasting for about a week. A bit of snow and ice in the south east of England (granted, worse elsewhere) then a respite for a week or so, then a few more days of snow and ice.
And we’re expected to provide for our annual electricity consumption from this?
Am I still living on planet earth, or have I been abducted by aliens and dropped into a parallel universe?
You still work for Brussels, so get back to work and keep your head bowed.
Don’t the turbines have to be shut down if the winds are too strong?
In 1952 there was a similar wind drought in England. 6000 people died. We have come so far since then.
I’m guessing the deaths were due to persistent air pollution from unrestricted coal burning, solved by building coal-fired power stations and providing domestic gas, and the use of electric/gas cookers and heaters. China is currently doing similar, wind/solar are green fluff.
We have come so far left since then!
When the new scientific formula on clean energy discovered or the most difficult scientific question of global hydro power answered, It means that the clean energy of wind and sun and wave of seas with the least efficient are forgotten.
This new hydro power scientific formula (E>P+1at) is the near future of renewable energy in the world and it can solve global warming difficulties and the energy needs of humanity.
(Ee>Ep+E1at) = (E>P+1at)
What is the most difficult scientific question of global hydro power that no one scientists could the answer to it?
Now the hard global question!
How can we produce clean energy in a best way by the potential of water Static head in dams & seas that this water pressure can push to the center of planet?
Answer:
This is by getting benefit of joint scientific formula (E>P+1at) with immersion turbines method inside the water of dams & seas (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero point of opposite forces).
Ee= High pressure clean energy that is produced by the water power plants in the depth of water via released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure (More than ten meters of water) with new method (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero point of opposite forces).
Ep= Released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure in water depth (More than ten meters of water).
E1at= Amount of energy that is consumed at a small pump of one atmosphere power is the ability (In the same place of the water power plant in water depth).
Many scientists believe that the discovery of the formula is unparalleled. Although many still in shock! How this formula has not be discovered by scientists in the world. Answer to a hard question that scientists are searching for hundreds of years and they can control of climate change and stop global warming.
My new formula and new method can change the world and start a new industrial revolution soon.
This invention is patented in Department of Justice in Kurdistan of Iraq No. 952/6 on 12/6/2013.
The TV report: http://rudaw.net/NewsDetails.aspx?pageid=110844
Next comes the pitch for financial backing.
I do not need financial support! This new scientific formulation in the world is only mine and I have discovered it with a 24 year effort. You have understood the subject upside down. Because my energy formula is super-strategic, so I have to choose investors. It means that investors have to compete with each other to conclude contracts.
Now I hope you understand the subject.
Beware bogus magical thinking.
Buzz off.
Many clean energy companies have no knowledge about finding this answer.
Even many hydroelectric science scientists do not know anything about this global science question until they are able to find the answer.
Now that this global response has been found, many of them disagree!
They are worried about their vain investments.
Instead of worrying about global warming, they are worried about their own mistakes.
Forgive me because there is no end to human knowledge.
I have said in my articles that all of the world sciences have to coordinate themselves with this new formula. Because only this new scientific formula is capable of saving the world from destruction and warming. I must complete my words.
Their global partnership can prevent further losses and direct their capital to a secure and targeted way.
Does Kurdistan’s greatest contribution to Science also do Perpetual Motion?
Change the world with Kurdistan’s industrial revolution
Site: Kurdaneh
By: Kambiz Fatehi:
In the world to producing and making one megawatt power in different power plant on average needs to huge investments from seven hundred to one million dollars for countries to provide their needs such as industrial energy, agriculture and urban consume. Although, we must taking high expenses of fuel consuming of this power plant into account. Now, with invention of new and clear energy of Kurdistan ’s power which is producing through the modern method of sank turbine in seas and dams water and new formula (E>P+1at) by me everything is changed. Although the mentioned science were accepted by many expert and technical people, but as I told and tell, this invention ( Kurdistan ’s power) in all research center in the world is defend able because it is formula based on applicable hydraulic. Thanks to this, most extra expenses in nuclear and fossil fuel power plant in the world will be reduced and removed or this old power plants will be replaced with the new science. Also, scientist will face to a new method in the science of hydroelectric power. Thus, there is no damage to the environment, because this system will be placed in created space with different geometrical volumes pipe in deep of water. Then, they scientifically will connect to the turbines and generator. So, the result will be whole a lot of energy which produced by the play of air and water together and with the optimum use of above formula power cycle production will be complete. And, if this new technology will be installed in dams, even a drop of water won’t be wasted. Namely, with the Kurdistan power invention it’s possible to make one dam to thousands of dam in it and making advantages of all head statistic potential of these self-made dams water in just one dam and getting energy hundred time more. Kurdistan power has a great influence in the world which no one will believe and by passing time people may little by little believe this incredible source of energy even the readers of this paper. The simplest effect of Kurdistan power in the world is, planning of all countries for remove all of their fossil fuel and nuclear power plant. Because, they know the cost of maintenance of this power plant and the risky function of it is too high. Also, getting energy in this power plants jeopardize the environment of countries and the world such as, water pollution level, air and soil also, this pollution is the main reason of most kind of animals and plants extinction. So, Kurdistan powers indeed change the perception of the world toward the simple and normal background of hydroelectric. In this method, high level of energy can be obtained easily from the dams and seas compare to the past methods and use other science for the new method of hydroelectric easily. Moreover, beside preventing global warming, most of the time it reduce build and installment of power transition line and it can lead all today valuable and basic materials, such as, oil and gas industry toward the specific valuable production and related to the energy. Basically, the nice feature of Kurdistan power is use of several parallel and set turbines in a float and balance system and cycle. Other feature is the simple ways of maintaining of this installation. The role of Kurdistan power in its economic is very important because not only, it has an exclusive place in transaction and world energy map, but also, with this invention as a world clean energy pole it become the one important reference and pattern in the world. Further, with this invention it has an exit strategy to free itself from the problem of single production (oil and gas) through presenting policies, transmitting science and knowledge of design and build of this based water (Kurdistan’s) power plant and joins the developed countries and in action with this technology, beside earning privilege of reference country, it has a vital role in all energy formulas in the world and within the world markets it can get benefit from all production of in need countries to the Kurdistan power as an exclusive privilege of its achievement in improve and develop of Kurdistan. In a way that even most of developed countries be in a dream of this place. Of course have a look on practical values of this extremely valuable technology; its values must be mentioned from four aspect of social, cultural, political and especially economic by scientists and experts in the future which is out of the mood of this paper. This is the latest benefit of Kurdistan power invention, and with necessary privilege achievement from foreign governments and companies, cooperation and participation acceptance with them, and sharing the benefit of these companies it can receive hundred times more benefit from present budget of Kurdistan . Also, with creating a mass job opportunity in the world it will be complete. And Kurdistan in a short distance will be a developed country. Thus, energy price will go cheap in Kurdistan and in the world certainly, so, unemployment will fall or destroy and you won’t find anyone who is homeless or suffer from hot or coldness. Also, with should say, as air pollution parameters fall down or abolish, humans food and grain, agriculture will improve and FAOs concerns which being a serious problem will drop. At last world health and hygiene will improve and get better. At the end I must explain that, all world formula after the Kurdistan ’s invention must be revising and define by scientists in different science again. Because, the thing that is important is the humans knowledge and notion effect which is concealed in mentioned practical hydraulic formula. Undoubtedly, Kurdistan power invention must be called Kurdistan industrial revelation. Because, this invention not only, can provide an endless source of energy in the world, but also, it bring the peace, love and friendly massage and a gift from Kurdistan to the world. Actually, Kurdistan power demand a world far from the war and violence that, found on the bases of peace, respect and reconciliation to all nations.
https://anfpersian.com/tzh-h/khmbyzfthy-tgyyr-jhn-b-nqlb-sn-ty-khrdstn-10013
Bafflegab and nonsense, Kambiz. A use of jargon, scientific pretense.
Evaluating Kambiz’s alleged formula; “(E>P+1at)“.
E = ?? Energy?
> is a greater than symbol, immediately inferring an unbalanced equation.
P = electric power? (KVA)
+1at (atmosphere?)
WordPress stripping out formatting and organization destroys comment presentation while obfuscating the information organization.
Someone should kick WordPress, hard!
Just saying.
You are right. But it must be said that the responsibility of the scientists of the world goes beyond these statements. Our world is in ruin and we have to take care of it. It should be said that if life in the world belongs to us all and we are all responsible for it. We need to deliver a healthy and clean world to future generations.
I think that my new formula is simply able to clear air, water and soil from environmental pollution.
The goals of global intelligence and security organizations should be to serve the humanity and the future of the planet.
Economics and politics and culture have meaning in the presence of healthy humans.
Utter BS.
Delusion and bafflegab masquerade concealing despotic claims.
The responsibility of scientists is the same as the responsibilities of every worker. Ideally, their responsibilities are pursued honestly and their science follows scientific principles, practice and procedures.
More BS.
The world is not in ruin!
Even those structures that man considers extremely enduring are miniscule transient and extremely brief geological occurrences.
“life in the world belongs to us all…”; more BS and baffle gab phrased as fire and brimstone preachers frame their religious spiels. All emoting, zero facts, zero reality, communist/socialist specious dream claims.
“We need to deliver a healthy and clean world to future generations” ; you have got to love these fake religious strawmen!
The world is healthy and very clean. Some urban environments may be messy, but that is local practice and useless when ranting globalization fantasies.
Your alleged formula is busted, and you agreed it is busted. Making this claim of yours fantasyland claims.
Another useless bafflegab posited strawman distraction, without rhyme, reason, function, implementation or any reality.
A falsehood, in that such a statement has zero bearing on your fake formula, specious claims and socialistic world tyranny fantasies.
All my statements are real because I am an environmental researcher and inventor. I believe to my statements.
My scientific formula is a fact, and soon this subject will prove to you and to the whole world.
This issue has been officially announced in a television report.
Previously, many scientists who invested in energy projects were the main opponents of this new scientific formula. They preferred economic losses to the destruction of the world. Yes, they were intelligent and intelligent.
Fortunately, they all accepted that they were wrong.
Now they look like you and they see the world nice, because they have a scientific formula for the future of humanity (E>P+1at).
Yes, they are no longer against me. Yes i can end global warming and this is my duty.
If you want me to talk about this new scientific formula! I am ready. Of course, if you have enough knowledge, I will be happy.
Your questions are completely correct. But these questions relate to testing the output of this new hydro powe plant. But so far no hydroelectric power plants have been built on this new formula in the world.
You have not understood the subject of the scientific formula at all. Yes, I’m talking about hydroelectric science terms.
For over a hundred years, the static pressure of pure clean water has been produced in the world.
I’m currently talking about a new formula and methodology that scientists could not discover more than a hundred years ago. So far, we have produced clean energy from the water. If scientists discovered it in the past! We did not need fossil fuels and atomic fuels in the world.
This formula is used to prove the simplicity of energy gain from static water pressure in the depths of water in dams and seas. This new formula or my new strategic invention is only for educating scientists and demonstrating the function of a new hydro power plant.
After the start of this new hydro power plant, all the hydroelectric knowledge factors apply. All data is sent to the control center by data logger from depth of water.
Yes, 1at (atmosphere?) the amount of energy equivalent to an atmosphere is equivalent to a pressure of 10 meters above the water column. With the same amount of energy that comes to a small pump at the bottom of the water (With help of natural presure of water in that depth), we can move all the valves and jacks. I have always answered these questions at scientific seminars.
Again, for the scientific understanding of this new scientific formula and its new method, we need to have eight distinct sciences, which is in the knowledge of an expert team.
I hope that my answers are helpful and convincing.
When we say p=ρgh. It means that in this new scientific formula (E>P+1at), We speak about ρ,g,h! When we speak about E, It means, Ratio and comparison of high pressure clean energy that is produced by the water power plants in the depth of water via released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure (More than ten meters of water) with new method (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero point of opposite forces), With P+1at, In this new hydro power plant.
We have to talk about (η), after testing this new hydro power plant. In this new hydro power plant, the currents inside the pipe (Q) are defused by each other and they introduce themselves with (zero point) forces.
Yes, we can complete the energy cycle in the zero point.
That’s why scientists are now beginning the start of the industrial revolution in the world, known as Kurdistan electricity or zero point electricity.
If you want me to talk about this new scientific formula! I am ready. Of course, if you have enough knowledge, I will be happy.
Your questions are completely correct. But these questions relate to testing the output of this new hydro powe plant. But so far no hydroelectric power plants have been built on this new formula in the world.
You have not understood the subject of the scientific formula at all. Yes, I’m talking about hydroelectric science terms.
For over a hundred years, the static pressure of pure clean water has been produced in the world.
I’m currently talking about a new formula and methodology that scientists could not discover more than a hundred years ago. So far, we have produced clean energy from the water. If scientists discovered it in the past! We did not need fossil fuels and atomic fuels in the world.
This formula is used to prove the simplicity of energy gain from static water pressure in the depths of water in dams and seas. This new formula or my new strategic invention is only for educating scientists and demonstrating the function of a new hydro power plant.
After the start of this new hydro power plant, all the hydroelectric knowledge factors apply. All data is sent to the control center by data logger from depth of water.
Yes, 1at (atmosphere?) the amount of energy equivalent to an atmosphere is equivalent to a pressure of 10 meters above the water column. With the same amount of energy that comes to a small pump at the bottom of the water (With help of natural presure of water in that depth), we can move all the valves and jacks. I have always answered these questions at scientific seminars.
Again, for the scientific understanding of this new scientific formula and its new method, we need to have eight distinct sciences, which is in the knowledge of an expert team.
When we say p=ρgh. It means that in this new scientific formula (E>P+1at), We speak about ρ,g,h! When we speak about E, It means, Ratio and comparison of high pressure clean energy that is produced by the water power plants in the depth of water via released fixed potential energy of water natural pressure (More than ten meters of water) with new method (Immersion turbines of series and parallel in zero point of opposite forces), With P+1at, In this new hydro power plant.
We have to talk about (η), after testing this new hydro power plant. In this new hydro power plant, the currents inside the pipe (Q) are defused by each other and they introduce themselves with (zero point) forces.
Yes, we can complete the energy cycle in the zero point.
That’s why scientists are now beginning the start of the industrial revolution in the world, known as Kurdistan electricity or zero point electricity.
I hope that my answers are helpful and convincing.
[?? ?? .mod]
You can see some of information in the comments in this page.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/has-climate-change-advocacy-has-run-its-course-it-sure-seems-so/
No, no your answers are not clear, nor convincing.
Perhaps it is the choice of words: Zero point energy could be “static energy” (potential energy ?) if a dynamic energy of the water could be translated to dynamic energy of the generator rotor, currents could present the dynamic flow of the water around and past the impeller of the hydraulic vanes and blades – but that is impossible in the real world. If you (your staff) have improved conventional impellers and pump internal cavities – then, all the better for you. But you have not presented any information that shows me you have made anything but a press release/funding sales pitch to political investors. And actual energy investors are an even harder sales pitch! (Political money is easy to get – Just be the right/latest religious/environmental/sex group for your target politician with the right connections, and you can get anything funded with other peoples’ money.
but that is impossible in the real world!!!!!!!
It is impossible for you not for me. I have already told your friends at first that you should be a good scientific team.
First, you should look at the elementary and educational forms on my Twitter page.
In this new power plant, no pump is used to convey water. It is also used to push a lever. Lever to open a valve at first and start this new hydro power plant. After that, we will see a clean and uniform system of clean energy production. After that, the system automatically and automatically performs energy production by entering and leaving the air and water together in an equilibrium float system.
Apart from the class of training, I can not show the small replica of this new hydro power plant. I hope you understand the topic, because it is theoretically very heavy.
My goal is to train and use this new power plant for the whole world. Of course, until now, we did use from water for energy production in the world upside down. Now for produce electricity in the dams by leaving the water to the atmosphere, and water is wasted!
Artificial space should be created at the depth of the water of dams and seas, and this action is possible at the zero point of opposing forces.
In these conditions, in addition to producing clean and uniform energy, water dams and seas will be cleaned.
That is, we can benefit from the new hydro power plant in the middle of the hot and burning desert by digging a deep well and installing a new power plant.
Yes, the performance of this new formula is as simple as that and does not even need it over time!
Einstein had said in the past that I would be able to producing electricity to Washington using a kilogram of radioactive charcoal. He was true.
Kambiz say that with a low power of a baby’s cycling, I’ll be able to provide electricity to a big city.
As I stated in the main TV report. Yes, it is simple for me. I can end global warming.
My Twitter page
https://twitter.com/@KambizFatehi
With all sincerity, I hope that none of the people who had no choice but to accept this burden are not impacted severely by it. The people who forced it on them should be subjected to complete losses of power and heat.
This is disgusting, which is the least impolite term I can use for it. I would hope the people who have to go without light, never mind heat and refrigeration for their food, will at least be able to rely on oil lamps or something similar. Whoever inflicted this nonsense on them, and made it mandatory, should be hung out to dry and be mocked publicly for it.
Bring back the public pillory… with a ready supply of rotting tomatoes for the ‘powerless’ to cast their votes with?
Bring back the pillory for the responsible M.P.s. Really, why it it that no matter the blunder, our politicians do not have to pay a price for their malfeasance. And don’t say that they get voted out of office (explain Nancy Pelosi, e.g.). I’m talking prison.
Normally, I would agree with both of you, but I think it would be far more appropriate to make them live with what they inflice on other people. Should that happen, this nonsense might stop.
Once in a while, one should slow down and review before clicking ‘post’.
No excuses on my part for this double negative:
“I hope that none of the people who had no choice but to accept this burden are not impacted severely by it.”
That should be as follows:
I hope that the people who had no choice but to accept this burden are not impacted severely by it.
My bad. Sorry. I will take more time and review before I click. (Haven’t done anything that laughable in weeks.)
“The Australian CSIRO recently explained a three month wind drought in South Australia, with more to come in the future, was an inevitable consequence of climate change.”
I searched, but I can’t see any mention of CSIRO in the linked report.
And the other report wasn’t a CSIRO prediction. It was an observation that at the 10M level, winds had increased over 40 years.
Thanks Nick, corrected. The 2017 assertion that climate change was causing winds to drop was from the Bureau of Meteorology, not the CSIRO.
“The tropics expand as the planet warms and that sees high pressure systems staying throughout the south longer than they used to.” – Darren Ray
Guess they are gonna need a bigger battery.
And nine times more wind turbines to charge it up
Didn’t the article state that the “drought” was expected to last a few more weeks?
Make that 11 or 12 times the wind turbines.
I’ve been following ammonia as an energy currency. It can be generated by solar or wind electricity. Unlike hydrogen, it is easy to store. Pretty much every month there are new significant developments.
This link is a story about using ammonia to generate hydrogen for fuel cells to power remote telecom sites. This application replaces diesel generators and saves a lot of money.
It’s typical that disruptive technologies gain a foothold in markets that are poorly served by existing technology. They then improve and take more and more of the market from the existing technologies.
In the above linked story, enough ammonia is stored to power a telecom site for a year. You can’t even dream of doing that with batteries.
Ammonia is pretty nasty stuff. Its lighter than air so it should dissipate quickly but in a confined space it could be unpleasant. And I suspect the only reason Ammonia is cheap is because it is produced using cheap fossil fuel – producing Ammonia is an energy intensive process.
“…but in a confined space it could be unpleasant. ” If you’ve ever shoveled out a chicken coop after a long cold winter, you know that is a malodorous understatement!
Back in the day………..
Ammonia was used as the working fluid in commercial refrigerators. Toxic, flammable, and can have explosive reactions with water. A refrigeration technician was a decidedly hazardous job. Repair people were getting killed all the time, one small mistake or uncontrolled leak is all it took.
That is why the freons were hailed as a miracle replacement and took the industry by storm. Safe non-toxic, non-flammable, won’t explode, was a great improvement.
Ammonia as fuel:
Back in the early days of rocket powered aircraft, of which the great X-15 is the best known example: The engineers built one with an ammonia powered engine. After huge problems and a few really scary events, they learned a lot. Mostly they learned that they never wanted to build another one.
Using ammonia as a new wonder fuel pops up fairly frequently these days. Ammonia as a fuel was well explored by the 1960s. The people making these proposals are merely walking a well worn path. Apparently hard won lessons have been long forgotten.
On the other hand, ammonia is the world’s second most produced inorganic compound. Apparently we’ve learned to handle it relatively safely.
If safety was the only consideration, we sure wouldn’t be using gasoline and natural gas.
I wouldn’t call ammonia fuel a ‘well worn path’. The technology has changed and continues to change. On the other hand … over the years I have seen many promising technologies progress beyond the pilot plant stage and then die.
I’m not saying that ammonia fuel is the future. I am observing that a lot of people are working on it and that promising developments seem to occur on a monthly basis.
Ammonia is great especially when you add chlorine.
If you observation regarding the futility of wishing for batteries big enough to store enough electricity to last a country for days on end is in reply to my comment, I thought I did not need to add the /sarc tag.
But given the total lack of critical analysis on such things in the MSM and by the so-called experts who dreamed up this idea that a bunch of wind turbines could be anything but a colossal waste of money and resources and times and dead wildlife, my guess is there are large numbers of laypersons who are blissfully unaware of this reality.
Can we start referring to wind power as pre-industrial technology. Why would any sane person want to go back in time to a primitive era?
sane people don’t…
There are people who believe using wind to do work, generate power, is a 21st century technology. I point out to these types that using wind, to do work, is between 4th and 6th century technology.
Greens want to go back to a primitive past time, but they haven’t realised they would have to give up their Ipads. Oh and also, they are not entirely sane!
Greens want other people to go back.
The overseers (them) will get to keep their modern conveniences.
Please have somebody tell that idiot SNP government in Scotland that they, and their alliance with the Greens, will blight the Scottish people’s lives for many a year to come. It’s difficult to believe that so many politicians have been able to get away “Scot-free” with the criminal damage they have caused to the nation’s energy security. Removing nuclear stations, retiring & destroying coal burning plants, burning imported wood pellets, banning hydraulic fracturing, etc. etc. It’s a scandal and our elected officials are able to get away without taking ANY responsibility for their malfeasance, as others on this thread have also commented.
It didn’t take the snp to blight the lives of we Scot’s, labour made a good start, the snp just took the baton.
And yes the lack of capitalisation is deliberate. I refuse to dignify either party, nor socialism in general, with capital letters.
On it’s current political path, I suspect Scotland will require yet another massive bail out by the rest of the UK.
And as for the EU/UK/Éire/N.I. border problem, Mother Theresa May ought to tell the EU to take a running jump. If they are worried that N.I. will be used as a back door into the UK for EU goods, let them take care of/screw up the border issue from their side.
Windmills are referred to as “Unreliable” (at least around here) for a good reason.
Tom
the wind turbines are fairly reliable. It’s the wind that’s the problem.
Unreliable in the sense that windmills cannot supply 100 percent of electricity requirements because sometimes the wind doesn’t blow.
The wind not blowing is not the reason.
The fact that it is a diffuse energy source which winds up costing almost as much to build the machine to capture it, as is generated over the life of the device, along with the fact that population density makes it impossible to catch enough where needed, that makes it impossible.
Even if some magic fairy made them for us for free, I would like to see the scaled rendering of what it would look like after installation of the number of them required to supply enough power for current needs, where needed or within transmission range of where needed…assuming the wind could be made to blow an the average speed 24/7/365.
IOW, given a best case scenario, and disregarding cost, lets see what it would look like to have enough of them.
My point is that if there were enough of them installed, I think it is obvious the place that had them would be unlivable, and not just for people, but for birds and bats.
I would lay odds that this insanity will end when it is realized the toll these nightmare machines are taking on human health and avian species.
“Britain could be ‘running’ on 100% renewable energy by 2050.”
The Guardian
How about ‘not running’ Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/britain-renewable-energy-2050-target
it was a statement like that that moved me to create the gridwatch site…
Look on the bright side someone is making money the french, dutch and irish interconnectors are at 100%.
John
the guardian. socialist rag.
Is there an imoje for spitting on it?
I suppose heat stress is better than freezing to death. HaHa, giggle, G-D is laughing isn’t he?<:o)
It is homo saps is a tropical species. If it gets too hot you will take cold showers and nap in the mid day heat. Cold is much more difficult.
Walter
Cold showers are available in the winter too, especially when the wind turbines don’t work.
Besides, the worst effects of climate change (assuming that’s warmth) evidently occurs in Northern and Southern latitudes and at night.
Suits me as I live in England. With any luck it might mean we don’t have to use as much expensive heating. But then, according to the green wacko’s wind power is as cheap as any other now.
That’ll be why my energy bills have jumped 20% over the last couple of years.
That’s why humans have sweat glands for cooling.
Alapittaktuk!
Usually this happens in the UK just about every winter. You get a more or less stationary high pressure system which lasts a week or so, during which you have clear skies and low temperatures. And of course minimal wind generation. The result is that just when you need it the most, off it goes. Because this is
when the UK only has about 7 or 8 hours of daylight, so on one of these long cold winter evenings you get nothing from wind or solar.
If you look at the chart in Bloomberg, the real meaning of intermittency becomes clear. Output goes from huge to nothing and back over a 10 day period.
I have seen it argued by the idiocracy on Ars Technica that intermittency is not a problem for modern grids. In some unexplained way, the grid is supposed to adapt. The implications are financial of course. If you look at this chart, what you are looking at is the need to duplicate the capacity of any wind system with conventional, so that when the wind drops you can turn on the conventional, probably gas, generation.
When people claim that wind is now competitive with conventional, they are assuming that this is not true. And this absurd wishful thinking is embodied in the concept of levelized costs. The claim is usually in the form that the levelized costs of wind and conventional are now similar, and that wind will shortly have an advantage.
To get levelized costs, you take the total ourput of a plant over its life. Then you take the total expenses by year, apply a discount rate, and get an NPV. Now, divide the total output into the NPV, and you have the levelized costs per unit.
This is usually done on the basis that for wind the only costs will be those of installation and maintenance. The assumption, never made explicit, is that an intermittent supply has the same functionality and financial value as a continuous and predictable one.
In fact however, and as the graph shows, the intermittent supply is actually useless. No supplier would ever pay the same price for it as they pay for steady conventional deliveries. In fact one doubts they would ever sign up to buy it at any price. Its more trouble than its worth even if its free.
A comparison that will make it clear is lettuce. Suppose we are a supermarket and we wish to carry lettuce for our customers. Supplier A explains to us that he will deliver us lettuce for a levelized cost of 3c per head. Supplier B says he knows nothing about these levelized costs, but he will deliver to our orders three times a week at 10c a head.
Great, we say, if we are the Ars commentariat. Obviously we should sign up with supplier A.
Not so fast. You see, supplier A delivers whenever he feels like it. Some weeks there will be none, other weeks there will be a huge glut. And there will never be any notice. The truck will just arrive, sometimes with nothing in it, sometimes with a months supply (which will rot on the shelves), other times half of what the customers want.
So what do we do? Our Board insists on our using supplier A. So we find, or try to find, a backup supplier. And we find that this backup supplier has to be able to supply at very short notice our entire demand, to cover those days and weeks in which supplier A delivers nothing. And he charges a premium for his no notice very large occasional orders. We also invest in huge cold storage to be able to accept A’s sudden huge shipments.
The result is the total cost incurred in accepting supplier A and buying from him is not, when you add up everyting, not 3c per head, not even 10c per head. Its more like 20 or 30c.
The whole thing is pernicious nonsense, and the greatest and most pernicious nonsense in it is the concept of levelized costs. It is no more than an intellectual sleight of hand to deny that intermittency is a key parameter. If you look a little deeper, this is why we find the simultaneous claim from the climate alarmists that shortly fossil fuels will be stranded assets because they cannot compete with wind as the costs of wind generation fall. But also, that it is very important that we subsidize wind and if we fail to do so, the industry will die.
Yes, the levelized costs are falling. And no, this does not mean wind is competitive. It only looks that way because you have left out half the costs. And it never will be, until we invent huge scale dirt cheap storage. And no, there will not be stranded assets.
Fusion will come to market sooner than that.
michel
Thank you. Very illustrative to a thicko like me.
You would think people with technical knowledge would also be aware of the ever increasing difficulty of balancing wind generated power with demand as the proportion of it increases on the grid.
It is one thing when it is a few percent.
It would be impossible at 100%.
Because the wind, even when blowing, varies constantly and over every time scale, from a few seconds to hours and everything in between, and on up to the daily scale and beyond.
The ability to bring in power from other places would be exceeded long before anything like 100% wind was on line.
Transmission losses over distance increase linearly, but also increase as the current increases.
Larger amounts of power being moved around means higher percentages are lost.
Also worth noting that these back up power plants that com online and increase or decrease output must be kept manned and operational continuously, and these become hugely wasteful when running at anything less than full capacity.
The less they are used, both over time and by percentage of capacity when they are in use, the greater the inefficiency.
The people claiming that this problem is solvable are using rank sophistry at best, and pure ignorance is what I suspect is the actual case.
*edited for clarity and typos
An employer hires this really great employee.
I mean this guy can get the job done of 10 men.. kicks butt.
Problem is he calls in sick all the time on the lamest of excuses, at the worst of times, like in the summer when businesses and industry need to run full steam while the weather is good and the days are long.
Should the employer fire him or give him a congratulatory “job well done” accolade in front of the other employees and a raise for being so productive when he shows up for work, which lately has not been a lot.?
It all depends on what may be termed the “Intermittency Factor” (IT). A statistical value based on past data.
if a steady 1 MW energy supply is required with a generator at an IT of say 50%. Then it would require an actual power output of 2 MW plus a storage facility equal to 1 MW output for a time period sufficient to cover the worst statistical downtime. Add in the contingency and maintenance costs and you have an extraordinarily expensive outcome.
A simple gas turbine solution is obvious. Why therefore is it politically incorrect?
Because the deep and wide pockets of the taxpayer are too difficult to resist for virtue signalling politicians.
Shouldn’t it be IF? Definitely appropriate.
Assuming your outages had a gaussian distribution and the over all average was 50%, if your storage equaled twice your usual power usage, then you would still only have enough storage to get you through around 2/3rds of your expected power outages.
No matter how much storage, there’s a real, even if small, chance that it won’t be enough to get you through the next power outage.
The politicians can blame the wind drought on Climate Change instead of their incompetence.
Climate Change – the politicians’s ultimate “Thr dog ate my homework excuse.”
Where is our little Praecepta troll on this thread?
fraizer
Under the bridge, where else?
He’s awaiting instructions for the collective.
4 years ago I made a program, that you can use to simulate a renewable Grid with massive energy storage. It uses UK Gridwatch data.
Source code: https://github.com/jarto/GridWatch
Executable: https://github.com/jarto/GridWatch/releases
Not slow to trumpet high production from wind turbines, the British media is strangely silent on the current situation. The exception is the Daily Mail, where Frank Gordon from the Renewable Energy Association gives us this:
‘Advances in energy storage technologies ensure energy stability to the grid, storing excess energy produced by renewables such as wind and solar for periods when we experience less wind or sun.’
Sadly, Frank does say what these advanced technologies are. Don’t keep it to yourself, Frank.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5812811/Wind-turbines-standstill-wind-disappears-thew-UK.html
‘Advanced energy storage technologies…’ are what realists refer to as solar energy stored in the form of Coal, Petroleum, and Natural Gas.
Renewables are a fraud because the industry definitively understood by 2014 that their product couldn’t deliver.
Google (a member of the green cartel) did the research tearing-up hundreds of millions on renewables R & D . . .
Two Google engineers who worked on the RE<C initiative opened up about why the team halted their efforts. And it wasn't because they thought existing renewables were enough to decarbonize the global economy.
"Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work . . . we need a fundamentally different approach" wrote Google's Ross Koningstein and David Fork in a 2014 piece published in IEEE's Spectrum.
The current conservative Government in Australia is subsidising fraudsters with taxpayer's money.
Malcolm & Co must go!
The attitude of the Greens seems to be that lying and exaggeration are OK if they are in the interests of saving the planet. Problem I see there is that once lying is involved, how do we know that ANYTHING being said is truthful? It may be that the need to save the planet is itself a lie.
Since it has been admitted that the campaign to switch to electric cars is motivated by climate alarmism, how do we know that there is any truth in the claim that diesels pollute? This could also be a lie, calculated to serve the underlying agenda.
Bottom line is that if you want to convince people of anything, moral integrity is king. As soon as that is lost, all else is as to naught.
I remeber some special vid about some multilayered setup of some stuff that they said would produce huge power for cheap(ish) outlays and how the goog was going to set the standard n lead the world sorta spiel
i wondered what happened..figured it flopped and was swept under the carpet.
lol why am i NOT the least surprised?
Warren
Two illustrations you might like to look into.
The first is an 18 minute TED talk by the late Dr. David McKey, a committed green, examining the practicality of renewable energy, which he demonstrates is ludicrous. In his terms, he uses ‘back of envelope’ arithmetic so the 18 minute talk is interesting, informative and often amusing. Well worth watching.
The second is a written article by Matt Ridley. Again, short and informative, about the actual costs of renewables in terms of the physical and environmental damage they do. Again, very worth a read.
Neither of them are difficult to understand. If I get them, they can’t be.
https://www.ted.com/talks/david_mackay_a_reality_check_on_renewables
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wind-still-making-zero-energy/
Do the simple honest appraisal, particularly for WT’s. Their inefficiencies can never be engineered out, regardless of how much R&D money companies or even governments spend on it!
When provided, their power outputs are 0-100% of their plate rated capacity, depending entirely on the uncontrollable capricious wind. Bearing in mind the common occurrence of extended periods of no/low winds, even during periods of maximum power demand, then the necessary base load standby units required to maintain power supplies when needed have to have 100% of this total plate rated WT capacity. That means massively more over-capacity of power generation has to be provided and with the standby units’ capacity used to input current varying WT power output shortfalls, i.e. operating inefficiently and thus far more expensively. In addition, WT’s are increasingly being sited in high ground and off-shore locations, well away from areas of actual power demand. That means that Power Transmission works within the overall national Power Grid system have to be extended and enhanced to be able to use the WT power.
These engineering inefficiencies mean that, in the UK at least and probably globally, subsidies have to be made to the base load standby power supplier, and not just the WT operator, simply to make their operations commercially viable!
Analysis, some years ago, by UK government appointed independent specialists concluded that Gas Turbines are the only available base load power system available that can cope with accommodating and matching the varying current WT power shortfalls as well as providing rapid start up when needed.
Overall, using WT’s requires WT’s, equal capacity GT’s, extended and enhanced PT works and subsidies for both the GT’s and the GT standby’s! On the other hand, using the same capacity of GT’s operating efficiently as base load units requires only the GT’s alone and no subsidies. The choice of Power Generation System is a no brainer!
Ah, but the Greens will say: ” what about the CO2 emission pollution?” The answer to that is quite simple, even if we accept the need to curb CO2 emissions! Using past UK data, CCGT’s emit 365 tonnes of CO2 per Gwh power generated. WT’s actually input only 30-40% of their plated rated output in any year even when including the new grossly expensive remote offshore monsters. That means the GT’s have to provide 60-70% of the overall WT/GT standby base load system’s rated output. That means the CO2 savings are not as claimed100% of the fossil fuelled plant CO2 emissions but only, at best, 30-40%. Inputting the present day costs of rectifying the future effects of this annual rate of net CO2 savings using figures produced by Stern and others, doesn’t even scratch the costs of the above mentioned necessary additional works needed within the WT/GT/PT total system needed.
Using WT’s can never be anywhere near cheaper than using GT’s alone. In addition, the cost of a massive air-tight greenhouse needed to make any nation’s Green efforts to reduce CO2 effective would be need but wasted money, given other nation’s abject failure to cease and/or even reduce their CO2 emissions!
I haven’t checked the last couple of days, but so far this month the lowest 5 minute value for wind was at 9:05 AM on Sunday 3rd, when the combined output of all 11836MW of metered turbines dropped to 46 MW! That’s equivalent to 0.39% of capacity and 0.19% of grid demand. Note that there is roughly 40% more capacity (smaller locally “embedded” turbines) which doesn’t show, but as the old saying goes “40% more than bugger all is STILL bugger all” The forecast is showing very few isobars over the UK for the coming weekend, so this abysmal result may yet be surpassed…
wind drought???
roflmao!!!!
nice calm days not a thing to complain about ..until? wind power birdshredders got “special”
I’m not alone in knowing the worlds gone crazy
Ironically, I see that this week’s New Scientist is pushing 100% renewables. What perfect timing!
I haven’t bought NS for many years, due to the incessant climate change propaganda.
The greenies are always claiming that climate change is a disaster. Yes, it has caused many disasters and all of them mann-made e.g. wind farms, bio fuels, high energy prices that mostly harm the poor and the corruption of science.
Chris
Does the article account for wind droughts?
What if we skip wind and solar and just rely on “back-up” generation.
In my experience here in New Zealand, winter yacht racing tends to have to cope with dead calms or very high winds. If the windmills will not, or can not, work in either circumstance, what was the point of building them?
Boom and bust does not a reliable grid make. Pay up.
In 2017 11GW’s of UK wind capacity struggled to get past 1gw/hour for 7 months, I watched http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ every single day. A snip at £400 billion. Greg Clark secretary of state at BEIS said in 2017 we should rejoice because in 2016 the UK had generated 14% of electricity from renewables. I have asked Clark BEIS and CCC how much catastrophic anthropogenic global warming has the UK averted by mitigating 0.0000037586% of global Co2 emissions. After my 4th time of asking BEIS said in a short terse email “we are not going to communicate with you further on this topic”. I must assume that BEIS doesn’t know the answer to my question and I must assume that no one else does either.
Apparently the planet has spent $3 trillion on wind turbines since 2004 but I have never seen any data or even estimates as to how much CAGW has been averted at this vast expenditure. The only comment I can find is from a German mathematician who said that had Germany specifically spent Euros 150 billion on solar panels to avert CAGW then CAGW might have been postponed for 1 hour. Presumably there will be willing bidders to spend Euros 3.5 trillion to keep us safe for one whole day. I live in hope.
Demand in the UK now is 36.28GW’s Wind 0.44GW’s. I have asked UK politicians to volunteer as a maternity suite advisor to inform a new Mum needing an emergency C section for a premature delivery that this service is not available because the wind isn’t blow and the local UN apparatchik refuses to switch on the diesel back up generator because Co2 is about to cause an apocalypse? About in green language means any time in the future up to and maybe one hundred years hence or half way through the next generation.
We have thousands of university professors in the UK whose whole existence and life style is predicated upon the belief that Co2 has the potential to cause an apocalypse but when you take them to task as I do repeatedly they repeat the hypothesis word for word until they point they are confronted by data which is not open to question and then they run for hills or get upset because their beliefs are being questioned at all. And government departments continue to hand out grants basically to anyone who asks the only proviso is “will your work underline governments green propaganda that by mitigating Co2 we are dedicated to protecting the environment”, OK heres another £25 million. If you look on the internet most of these grants are to repeat experiments already completed and the results are always the same. Multiple lines of evidence that Co2 needs to be extinguished now. I can’t get used to the idea that “scientists” after years of education and countless phd’s remain oblivious to the idea that being a scientist should encompass a high degree of scepticism but if you listened to the recent BBC Radio 4 week of broadcasts the opposite was true. To a person they recited anecdotal evidence of problems across the planet and the conclusion was that in each instance the problem would go away if we just stopped emitting Co2.
I have asked every single one of the 5 contributors what stage in history do you think mitigating some or all Co2 emissions would return us to and identify why that point in time would be more preferable and more civilised than today. Like asking Greg Clark how much CAGW has been averted by mitigating a smidgen of Co2 zero zilch nothing. So unless something radical changes at the top UK tax payers will have to continue funding university professors to transit the planet to identify each miniscule historically unresolvable or previously unknown problem exaggerate it out of all proportion to get another grant to repeat the process which allows even more deep ocean blue water diving off the Maldives or Tahiti tolerable only if the accommodation is carbon neutral.
Robin Pagnamenta in the Times yesterday said Wylfa nuclear was not a good idea because nuclear is expensive overshoots delivery dates and always costs more therefore wind at £57.50 was cheaper and more reliable. I have Robin the latest Gridwatch data which made clear the erratic unreliability of wind but as usual he did not respond.
Until this article I was starting to believe that I was the only person on the planet who understood that wind turbines only worked when the blew at the time speed.
Enough I am depressed.
It’d be funny if it didn’t affect people now — a “wind drought”. We will soon be including another one — a “sun drought”?
beng135,
In the Seattle WA area, direct sunlight is the exception, not the norm, during a typical NorthWet winter. The locals refer to the occasional direct sunlight interludes as ‘sun breaks’ and the local weather forecasters even project when we might again see a ‘sun break’ a day or two in advance. Creative linguistics….. to avoid saying “It’s gonna be mostly dreary and rainy, as far as we can see.”
NorthWet to describe Seattle.
Probably a typo, but still a good one.
Yes, here in west MD, we hardly saw the sun this year from Feb thru much of May. Of course I reference the coming “sun drought” issue to the future mountainsides covered w/the eco-loons’ solar panels.
A wind drought. Must be climate change.
A real catch 22.
What will the greenies come up to solve this dilemma?
Trump should start his conversation with Theresa May something like this: We are no longer going to export our wood pellets as a matter of national security. Now, let’s talk trade.
Years ago (80’s – 2010) I worked at a power plant along the Missouri river. One of the electrical engineers was a gung-ho environmentalist. He lived on a bluff along the river with near constant wind. He decided to build a wind turbine to help reduce his electric bill. As he was a member of the local IEEE, he invited the group to his home and demonstrated the system. All attending heaped great praise on his project.
For the first few years he was constantly bragging about his wind turbine and how much it was saving him. The system even included a bank of batteries designed for use in electric forklifts and an inverter giving him more-or-less continuous electricity. Also had a dual breaker entrance panel that allowed for transfer to the mains.
As the years passed there were occasional complaints about replacing failed parts and the high cost of a crane to lift parts to the top of his tower, similar to the square hi-tension towers you see on the highway but smaller. Luckily, he had access to parts at wholesale and could make most repair himself. In one discussion with him he revealed to me that now that the system is over ten years old, that the maintenance is costing as much as if I was buying electricity from the utility. He added “Worse is that often I will go a week or more where I get no power from the Wind Turbine. “Wind is just not reliable enough to go off grid, so I have to continue to pay the minimum electric charge even when I use no electricity.”
My years with him convinced me that wind and solar can only be a supplement to fossil power and the only way to reduce CO2 is Nuclear power.
It can only be a supplement in an area with substantial hydroelectric capacity, as hydro is the only power source that can ramp up and down efficiently enough to counteract the vagaries of the wind and sun.
Basically, all you are doing is making the water behind the dam last longer, you aren’t saving any fossil fuels.
It’s OK – we in the UK have acres of warehouse space dedicated to holding diesel generators in case of a renewable shortfall. There’s a flaw in the thinking there – but I just can’t put my finger on it
Denmark’s wind turbines are not doing a whole lot better, despite they have so many.
Currently 21:50 on Friday 8th June 2018 they contribute 6.4% of the consumption. Most electricity is imported from Norway and Sweden, where they use mainly hydro and nuclear.
See: https://energinet.dk/energisystem_fullscreen
In the UK the Good Energy Company supplies tens of thousands of customers possibly 100k households and claims to have its own wind and solar power sources.
One would imagine that these customers are without electricity at the moment as it is a windless night in the UK. In reality they are probably and appropriately watching “Would I Lie To You” on TV and feeling superior to the rest of the UK`s citizens who are using that nasty fossil fuel produced electricity.
Is it me or is the font here getting smaller? I just cannot read the replies.
The fonts for the replies to an original post are much smaller than the fonts of the original post. The fonts should be made the same size.
If you adjust your screen to make the original post more readable, then the replies are too small, and if you adjust to make the replies more readable, then the original post’s font is too big.
Ah, yes; adding in the proper handwaving distraction that somehow blames mankind and CO₂
At the same time, these geniuses admit they do not have a clue regarding future climate; or they would not have built electrical grid components easily scuttled by “climate”.
Wind droughts were the reason that in the Domesday book a little while ago windmills were recorded as taxed very much less than water mills as they were considered unreliable as a source of power compared to water. It would appear our scientists are a teeny bit behind the times in their knowledge base.
I have my view blighted by a wind “farm” and can tell you that this winter a week long period of foggy still weather meant that the output of the wind farm and incidentally the nearby solar “park” together would not have powered our street according to the figures when the rated output a was a thousand times that.
Enjoy your energy doldrums, Britain.
Let me guess … the lack of wind is due to … SUDDEN, EXTREME-WEATHER, CHANGE … caused by Global Warming.
I thought this whole green thing was about peak oil? Now they tell me that we humans have just used all the wind up?