Polish government: wind turbines will be scrapped within 17 years

From wysokienapiecie.pl

Polish government: wind turbines will be scrapped within 17 years

All wind farms operating today in Poland will be scrapped by 2035, with no new turbines built to replace them, stipulates draft “Energy Policy of Poland until 2040” presented by Ministry of Energy on Friday. This is a political decision, the Minister explained.

On Wednesday the government contracted with investors the construction of several hundred new wind turbines (with a capacity of approximately 1 GW). The average prices offered by investors, at which they committed to sell electricity, barely reached 197 PLN/MWh. This is less than the current market price (250 PLN/MWh) and much less that the total production cost in new coal-fired power plants (350 PLN/MWh).

However, on Friday Ministry of Energy presented the draft Energy Policy of Poland, which reads that all existing wind turbines will be scrapped by 2035, with the ones just contracted by the government a few years later. No new wind farms will be built to replace them.

Interestingly, the Ministry is planning the last auction for wind to be held next year. The Minister’s statements indicate that approximately 1.5 GW of capacity may be contracted. However, when aged, the turbines are to be irrevocably removed from the landscape, and the improved sites are to be used for whatever other purposes.

See also: The last coal power plant in Poland may be only wishful thinking

Where Western Europe invested for years in the technology to drive the costs down and replace the old turbines with state-of-the art next generation machines, Poland is the only country on the continent that announced complete elimination of the technology and scrapping of the entire infrastructure left after the decommissioned turbines.

Governmental disputes over wind

“The decrease in production from wind turbines is forced by our political commitments,” explained Minister for Energy, Krzysztof Tchórzewski, who presented the draft “Energy Policy of Poland until 2040”.

The commitments he mentions are the political promises made by some Law and Justice MPs. In particular, the objection of the Lower Silesian Law and Justice MP and Minster for Education, Anna Zalewska, played an important role. When in opposition, she informally represented the voice of organisations opposing to the construction of wind turbines in the vicinity of their places of residence. A study by the Polish Academy of Sciences demonstrates that although less than 2 percent of all wind turbines in Poland is installed in the Lower Silesia region, 9 out of 102 social conflicts related to the construction of wind farms identified by PAS (which in total covered 4 percent of municipalities in the country) occurred in the region represented by MP Zalewska.

Minister Zalewska also appeared during rallies opposing the investments together with attorney-at-law Marcin Przychodzki, the founder of the “Stop Wiatrakom” (“Stop the Wind Farms”) web portal, currently Director of the Ministry’s of Infrastructure Legal Department, which with good effect requested implementation of regulations applying higher tax to wind farms as compared to, for instance, coal-fired power plants. The portal itself commented the Wednesday’s auction results as “making fool of the people by the Morawiecki’s government”, and is long criticising the Ministry’s of Energy and the Prime Minister’s actions in that area, at the same time calling for PolExit.

Eventually the Parliament, under pressure from the European Commission, withdrawn from the discriminating tax regulations in June; however, the decision left on their own the municipalities which, despite warnings, took advantage of the unclear regulations and imposed higher taxes, and are now obliged to return it.

So far the dispute within the government has been won by Anna Zalewska. This is because another provision she lobbied for remains effective. There is a ban on the construction of wind turbines at a distance less than tenfold their tip height. The “10 H” rule de facto means that only the 1990s-sized turbines may be built in Poland. Modern, tall wind turbines could be built only on farmland with no residential houses within 2 km, which is almost impossible in Poland.

See also: Can capacity market really help Polish coal power plants to survive?

In accordance with Minister Krzysztof Tchórzewski the regulation is to completely eliminate the possibility to build new wind farms when the still-existing building permits expire.

The Ministry of Energy wants to fill the market gap caused by the decommissioned wind farms with more expensive offshore wind farms, which lead to protests only from fishermen.

Ministry missed technological progress?

“The practice demonstrates that onshore wind turbines are available only 20 percent of the time, whereas offshore this is 40-45 percent,” Minster Krzysztof Tchórzewski explained on Friday.

The Minister’s rationale leads to doubts as to the validity of the Ministry’s of Energy knowledge, which prepared the draft Energy Policy of Poland. Capacity factor at the level of 20 percent was typical of wind turbines marketed 15 years ago. Last year wind turbines in Poland operated above 10 percent of their installed capacity for 77 percent of hours during the year. The average capacity factor amounted to 28 percent. The figure was contributed to by the oldest turbines, mentioned by the Minister, as well as the more modern machines, which on average achieve 30-35 of installed capacity.

See the full story here.


0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 3, 2019 3:12 pm

Please listen to this presentation given to professionals in Slovenia by Dr. Mariana Alves-Pereira in May of 2018, on the cumulative and irreversible harm from the LFN and infrasound emitted by turbines:

She has publicly declared that knowing what she knows she would not live within 20 km from a wind turbine.

Reply to  Sommer
January 3, 2019 3:50 pm

heres the complete list of the effects of wind turbines:

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 4:06 pm

The World Health Org says you are wrong ….
Is the WHO reputable ? Do you care ?

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 3, 2019 6:16 pm

Not sure I would be evoking the reputation of WHO at the moment, it has had more than enough failings in recent history a fact it has acknowledged itself. Your whole argument is called an appeal to authority.

Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam)
(also known as: argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also see the appeal to false authority.

Probably try arguing actual facts.

Komrade Kuma
Reply to  LdB
January 3, 2019 6:43 pm

Then again, any reference to a UN agency is hardly an appeal to authority. These dingbat outfits are the model for the EUrocracy which is hardly an endorsement. Appeal to an oxymoron is closer to the mark.

What sounds like an appeal to authority is usually just an appeal to some authoritive sounding/looking front person/talking head introduced as ‘an expert’. In other words its just marketing. Think washing powder, makeup, skin creams etc etc

Y. Knott
Reply to  LdB
January 4, 2019 4:56 am

– I mean, goodness, isn’t that just like calling global warming advocates “scientists”?

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  LdB
January 4, 2019 8:07 am

Actually …the WHO is politically sensitive , yes ? And if they are backing away from wind , doesn’t that indicate a sea change ? ( wind change ? )
I think it means that the air is leaking from the bubble …..
(grin )

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 3, 2019 7:01 pm

When it comes to anything to do with “climate”, nothing from the UN should be considered credible

Reply to  hunter
January 4, 2019 5:36 am

Genetic fallacy.

Reply to  hunter
January 4, 2019 9:20 am

The UN as a body is committed to pushing the global warming nonsense.
Both to promote socialism and to advance it’s own interests.

As a result, everything put out by anything related to the UN will take the position that global warming will kill us, and all renewables are safe, reliable and cheap.

This is a “genetic fallacy” in the same way that declaring that everyone over 7 feet tall, is tall is a “genetic fallacy”.

Robert W. Turner
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 3, 2019 7:42 pm

I’m more interested in what the Ministry of Truth says.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 4, 2019 6:02 pm

Is the WHO reputable?

Well, my personal experiences are not encouraging. They use committees that are easily manipulated and the “desired results” are cranked out.

Like any large organization it is different from section to section. It is leading the charge (launched 30 Oct 2018) in declaring the new international emergency is “air pollution” and put out dubious claims on “deaths” based on modelling largely from Berkeley. Because the committee minutes are public, you can read the good and bad science for yourself.

I have been told the Next Big Thing will be “water” after the air pollution thing has run its course. You heard it first here, folks.

C Earl Jantzi
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 6, 2019 12:47 pm

IPCC official, Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010: “But one must say clearly that we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth by climate policy. … one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute, de facto, the world’s wealth…” “This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, anymore.” http://www.nzzDOTch/aktuell/startseite/klimapolitik-verteilt-das-weltvermoegen-neu-1.8373227

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 5:43 am

I strongly believe that wind power is a bad idea. That said, this list is really laughable and makes “warmists” look sensible and down-to-earth.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Sommer
January 3, 2019 10:36 pm

Actually read this stuff and the critiques.
Then come back and make a full and fair post.

Tom Halla
January 3, 2019 3:13 pm

It would appear that the current Polish government can do math, and has some understanding of electric grids. Most other governments in Europe, North America, and Australia do not have that ability.

Percy Jackson
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 3, 2019 3:24 pm

No. It would appear that they are honouring their political promises made before the election.
The article clearly states that (a) wind power is significantly cheaper than coal – 197 PLN/MWh for wind as opposed to 350 PLN/MHW for coal and that this “is forced by our political commitments”

So while it is good to see that politicians are doing what they said they would do this will have the effect of raising energy prices in Poland.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Percy Jackson
January 3, 2019 3:39 pm

That is mythical pricing, as it does not account for the backup, either conventional or equally vaporware “storage”. An electric grid is a service, not providing a commodity only when available.

Reply to  Percy Jackson
January 3, 2019 3:45 pm

Let’s make it simple enough Percy, that you can understand it.

The cost of mitigating the variability of wind is 10X to 30X the cost of base load. So, even if wind were FREE, any substantial use of it raises over all prices. The greater the percentage of your generation is wind, the more pronounced this effect becomes.

Reply to  davidmhoffer
January 3, 2019 3:52 pm

david – you state this as a fact. I therefore you have documentary evidence that proves these claims?

nw sage
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 4:28 pm

Any electric grid MUST have, or have firm contracts to provide, installed capacity to meet the total expected peak load, WHENEVER that may be. It cannot be assumed that the peak will occur only when the wind blows [or the sun shines – in the case of solar].
The capital cost of providing enough capacity and transmission is a major expense and usually far exceeds – on a per kwh basis – the fuel costs (or lack thereof in the case of wind/solar). Thus, the 10X to 30X amounts are reasonable. If the amount of installed wind capacity is a small part of the total system load then the lower value applies, if it is a large percentage then the higher number is closer to reality.
Now, if we could just get customers to accept that the power will be shut off when we least expect it in the middle of Thanksgiving dinner we wouldn’t have to worry about it!

Percy Jackson
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 4:43 pm

10 to 30 times seems excessive. According to the article above energy costs for a new coal plant are less than double that of new wind. Hence backup generation would be at most 2x the cost of the wind generation in Poland.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 5:31 pm

According to the article above energy costs for a new coal plant are less than double that of new wind.


The coal plant is BASE LOAD, Percy!

Variability must be dealt with through PEAK LOAD or LOAD FOLLOWING plants. For utilities that do not have their own peaking or load following generation, they must buy this power on the “spot” market. I suggest you find out what the spot market is and how it works. What you will find is that it costs many times what base load does. The more variability you introduce into the grid from wind, the more power you must supply to counter the variability from the spot market.

Start reading what people write instead of imposing your thought processes on other people’s words.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 5:48 pm

Percy, as has been explained to you many times, the mere fact that wind and solar exist means that other types of power plants must be run in less than optimal configurations most, if not all of the time.
That’s where much of the rest of the cost comes from.
Plus the cost of batteries to keep your grid from crashing while the “backup” power ramps up.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:15 pm

“I think it may be so ” does not make it correct
david – you state this as a fact. I therefore you have documentary evidence that proves these claims?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:22 pm

Dave Burton January 3, 2019 at 6:07 pm
Tell us MarkW, how does the grid react when a large nuclear plant SCRAMS? Is there “spinning backup” for the nuclear plant?
In UK currently there are up to 6 nuclear generators off line. 2 off line because of cracks in the graphite – off line for about a year. 2 others offline for about 6 months – no reason given. Current generation down at 6GW so there are possibly 2 others offline or at low generation for refuelling – just as the temperatures begin to fall! Yes nuclear is just so reliable!
About a month ago one generator tripped – no reason given but 500MW lost in seconds
About 2 weeks ago yet another tripped – electrical fault.
Monitor the reliability here (when the EDF can be bothered to update the website!!)
current data is from 27th December!!!

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:26 pm

I suspect it is you Dave Burton who knows nothing of how a grid works. Any large Nuclear Power Plant is usually baseload for the grid and so any SCRAMS would generally result in a major grid outage.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:28 pm

Dave, nuclear plants have more than one reactor, I doubt they all do planned “SCRAM” at once.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:47 pm

LdB January 3, 2019 at 6:26 pm
I suspect it is you Dave Burton who knows nothing of how a grid works. Any large Nuclear Power Plant is usually baseload for the grid and so any SCRAMS would generally result in a major grid outage.
in Uk Sizewell b has one reactor with 2 generators = 1.2GW generation. The UK can handle a 1.2 GW instant loss with frequency reduction, spinning reserve, and fast start 12seconds pumped storage. Much more than this they have to call on diesel generators an load dumping to companies who signed up to low cost elect with this possibility.
Other thermal stations can also trip offline within no warning. In 2008 a combination of Sizewell tripping and longannet tripping within minutes followed by failure of diesel generators cause a large area blackout:
You do not see this often when WECs trip!

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:53 pm
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:53 pm

Well Dave lets look at what happened with fukishima they had rolling blackouts that ran for a two years. That is the point nuclear power plants don’t go down very often, renewables like solar and wind go down very very regularly.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 7:02 pm

ghalfrunt I am not disputing you can’t deal with it but those backups cost money and as you said you don’t want to be relying on them to often as they are usually expensive to run that way. I am not against renewable energy if it is cost effective and if reliability concerns can be met.

Greens often put up Germany as the poster child for how it is supposed to work but they have pretty much the most expensive power per kwh in the world. So do you want to put up UK as the new poster child?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 7:05 pm

ghalfrunt your outage report is 2009 surely you can do more recent than that

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 7:11 pm

LdB January 3, 2019 at 7:05 pm
ghalfrunt your outage report is 2009 surely you can do more recent than that
I can only refer you to the documents of the 2008 incident. The incident was in 2008 so in 2019 why would they still be writing about it?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 7:17 pm

What is the relevance, the UK grid doesn’t even look like that anymore from what you said?????

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 10:12 pm

You don’t need somebody else’s documentary evidence. All you need is a pencil, paper and a brain; aided perhaps with a calculator.
OK you can be pedantic about the accuracy of the figures; but the thrust of what davidmhoffer is saying is quite clear.

I think you will find that the only reason some people think wind energy is cheap is because they have hefted the cost of backup onto other facilities.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 11:32 pm


First let’s start with this chart from a post by Willis Eschenbach.
comment image
Which you can find at the end of this post with background data:

It should be abundantly clear that the higher the percentage of renewables in any given grid, the higher the cost of electricity. Even if the renewables are low cost / no cost, they raise the price of running the grid over all.

The article explains some of the reasons why. Here’s some more info. I don’t have a link to the original paper by Lazard 2014, but here’s a link on a pro renewables web site to a chart from that paper:


Note the cost of the gas peaking plant. Wind costs about $75/mwhr while that gas peaking plant costs over $200. Here’s the problem. Suppose that you have only one wind farm (and its free) and one gas peaking plant for when the wind doesn’t blow. Based on capital and operating costs ONLY, you would still be paying over $150/mwhr just to have the system as a whole work. With the capital and operating of wind thrown in, the system as a whole is $225/mwhr, just to build it. Coal on the other hand costs about $90/mwhr. Coal can only load follow within limits, but load is predictable, and the amount of peaking plant you have to pair with a coal facility is pretty small compared to the coal plant itself. But wind variability is NOT predictable AND it changes FAST, so you need peaking capacity to backstop it. So, for every $90 of coal plant you “save” you need to spend $225 on wind plus peaking to save it.

So far, we’re only talking capex just to HAVE the wind. Look at the cost of the fuel! Peaking plants are built to react fast, and the trade off is efficiency. So when the wind doesn’t blow you’re still paying for the capex of both the wind farm and the peaking plant PLUS $50/mwhr for fuel. So now when the wind doesn’t blow the cost of having the wind farm plus the peaking plant plus the fuel is $275/mwhr. The lord help you if you don’t have gas to rely on though, suppose all you have is diesel, one row down… check THOSE numbers out!

It gets worse. We haven’t included the cost of TOO much wind. The power has to go somewhere or the grid will literally self destruct. (OK, OK, not true, safety systems would cut in and shut it down… but it would still be down and take days if not weeks to get it back up). So that power has to be shipped somewhere, usually to another grid next door (that’s what Germany does with France for example) that can ramp DOWN their systems to accommodate YOUR power surge. News flash. In many cases THEY CHARGE YOU FOR THAT SERVICE. This has made headlines in several jurisdictions. How much does it add to the cost? I don’t know, you’d have to ask the utilities involved.

Not done yet. We have to include the costs of ramping the peaking plant up and down . The costs in that chart are for steady state load. But ramping the plant up and down costs WAY more than running it steady state. Operating costs are higher, the plant wears out much faster so maintenance costs are higher… but here’s the killer. Ramping up and down KILLS the already sucky efficiency and makes it even worse! Double or triple the load following costs JUST for fuel and throw maintenance and operating premiums on top of that. Getting the picture yet?

NOT DONE YET! WE haven’t discussed market forces yet. Some utilities have their own peaking plants, many don’t, and almost none can cover 100% of their variability 100% of the time. They buy their load following from someone else. That someone else charges a minimum price just to be on standby. If there were no market forces, that standby cost would roughly equate in price to building and running it yourself. But suppose you need it when someone ELSE needs it. Well now we’re talking the spot market. There was a recent case, if memory serves in Australia, where the spot market went into the hundreds of dollars per kwhr (not the k, not an m!). The more wind you have as a ratio to the rest of the grid, the more often you have to go to the spot market and the BEST you can get there is 3X to 4X base load of coal. Ooops, the peaking plant is far away, so you lose 30% in tranmission. 4X to 5+X. The other grids served by that peaking plant also have wind farms and their wind died the same day as yours, so suffer a major blackout or get into a bidding war… 10X, 20X, 100X. The more wind you have the more often it happens and the more likely it is that it happens to someone else at the same time.

Then there’s the increased complexity of managing a distributed highly variable supply versus a centralized stable supply. Sure the peaking plant can deal with the amount of energy you need, but you need more infrastructure to manage and distribute it, and it becomes ugly complicated to manage. More engineers, computer systems ad so on. Heck, even just the ACCOUNTING costs to track it all go through the roof.

There’s more factors…. many more. I return you to the very first chart. Grids with high proportions of renewables have over all costs 3X those of grids with no renewables. The costs of dealing with variability is the primary reason. Even in those grids there is still mostly base load. So even with only 20% to 30% penetration, the cost of variability triples the over all price.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 2:13 am

““I think it may be so ” does not make it correct”

citation please?

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 4:37 am

” you have documentary evidence that proves these claims?”

You have been outdoor yes? Have you noticed that there is frequently no wind?

There, that is your documentary evidence.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 5:16 am

Just to be clear, “Dave Burton” (above) is not me.

I am “Dave Burton.”

To tell the difference, hover your mouse cursor over the user name. Mine shows my “sealevel.info” web site. His doesn’t.

“Dave Burton” is a very common name. I occasionally get late night calls from patients of a namesake dentist in Raleigh. (I’ve resisted the temptation to offer dental advice, so far.) In the context of my church I used to write my name as “Dave Burton #2” because the media guy there shared my name.

Hey, new “Dave Burton” (above), my middle initial is “A”. So if your middle initial is something other “A”, would you mind adding your middle initial to your name, in the future, when posting here?

(I would add my initial to my name, except that I’ve been posting hear for many years without it, so that would probably just add to the confusion.)

(Reported this problem) MOD

Van Doren
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 6:45 am

Rule of thumb says that you have be able to store 1-week worth of electricity to buffer wind+solar. $5 million 3MW wind turbine will produce roughly 5.2GWh/a. So you need 100MWh storage. Exactly what was built in South Australia. Costs? $56 Million. 11 times what the actual turbine costs.

A C Osborn
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 8:39 am

ghalfrunt January 3, 2019 at 6:22 pm

Remind us again how old those nuclear plants are, how much energy they have produced in their lifetimes and compare that to Brand New Wind Turbines.
Yet again we have about 13GW of Wind Turbines producing 2.75GW and no Solar at all which has to be made up for by all the other Generators, what a stellar performance.
Nuclear has produced between 5GW to 7GW for the whole of last year and guess what, it is still producing it today despite being up to 60 years old.

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 9:23 am

ghalfrunt: Does a nuclear power plant SCRAM 3 to 4 times a day?

Are you actually trying to claim that bad is ok because nothing is perfect????

Reply to  Percy Jackson
January 3, 2019 5:46 pm

That’s the price for building just the wind turbines themselves.
As you are already aware, they are useless without storage and backup.
Why are you so eager to lie to yourself about what is so readily known by everyone?

richard verney
Reply to  Percy Jackson
January 4, 2019 2:31 am

If you look at the costs, the real cost of coal is about 150/PLN/MWH.

However, on top of that cost is a variability cost, because the coal power station is not allowed to produce full energy 24/7 because the grid is forced to take wind when wind is available. So the fact that the coal station is forced to run on standby or only at part power adds much expense which expense would not be involved but for the presence of wind farms, and once wind farms are scrapped it will come off the price.

Then there is the cost of CO2. This is not a real cost but is a tax that the government has imposed and which makes fossil fuel generation more expensive. That cost could be done away with. It is political virtual signalling and nothing more.

The reality of the situation is that the additional unnecessary costs are being imposed on coal when in reality they are a cost of wind, and ought to be put on the cost of wind. They are all part and parcel of the roll out of wind farms. In addition there is grid infrastructure upgrade.

In the UK, the grid infrastructure upgrade which is simply connecting far distant wind farms to the grid and balancing, is 25% of the customer’s electricity bill. Just this one item has pushed up electricity by 25% in the UK, before one considers the other adverse costs incidental to the high strike price to wind, compensating wind when the wind is too little or too much for windfarms to operate, the carbon tax levied on coal and gas etc.

Van Doren
Reply to  Percy Jackson
January 4, 2019 6:39 am

It also includes “CO2 emission cost” which is complete BS.

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 3, 2019 5:08 pm

It would appear that the current Polish government can do math, …

Yes, but given the difficulty untangling some of the sentences above, I suspect they will be using RPN.

All kidding aside, I was always very glad to have Polish immigrants in my classes because their math ability was usually superior.

Reply to  commieBob
January 4, 2019 12:14 pm


Mr Bliss
January 3, 2019 3:18 pm

The main problem will be keeping them going for 17 years

Reply to  Mr Bliss
January 3, 2019 3:49 pm

Yes, why are they waiting 17 years? They are likely to be a collapse-hazard long before then. The sooner they are dismantled the better.

kent beuchert
January 3, 2019 3:24 pm

We saw just last week that wind turbines are failing to live out expected lifetimes and lose capacity as they age.
Any claims about the costs of wind power are shaky at best. And if the costs do not include the side effeect costs, they are fraudulent, which is often the case. Wind power depends upon lies.

Reply to  kent beuchert
January 3, 2019 3:58 pm

The report uses data up to 2012. Have a look at UK REF data

Its difficult finding any significant data showing reduced output

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 3, 2019 6:47 pm

There is a problem your own data shows you need to explain, look at installed capacity to GWh consumed 2010-2018

To give you an indication
2010 GWh supplied 10,157 … installed capacity 5,460MW …… ratio 1.86
2018 GWh supplied 37,990 … installed capacity 21,402MW … ratio 1.77

You need to explain why that ratio is dropping which could be something like new sites aren’t as good as older sites or we have failures happening.

Reply to  LdB
January 4, 2019 4:04 am

hi not sure where your figures originate. Here are some from UK government:
This gives load factors since 2008 to 2017 on page 161
looking at table on page 184
in 2013 wind installed capacity = 11.28GW in 2017 = 19.84GW 1.759 times more
in 2013 wind generated = 28.42TWh in 2017 = 50.0TWh 1.759 times more
so to 4 sig figs the ratio has not changed
I’m surprised that the full figures for 2018 are in yet. I’d be interested in knowing your source

Now if i’d have looked a bit further down load factors are quoted
Load factors – for schemes operating on an unchanged configuration basis table 6.5
onshore wind 2013 = 31.0 2017 = 31.6
offshore wind 2013 = 27.9 2018 = 27.3
(are these figures for offshore/onshore reversed?)

There is no sig dif!

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 5:01 am

went cross eyed there missed a line!
overall wind 2013 = 31.0 2017 = 31.6

onshore wind 2013 = 27.9 2018 = 27.3
offshore wind 2013 = 39.1 2018 = 38.9

So over 4 years would still suggest no sig diff

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 6:21 am

The data comes from the exact page you linked
let me walk it thru it since you seem to have difficulty

Goto grouped totals link
Select the year you want .. the second + sign is Techgroup (hover over it)
The figures are then right there infront of your nose wind is top line

Now you have thrown in another wildcard with the Duke report .. so let me look at how they do their calculations

Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 6:47 am

OMG the duke statistics are funny did you actually follow the methodology

The give away was the graph on page 161 has a funny footnote “2 .. On an unchanged configuration basis”

Now go to the references and look what that means and you have to follow it thru .. you should end up on page 12 on this

Now read it .. nice way to obviscate real data, I particually like DNC which applies a random factor for renewables.

Then it gets worse look at the Estimated Generation and goto the feed in tarrif methodology page 64 .. read it.

If climate change had “hide the decline” this methodology seems to have “hide the real data”.

Sorry you can’t use this rubbish it is designed to make pretty graphs using random assumptions for morons.

A C Osborn
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 8:45 am

Of course the other cost usually not considered is removal and land reclamation.
Even if the Company promises to do so how do we know they will still be around when the time comes.
This require a “Bond” up front, have they provided it?

John Endicott
Reply to  ghalfrunt
January 4, 2019 10:02 am

LdB I think you last sentence explains exactly why ghalfrunt uses it. He’s the target audience. LOL

Reply to  clipe
January 3, 2019 7:21 pm

Okay yep that would explain it, I just had a quick look at numbers and that stood out.

January 3, 2019 3:25 pm


Someone here once remarked to a commentor who believes in the CAGW myth:
paraphrasing: “once we discovered oil we stopped using wind. Why would you want to go back to that?”

Reply to  matthewdrobnick
January 3, 2019 10:31 pm

Indeed matthewdrobnick: The maritime industry sorted all this out many moons ago.

Reply to  matthewdrobnick
January 4, 2019 5:46 am

Lots of money for the already rich and hatred of humanity.

michael hart
January 3, 2019 3:27 pm

I knew there was always something I liked about the Poles.

Greg Woods
Reply to  michael hart
January 3, 2019 4:21 pm

How many Poles does it take to generate power from wind mills? 10,001. One to hold up the blades and 10,000 to blow air like crazy….

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Greg Woods
January 4, 2019 12:25 pm

When I saw this post, my first reaction was “Wow, how intelligent of them, I may actually swear off telling Polish jokes forever.” Then I got to the part about them proposing to replace them with OFFSHORE wind farms instead.

Now they’re fair game again…

January 3, 2019 3:32 pm

The governments of Europe, Australia and the US announced recently a new combined space mission to land a manned vehicle on the Sun. When asked how they proposed to do this without burning up, they laughed and said, ” easy, we’re going at night”.

Reply to  JimG1
January 4, 2019 9:07 am

First message from the first person landed & standing on the sun:

“Oooh, oooh, ouch, ouch.”

January 3, 2019 3:35 pm

Its a step in the right direction at long last, but it will be of interest to see what the unelected buracrats in Belgium think about this and what t action if any, they can make against such a shocking thing to occur in the very Green EU ?


John Endicott
Reply to  Michael
January 4, 2019 10:06 am

Brussels best watch how they react, it could lead to a pexit (If the poles are smart, no jokes please, they’ll pexit anyway)

January 3, 2019 3:55 pm

yellow vests all the way around……..

January 3, 2019 4:16 pm

For the second time since the Battle of Vienna (12 September 1683), it looks like the Poles are coming to rescue Europe from an overwhelmingly evil force.

Reply to  nicholas william tesdorf
January 4, 2019 12:59 am

Or maybe the third time: the second time being the work of the Polish Cipher Office in decrypting and duplicating Enigma machines before and during WW2 and conveying results to the Allies.
Thus enabling us to win the Battle of the Atlantic and aiding the D Day invasion and its aftermath.
A remarkable story of remarkable people.

Reply to  mikewaite
January 4, 2019 3:45 pm

Do not forget 1920, stopping USSR from flooding Europe.

January 3, 2019 4:21 pm

It takes a mighty strange study to conclude that 10% of capacity is “available”.

January 3, 2019 4:35 pm

That quoted cost for wind of 197 PLN/MWh of course ignores that what must also be provided is 100% reliable backup for when the wind doesn’t blow. False economics!

Reply to  Robber
January 3, 2019 5:50 pm

Plus storage of one type or another to bridge from the renewable power source to a reliable one.

January 3, 2019 4:38 pm

I’ve read this several times and always come away with wind is cheaper than coal but we’re dumping it because we’re bound by government contracts/promises already made. What am I missing?

Reply to  markl
January 3, 2019 5:22 pm

thank god it wasn’t just me. I had a hard time understanding the whole article and was simply not going to comment. Thanks–now I don’t feel quite so stupid.

Reply to  Shelly Marshall
January 3, 2019 5:42 pm

Yes. It is very badly written.

Reply to  wal1957
January 3, 2019 11:11 pm

Agreed, basically the cheaper cost is an illusion which doesn’t get addressed by the article but is the basis for the decision. Australian wanted to bring in what they called the “NEG” a reliability obligation on renewables that they must provide (or purchase) an agreed amount of baseload for each KWH of power they sell. The policy got killed by the Liberals but will come into force if Labour wins the upcoming election because they have adopted the policy.

Reply to  markl
January 3, 2019 6:10 pm

Markl…me too

My guess is someone didn’t get their kickback as promised. It seems to me in the world of Government virtue signaling I find it difficult to believe rational thought prevails.

Reply to  markl
January 3, 2019 6:46 pm

I had to keep re-reading it and it wasn’t making any sense to me.
I started thinking maybe Alzheimer’s was setting in.

Reply to  markl
January 3, 2019 9:55 pm

The costs shown don’t include the fact that the wind power will not be reliable and will require expensive, instant-on backup. Backups are not meant to be used in such, long term, large scale, day in, day out situations. That’s why the situation has any sensible person thinking why bother with wind/solar+backup, when it’s so much cheaper with baseload coal/gas/nuke.

Who has the greenist and cheapest reliable powergrid in the EU – nuclear powered France.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  JimG
January 4, 2019 12:31 pm

What every country saddled with these useless bird choppers should do is simply disconnect the whole collection from the grid, and just build the conventional power plants they need. Cheaper energy for all, and then you can just tear the useless pieces of junk down when they stop twirling and thereby providing their only pseudo-value – the virtue signalling appearance of “doing something” about the non-existent “crisis” of human-induced climate change.

Sceptical lefty
January 3, 2019 5:00 pm

The ‘victory’ here is illusory. This is a political solution to a political problem. There is plenty of time for warmists, changeists and worshippers of Gaia to undermine and even reverse the legislation.

If Anna Zalewska’s faction loses influence the roll-back will be political, too.

January 3, 2019 5:24 pm

Leaders of the UN COP24 in Katowice, Poland must have tried their hardest to persuade the Polish government to release their statement AFTER the climate conference ended. LOL

January 3, 2019 5:38 pm

how many polacks does it take to profit from a wind turbine. one. donald tusk.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  billtoo
January 3, 2019 9:43 pm

Had a lot of polackish ( polish ), serbian, kroatian, macedonian, even albanian, russian and Ukrainian colleagues the last 17+ years at Sony Thalgau Austria.

Most competent, pleasent-natured people.


You ever thought why people don’t like Americans?

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
January 4, 2019 8:22 am

wouldn’t know. I’m polish

Johann Wundersamer
January 3, 2019 9:08 pm

So sorry, just blinds my eyes –

This is less than the current market price (250 PLN/MWh) and much less that the total production cost in new coal-fired power plants (350 PLN/MWh). –>

This is less than the current market price (250 PLN/MWh) and much less -than- the total production cost in new coal-fired power plants (350 PLN/MWh).

Johann Wundersamer
January 3, 2019 9:30 pm

For all polish 2nd language Americans: spoken

Minister Krzysztof Tchórzewski


Minister Kschistof Tschórschewski.

Have a nice day!


Rod Evans
January 4, 2019 12:16 am

Here in the UK it is currently minus 4 deg C in the midlands. The total wind contribution to the grid is less than 2.5GW the entire fleet of wind turbines which the UK has spend tens of billions on erecting is generating less than the single site Drax power plant, which even though it has been forced to burn wood pellets for 66% of its capacity, is still capable of producing 1.5 times the current output of the entire UK wind turbines here at the start of winter.
Go to gridwatch to see just how pathetic wind is, and was all yesterday, let’s hope it doesn’t go cold…

January 4, 2019 12:17 am

Could an alternative to building a 3.2GW nuclear unit be to build 8 Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactors of 0.4 GW capacity.
If one has to be taken off line for servicing the the other seven can continue production.
The manufacture is done in a separate factory so avoids the massive disruption during holding, and the reactors can be placed near the point of consumption thus avoiding the need for long transmission lines.
I can however see the NIMBYs objecting to the last suggestion.

Reply to  StephenP
January 4, 2019 12:30 am

Not one single prototype reactor exists at this present time and there is no indication of the costs… the practicalities of safety and security have yet to be worked out.

Come back in ten to fifteen years!

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 12:56 am

American, Russian and French submarines have had this type of unit for years, and don’t need refuelling for up to 30 years.

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 2:39 am


Wrong again!

IPPE & Teploelektroproekt Design, Russia.

Rod Evans
January 4, 2019 12:37 am

Just so you understand how ridiculous it now is, here in the UK electricity generation industry check out this from Drax. The fact the “installed” wind and solar capacity has overtaken fossil fuel is put into focus, by the fact, that here we are in winter, and both wind and solar are nowhere near meeting their obligations, despite the £billions we have spent on them.
If the grid relied on wind and solar, we would be dead.

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 4, 2019 12:56 am

UK generation relies on accurate advance forecasting of wind/solar allowing fossil fuel generation to be stepped up and down as renewable resource varies. The National Grid will tell you forecasting is now 95% accurate 24 hours in advance. There is increasing grid storage capacity allowing for replacement of spinning reserve and instant response for grid/frequency stability. Advances in demand management reduce peak use… there are new HVDC grid lines to increase use of wind resource and a whole 7GW of HVDC connection to EU grids coming along (approved and building). UK demand has been decreasing since mid 1980s, and will decrease further, due to LED lighting and efficient appliances.

We now hardly use our remaining coal plant from April to October. We won’t miss it when it goes.

Rod Evans
Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 2:22 am

“We now hardly use our remaining coal plant from April to October. We won’t miss it when it goes”.
Well griff, we would be missing it today and many other days like today when a high pressure system sits over the UK for days in the cold winter period.
Currently, i.e. today, here in the UK, coal is producing more of our electricity demand than solar and wind combined.
Without that spare capacity and available back up, which renewables do not possess, we would be in serious risk of blackouts today. There is a 100% confidence of that!

Reply to  Rod Evans
January 4, 2019 3:17 am

We could easily replace that by gas… even today we have alternative gas plant… plus with more wind power offshore even at times like this we’ll need less, plus the HVDC links will provide…

UK policy is not for 100% renewable… just for an average over the year of 80% renewable by 2050.

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 4:09 am


80% renewable by 2050

What planet do you live on?

It was announced some time last year I seem to recall, that the UK had it’s first whole day of renewable energy (or at least a theoretical whole day) after 20 years of installing these things. There’s only 31 years until 2050 and there are almost no new applications for onshore sites at least since the subsidies were cut.

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 4:58 am


You say you won’t miss coal when it is gone, partly because NG is confident in its day-ahead forecasts.

But there is an issue brewing in security of fuel supply. With over 10TWh of wind capacity what will the wind capacity be producing in 2-3 weeks? I don’t think anybody knows, and we cannot balance on averages.

Think back to July 2018 when the wind capacity produced very little. The same could happen in February 2019. So if you were buying gas today for GB February 2019 requirements, how will you manage wind variability when there is no capacity to store fuel?

If GB doesn’t buy enough gas, there would a crisis in shortage of winter power supplies. This could hurt a lot of people and damage GDP.

If GB buys too much gas (GB market players), they will find themselves dumping gas onto the prompt market at a significant loss. No private company can suffer much of that.

So that’s the challenge with no coal Griff: how does GB secure energy supply against month-ahead to season-ahead wind variability. And no fuel storage capacity.

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 6:01 am

There is a pipeline of approved and building offshore wind larger than what is currently installed

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 7:57 am


There is a pipeline of approved and building offshore wind larger than what is currently installed

Whilst I doubt that’s true, other than in the guardian, that would mean we might have three days of wind power, maybe even a week!

Michael Keal
Reply to  griff
January 5, 2019 1:11 pm

griff your missing an important point. During a prolonged black-out at below zero boilers will go out, pipes will freeze and burst and if it stays cold long enough people will die. Unreliables increase the probability of such an occurrence. Might, even in the UK, have some political consequences. If it can go wrong it will.

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 9:37 am

griff has been pushing the nonsense that we can accurately forecast wind for quite awhile now.
Like most of his fantasies, this one is at best a half truth.

Yes, forecasters can tell us that today will be “windier” than yesterday.
What they can’t tell us minute by minute, what the wind speed will be for the next 24 hours.

Until the forecasters can get to that level of accuracy, only an idiot would proclaim that we can accurately predict wind.

January 4, 2019 12:52 am

The new energy policy seems to be a massive reduction in coal and 6 new reactors…


Scrapping onshore wind seems unlikely… but then investment in wind in Poland is actually mostly in large offshore windfarms – it doesn’t seem these get scrapped.

all in all the Polish govt is still bent on reducing coal and reducing CO2.

(The home developed reactor approach is different to UK policy of getting large foreign firms to bid for contracts… lets see how it works out)

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 5:45 am

“Poland is actually mostly in large offshore windfarms – it doesn’t seem these get scrapped.”

Yes, because greedy wind companies can run ripshod over fisherman and others because they are all so few in numbers. Destroy those that cannot fight back. Who cares about the minority or jobs that politicians don’t do and would NEVER stoop so low as to live near the areas destroyed by the turbines. The minorities have ZERO say in how damaging and destructive wind is to them. I suppose we could just toddle them off to an island somewhere and let them live out their worthless days. That way the rich and evil won’t have any opposition.

Reply to  Sheri
January 4, 2019 6:00 am

Wind turbines don’t affect fishing except in limited areas within the farms… on the contrary they create mini marine reserves which regenerate fish stocks.

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 8:08 am


This is an opinion piece from a legal website. Nothing scientific, political or economic about it.

Instead of just googling search term to find stuff to justify your arguments, why not consider the criticism your posts constantly get.

January 4, 2019 1:19 am

Loosley related to topic.

BBC News – Hotel to operate on battery power in Edinburgh https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-46749022

A lot of important facts missing from this article which is not unusual for the BBC or media in general. Why don’t journalists ask difficult questions anymore?

Firstly how much does the battery cost? The company says it will save up to 20k a year in power costs, but how long does it take to pay off the installation cost and does the pay off happen before the battery has to be replaced (I suspect not) and has the cost of replacement batteries been included in the ongoing costs? (I suspect not).

Also Lithium batteries have a significant carbon footprint. https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/lithium-batteries-dirty-secret-manufacturing-them-leaves-massive-carbon

The savings in emissions they are talking about, do they include this footprint? More often than not these PR releases ignore facts like this.

Bill Gates is absolutely right on is early January 2019 announcement that renewable energy and battery tech will never be able to power the majority of a modern economy. This is an important statement from a smart man who has researched this thoroughly from an environmental and left leaning political prospective and has no financial influenced on his reasoning. He says new nuclear is the fastest and safest way to reduce emissions without compromising our power supply.
I think he is right.
People worry about Nuclear accidents, but a quick look at the major nuclear accidents that have occurred around the world show that they have happened due to poor maintenance or construction or being built on active tectonic regions of the world like Japan. France has produce safe clean Nuclear power for 40 plus years as have most of the nuclear nations of the world.
A sobering thought on this is the number of deaths listed from nuclear accidents around the world. Chernobyl killed thousands right? Err….no. 45 people died? Yes about 2000 children developed lymphomas drinking contaminated milk, but the majority were cured and still live today.

My point is that people have an overly enhanced fear of Nuclear because it is an invisible threat of unknown quantity that could kill you but probably won’t and death toll list above shows this.

Small modular meltdown proof Nuclear power units are the answer in my opinion. Covering our lands in wind turbines and solar panels is never going to power our future. The energy density is too low and cost both environmentally and financially is too high. Future generations will look back on this renewable energy experiment and laugh about it and wonder what we were thinking.

Reply to  pbweather
January 4, 2019 3:21 am

The impact of a nuclear accident is economic, more than on health. The loss of productive use of farmland, evacuation of populations is a severe hit to local economies.

and while there may not be many immediate deaths, the long term effects on health are serious… as you would know if you know anyone born in Ukraine near Chernobyl after the accident…

A C Osborn
Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 9:02 am

griff, you are wasting your time.
We have too many FACTS at our fingertips for you to get anywhere with your green bullshit.
If you really want to get educated about the failing of Wind & Solar I suggest you spend some time reading over at Euan Mearns Forum
They have shown time & time again why Wind is a bad idea and Solar is a bad idea above a certain latitude and you can add Tidal Power to the bad ideas as well.
Why would anyone want to degrade or destroy Base Load generation with Intermittent generation?

Rod Evans
Reply to  A C Osborn
January 4, 2019 9:33 am

I can answer your final question AC. The left wing Greens are on a mission to destroy capitalism. They see low cost available energy, as the capitalists prime agent for growth, which it is.
By destroying base load and destroying industrial energy availability, the Greens will destroy capitalism which translates into destruction of consumerism, something seen as positive in the Green left wing logic.
As for griff’s ongoing voice in the wilderness, we should look upon it as humour, most who read it laugh at his efforts so let’s hope he continues to entertain us.

Reply to  griff
January 4, 2019 9:52 am

There has only been one accident that required land to be segregated because of radiation contamination, and that was Chernobyl. A plant design that was rejected in the west precisely because it wasn’t safe.
Even in Chernobyl, much of the land that was originally cordoned off been opened up for use again.

The long term health affects are almost entirely non-existent because low levels of radiation aren’t dangerous.

Reply to  MarkW
January 4, 2019 11:51 pm

I really don’t like to see people printing utter bollox.

“Chernobyl. A plant design that was rejected in the west precisely because it wasn’t safe.
1/ Wrong. There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the design as such, it was the persistance of the staff of the Pripyat NPP that insisted in blowing themselves up…
They tried hard and they succeeded with the results we all know!

Ignalina in Lithuania like most of the RBMK retro fitted with new safety features operated totally reliably and without incident for decades, as does the one in St Petersburg today.

It was the kind of blanket statements I read, led to a totally unwarranted shut down by the EU from 2004 on.
It amounted to blackmail.

Even in Chernobyl, much of the land that was originally cordoned off been opened up for use again.
2/ another sentence full of rubbish.
There are even parts of Finland and Sweden today where the amount of radiocaesium is so high from 1986 fall out where it’s impossible to cut down forest and use it as fuel, because it send the same isotopes back out into the environment.
This is more than 1000kms from the source, and there are parts of Wales, Scotland & other parts of Europe more than 2500kms away with similar problems… see reports by Criirad..

Nearby Belarus has a huge problem with radioisotopes in the food chain, but they are so currently in denial that they are openly selling radioactive products into the Russian market today…

The long term health affects are almost entirely non-existent because low levels of radiation aren’t dangerous”

3/ I don’t know if you have ever had anything to do with the UK radiation protection board.
That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.
In our part of the world it is well known the presence of high levels of Radon as a gas in the ex – USSR apartment blocks as well as in the water, coupled with smoking are a fatal combination.
In some of these places eg. Leningradskaya obl there is a combination of both fallout from Chernobyl & high levels of ground uranium and thorium giving high levels of radon.
Lung cancer deaths are skyhigh in these regions.

richard verney
Reply to  pigs_in_space
January 5, 2019 11:47 pm

I think that the long term effects of radiation are not as severe as we currently consider to be the case, as is demonstrated by the two atom bomb dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima which subjected people (by which I mean those that survived more than five years) to extremely high levels of radiation.

Those areas relatively quickly returned to some form of normality, and whilst I am sceptical of studies, there are many studies suggesting that the incidents of cancers are no higher in those regions than in other regions.

What has happened in Chenobyl is that much of the land that has been cordoned off as unsafe for humans, has been reclaimed by nature, and is now flourishing now that man is not disturbing natural habitats. That said, I would not wish to voluntarily expose myself to risks by visiting such lands.

E J Zuiderwijk
January 4, 2019 3:05 am

The cost comparison looks like creative green accounting to me. CO2 emission costs? Variable costs? The site has a section praising the windpower in Poland which makes me wonder if it is run by a section of Greenpeace.


There is an english option on the home page.

Steve O
January 4, 2019 4:43 am

I have a cab that only costs 20c per mile to operate, which is less than half what a regular car costs. But it will stall out unexpectedly for hours at a time. To avoid stranding passengers I have another driver follow me in a regular cab wherever I go.

The car actually only runs 20% of the time, but I’m hoping to upgrade to another car that runs 40% of the time!

Reply to  Steve O
January 4, 2019 5:48 am

“Energy from weather” always sounds stupid when you apply the idea to other real-life areas.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Steve O
January 4, 2019 12:42 pm

LMFAO Priceless analogy.

January 4, 2019 5:14 am

@davidmhoffer January 3, 2019 at 11:32 pm

Excellent comprehensive clear post.

Unfortunately the renewables lobby doesn’t want to hear it.

The idea that you can lower generating costs by substituting high cost intermittent and unreliable generation for low cost continuous and reliable generation is completely mad.

But that is what is essentially being argued in a variety of more or less ingenious ways. All you have to do, once you know that is how the argument goes, is look for where some costs are left out or where some products which are dissimilar are being held to be identical.

As you and others point out, the way to assess the merits of renewables is simple. Take two grids, one with renewables and one not. Then compare the total costs of building and running them.

Whenever this is done, you find that you are better off not installing or running the renewables. Its almost at the point of, OK, install the things if you have to, just don’t turn them on or connect them to the grid, because it just adds cost.

It doesn’t even reduce emissions either. Its completely mad.

January 4, 2019 12:07 pm

I think there is a simple construct here.
It doesn’t need much more than a little background in engineering to understand and mitigate.
All aircraft designers are supposed to do this…

Most major accidents including finding bits of shredded aluminium on hillsides revolve around it…
Sukhoi SSJ flew into a Mount Salak, showing off…..
German wings Flight 9525 was occupied by a paranoid lunatic…


what if, some lunatic flies your aircraft into a mountain.
what if, there’s an earthquake magnitude 9.5…

On the general scale of things, “what if there’s no wind, or no sun” looks rather pathetically obvious?

Ertimus J Waffle
January 4, 2019 2:32 pm

If everyone had the smallest knowledge about how the electricity generation and supply system works then there would be no renewables and all this uninformed rubbish by deluded half wits would end.

January 4, 2019 8:39 pm

It should be pointed out that wind power, taken as a complete system, is as bad as a fractional reserve currency–both are designed for failure.

January 5, 2019 12:49 am

Why is it that the firms who put these wind turbines in place where there is a steady wind ?, then expect someone else to pay for the transmission lines to the places who need electricity.

Its a bit like a owner of a store who prefers to live in the country, sets up his store by his home, then somehow expects the customer to get out to where the store is.

Yes its that silly , but so is the present setup where we the consumer pay directly or indirectly for the cost f these long transmission.

Also there is a loss factor in usinmg a long transmission line, a percentage of the “Green electricity goes up in heat. . The resistance factor of long lines is yet another cost against the use of wind.

Its just yet another cost which like the back up costs should be deducted from the so called cheaper than coal figures for the windmills.

January 5, 2019 12:52 am


%d bloggers like this: