Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
There’s an interesting and authoritative new [commenters pointed out it’s from 2012, I can’t find any newer research] study on the lifespan of those ugly bird-and-bat-choppers yclept “wind turbines”. It’s called “The Performance of Wind Turbines in the United Kingdom and Denmark“.

Here’s the Executive Summary, all emphasis is mine:
Executive Summary
1. Onshore wind turbines represent a relatively mature technology, which ought to have achieved a satisfactory level of reliability in operation as plants age. Unfortunately, detailed analysis of the relationship between age and performance gives a rather different picture for both the United Kingdom and Denmark with a significant decline in the average load factor of onshore wind farms adjusted for wind availability as they get older. An even more dramatic decline is observed for offshore wind farms in Denmark, but this may be a reflection of the immaturity of the technology.
2. The study has used data on the monthly output of wind farms in the UK and Denmark reported under regulatory arrangements and schemes for subsidising renewable energy. Normalised age-performance curves have been estimated using standard statistical techniques which allow for differences between sites and over time in wind resources and other factors.
3. The normalised load factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. The decline in the normalised load factor for Danish onshore wind farms is slower but still significant with a fall from a peak of 22% to 18% at age 15. On the other hand for offshore wind farms in Denmark the normalised load factor falls from 39% at age 0 to 15% at age 10. The reasons for the observed declines in normalised load factors cannot be fully assessed using the data available but outages due to mechanical breakdowns appear to be a contributory factor.
4. Analysis of site-specific performance reveals that the average normalised load factor of new UK onshore wind farms at age 1 (the peak year of operation) declined significantly from 2000 to 2011. In addition, larger wind farms have systematically worse performance than smaller wind farms. Adjusted for age and wind availability the overall performance of wind farms in the UK has deteriorated markedly since the beginning of the century.
5. These findings have important implications for policy towards wind generation in the UK. First, they suggest that the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time. Second, meeting the UK Government’s targets for wind generation will require a much higher level of wind capacity – and, thus, capital investment – than current projections imply. Third, the structure of contracts offered to wind generators under the proposed reform of the electricity market should be modified since few wind farms will operate for more than 12–15 years.
Not much more that I can say after that most devastating indictment of wind turbines. In a mere ten years, the UK wind farms are producing less than half of what they produced when they were new.
So … why do people still want to build wind farms in the UK? The simple answer is … subsidies. The UK populace is getting royally screwed by their government with its insane subsidies. Here’s an example, the subsidies for some of the largest solar plants in the UK:

I’m sure that you noticed the oddity … in each and every case, the government subsidy is more than the value of the energy produced … I gotta say, that’s dumber than cubical ball bearings.
Now, the UK government did get smart and end onshore wind subsidies … so of course, there are lots of people screaming and pressuring the government to lift the ban on the subsidies. From the Guardian:
The wind industry said if a bar on onshore windfarm subsidies was lifted it would allow the construction of 794 projects which have won consent through the planning system and are ready to build.
Yeah, I bet it would allow construction. Throwing big piles of money at construction projects tends to do that. The most significant point is this:
Without subsidies, nobody is building windfarms in the UK …
The total cost of UK subsidies for renewables is stunning. Renewable subsidies in the UK in 2016, the most recent data I could find, is just under £5 billion with a “b” UK pounds (US$ 6,000,000,000). And since the start of the subsidies in 2003 up until 2016, the total spent is £23 billion with a “b” pounds (US$28,000,000,000).
And what did they get for that £23 billion? From 2003 to 2016, UK renewables generated about 242 terawatt-hours of electricity. This means that the renewable subsidies have been 9.7 UK pence per kilowatt-hour (kWhr) (11.6 US cents per kWhr).
Here is the truly tragic part. The UK subsidy of 11.6 US cents per kWhr is about 10% more than the current US retail electricity price of about 10.7 cents per kWhr … so the UK consumer is paying more in renewable subsidies than the US consumer pays retail for its electricity.
Now the US is not without fault in this matter. However, our renewable subsidies are much smaller, only 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour … bad, but not outrageous.
TL;DR version?
Solar and wind power are worse than useless. Useless would be bad enough, but they are also horrendously expensive, and subsidies make it worse. The UK population pays more in renewable electricity subsidies per kilowatt-hour than the US pays retail for electricity. And to add insult to injury … the windmills are failing faster than anyone but work-hardened cynics like myself would have imagined.
Best to all from our home on the hillside, where from my window I see the cat out hunting in the evening summer grass and the sea wind is bringing us tantalizing hints of its oceanic home …
w.
DATA: UK Renewable Subsidies
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Willis, Is there a chart such as that about solar, but about wind farms ???
Willis, this is an important post/article … Thanks for this … I relayed it to some of my friends.
JPP
If the realistic lifetime is 12-15years then I doubt that they ever produce enough energy out to compensate for the entire direct and indirect energy used in their construction.
Load Factor = average load / peak load
Capacity Factor = actual kWh output / maximum possible kWh output
In the electricity industry, we refer to a generator’s actual output as Capacity Factor not Load Factor (which is used for loads and also relates to Utilisation Factor for loads – which generators don’t have). Mathematically they are the same but the term Load Factor is incorrect. You’re more convincing when the right terms are used!
Ps. I know the report uses Load Factor – it takes unnecessarily from its authority.
Joe
Good to know.
Communication of technical subject matter works best when proper terminology is utilized.
Thank you Joe!
The notion that wind turbines will all last 25 years and then all die at the same time, based on average lifetime, is a nonsense. When a 10 year old turbine breaks, are you going to repair it if the cost of repair isn’t subsidized? How about if it costs more to repair the turbine than the cost of buying a new, subsidized turbine?
In my experience, no machine has a lifetime that is that predictable and consistent.
If you take ten of pretty much any complex machine, even if they have consecutive serial numbers and are built at the same time by the same person or people, and connected to the same power supply and are all in a row or circle, they will all fail at a different time, although there may be some clustering.
One or more will fail early unless each component is very highly reliable and conditions are optimum.
And a few will last longer than can be expected.
The more moving parts subject to wear and stress, and more complicated the assembly or construction, the more variable and inclement the environmental conditions, the less likely that anything will be particularly predicable and consistent.
How long after people started making automobiles did a manufacturer come along that built vehicles that were highly reliable and consistently so?
I think it was not until the Japanese began to use automated production methods sometime in the mid 1980s, perhaps a few years sooner. No lemons, virtually zero warranty issues, not even a light bulb will burn out on some Toyota, Honda, and Nissan models.
Others may have caught up by now, but for many years, there was nothing else like the reliability these manufacturers achieved.
But is was no time soon after making automobiles for the first time.
Casper WY is making a fair amount of money selling landfill space for worn out blades.
https://cowboystatedaily.com/2019/08/07/wind-turbine-blades-being-disposed-of-in-casper-landfill/
Michael Shellenberger – formerly a proponent of wind and solar has written extensively about the environmental nightmare solar and wind bring:
“But aren’t renewables safer? The answer is no. Wind turbines, surprisingly, kill more people than nuclear plants.
In other words, the energy density of the fuel determines its environmental and health impacts. Spreading more mines and more equipment over larger areas of land is going to have larger environmental and human safety impacts.”
https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/
My brother a retired engineer who now volunteers at a high desert poppy reserve in California wrote:
“How can something that reminds me of an eastern Ohio strip mine be as good as it gets? “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.” After analyzing the data, looking at the pros and cons, and going with my gut feel, I’m thinking this perpetual motion machine is just too good to be true. The current “green power” energy sources that I see are short term thinking at best. I see a not so friendly Eco-mess being left behind. ”
https://fasmovin.com/f/it-doesnt-look-right
I’m confused.
Where’s Loydo and Griff to tell us how much cheaper and reliable wind is?
Why, just look at Ger…er…Aust…er..uh….well someone is doing it cheaply and reliably. After all wind is free.
Fraizer,
You say, “After all wind is free”.
All energy is free but collecting it so it can do useful work is expensive.
Fortunately, nature has collected energy and stored it in the forms of fossil fuels and radioactive materials so we only need to remove the energy stores from the ground.
Richard
Hello Willis.
I used to read your entertaining blog and it’s good to see you exposing the idiocy of UK policy.
The Climate Change Committee Report, which seems to be accepted by most British media and politicians, recently proposed that the UK goes ‘carbon’ zero by 2050 or sooner and our departing disaster of a PM had it signed into law before she was dragged away crying.
They seem to be going against the advice of the late Prof MacKay, who accepted that warming and depletion of supplies of gas, which was to build nukes and run them all the time. I bought his book SEWTHA ten years ago and have insulated my properties using my knowledge as an architect and reduced my bills 50%- very inexpensively. He was above all an honest analyst with great mathematical skills.
And so, after reading the pile of ignorant nonsense that the chairman Mr Gummer and his highly paid CEO (£320k pa), apparently with qualifications not disclosed, I wrote a piece for a woman’s blog, with figures reduced to a minimum. They still couldn’t understand it, or thought it was boring, and lost interest. Here it is, for grumpy geeks of the type reading your stuff.
https://www.notion.so/shredded/Has-Gummer-Goofed-5511d6dcf68b43ee9fc5ad41bd744116
This may sound silly, but I think at least some of the decreased efficiency of the wind turbine is due to the blades being deformed from sand in the wind. The blade will assume a less effective pitch over time with the elements working on it as it spins at quite high surface footage speeds.
Just a thought.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032117313503
Lifetime extension of onshore wind turbines: A review covering Germany, Spain, Denmark, and the UK