Power When You Need It? Not With Wind

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

If this is the standard of research into the reliability of wind power, then heaven help us all:

Nobody is seriously saying that the wind will stop blowing completely around the UK, as they imply. This is just a red herring.

The real issue is that there are long periods, days and even weeks, when wind power is generating at extremely low levels.

It can also be extremely variable on an hour to hour basis, as the summary of the last 48 hours shows below:

https://www.bmreports.com/bmrs/?q=eds/main

Using the data from GB National Grid Status, so far this year, wind power has been producing at less than 2 GW for 22% of the time. 2 GW works out at about a capacity factor of 10%, which I am sure most normal people would regard as pretty worthless.

It has even been running at below 1 GW for 9% of the year. Average output is over 5 GW.

It is true that low winds tend to be more common in summer, when demand is low. But they can still occur in winter. Between 27th Feb and 4th March, wind power never reached 2.5 GW for 112 hours straight. During this period it was below 2 GW for 99 hours, and averaged just 1.1 GW overall.

http://gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

It does not matter how much wind capacity you have. Nought percent of anything is still nothing.

4.9 42 votes
Article Rating
263 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
December 21, 2021 6:04 am

We in Texas discovered what happens with still air and freezing rain.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 21, 2021 6:31 am

We in Texas discovered what happens with still air and freezing rain.”

You discovered that, in these parts per ten thousand events, you didn’t gird up your natural gas to electric infrastructure. I.e., the common sense, lowest cost solution. Not after your 2010 wake up call. Not after $130B, and well over 100 lives lost this year. Instead, you’ve been deputizing fetal heart flutter bounty hunters. Heckuva job, brownie….

Patrick B
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 6:58 am

No, what we found was that if you install a lot of unreliable wind, you are forced to install essentially the same amount of gas generation that can be spun up fast. So the real cost of your wind electricity is almost double due to back up costs.

Then if you are reliant on gas generation because of your installation of wind generation, you better be sure your gas pipelines can work.

But if you follow federal government rules and stop powering the gas pipelines with gas and switch over to powering them with electric, then when your windpower fails and your grid starts to collapse and you cut power to gas pipelines as a result, then you lose the gas generation that was backing up your failed wind power.

And you wish you had put all that windpower money into coal plants and nukes.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Patrick B
December 21, 2021 7:24 am

So the real cost of your wind electricity is almost double due to back up costs.”

About the usual lack of back up for this butt yanked parameter. The natural gas to electric deliverability is already there. You just need to take a few steps to insure that it works when you need it. Oh, and maybe follow Governor Gavin in California, and modernize your natural gas storage facilities. They are a festering abomination everywhere, with only California improving them.

“Then if you are reliant on gas generation because of your installation of wind generation, you better be sure your gas pipelines can work.”

Yes. They are part of that infrastructure. Have you given any thought to the fact that, under your burn baby burn scenario, you would want the pipelines to work even more?

“But if you follow federal government rules and stop powering the gas pipelines with gas and switch over to powering them with electric, then when your windpower fails and your grid starts to collapse and you cut power to gas pipelines as a result, then you lose the gas generation that was backing up your failed wind power.”

Gas pipelines are “powered” by the most appropriate form of energy for that situation. Near the wells, dehydrators and gas production units are mostly gas heated. Instrumentation is (thankfully) now mostly electrified. Wellsite compression could be either. Down the line, chemical pumps and other instrumentation is now (again, thankfully), mostly electrified. Compression down the line, again, either. But to keep much more of it on, simple. Prioritize the natural gas to electric infrastructure. They do it in other states.

“And you wish you had put all that windpower money into coal plants and nukes.”

Nope. Add up all of the external costs for these sources, that are now communized onto us, and they are the highest $ forms of gen. I’m totally cool with dropping renewable mandates, and the relatively tiny start up helps that they have received in the past, if these forms of gen would do the same.

Crickets and/or goal post moving to follow, folks…

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 7:36 am

One hopes that you will be first to volunteer to be cutoff to save the grid Bob.
Otherwise your just a mouth.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 7:49 am

Lovely content-free rant here, blob.

MarkW
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
December 21, 2021 8:16 am

One thing I’ve noticed with socialists, the further they fall behind, the more irrational they get.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 9:34 am

“Otherwise your [sic] just a mouth.”

Oh the irony.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:16 am

Yes it is already there, but it is not cost free. It must be maintained, and maintaining an idled plant costs almost as much as maintaining a running plant. To be able to fire up at a moments notice, the entire staff has to be on hand, all the time.

DonM
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 12:02 pm

Not just that.

The anti’s (like oily bob) are pushing policies/regs that cost the natural gas suppliers more and more.

  • In Oregon they just adopted legislation that bans expansion or new construction of power plants that burn natural gas or other fossil fuels

Bob and others like him are too stupid (or deceitful) to recognize that, even if the ‘renewables’ can be harnessed for replacement of other energy sources by 2045 (or whenever), that the far future expansion of ‘renewable’ energy sources will require an equal expansion of back up facilities. And that expansion has been banned.

So, what they are doing is requiring that we stop right here, right now, with our current level of energy supply.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  DonM
December 21, 2021 4:50 pm

To make matters worse, Oregon’s Governor Commie Witch Queen just instituted a carbon tax by Executive Decree that will double the price of gasoline, diesel, propane, and natural gas. The voters be damned. Also the economy.

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:36 am

About the usual lack of back up for this butt yanked parameter. The natural gas to electric deliverability is already there. You just need to take a few steps to insure that it works when you need it. Oh, and maybe follow Governor Gavin in California, and modernize your natural gas storage facilities. They are a festering abomination everywhere, with only California improving them.”

Huh? California has shut down over 5,000 MW of nat gas generating plants since 2013. CA’s plan is to totally phase out nat gas by 2045.

Doesn’t do much good to modernize nat gas storage if you don’t have the plants available to use it!

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 21, 2021 8:52 am

Huh? California has shut down over 5,000 MW of nat gas generating plants since 2013.”

Baseload. Emergency deliverability will be maintained. That’s why Gavin has been girding up nat gas storage.

“CA’s plan is to totally phase out nat gas by 2045.”

AGAIN, base load only.

The renewable shift must happen. Why don’t you want it to happen smoothly, without lazily hogging the best bridge fuel available?

Texans, pray to the Imaginary Guy In The Sky, twice on Sunday and Wednesday nights, for no more AGW amplified polar vortex blasts. Maybe a bigger love offering to Joel Osteen, or another tennis court for his McManse..

Gene
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 9:26 am

The only thing “Gavin” has been gearing up… is the Jerry Brown “Bullet train”. How much of California’s additional Gas Tax is being siphoned off and added to the 1.1 billion dollars, the CA state Libtards have been taking for years from the truck fees and gas taxes for Browns failed vision?

Drake
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 9:41 am

God, what a BIGOT you are BOOB.

There is NO need for ANY unreliable sources of generation on the grid. NO NEED. They can NEVER be BASE LOAD, because they are UNRELIABLE.

Derg
Reply to  Drake
December 21, 2021 1:27 pm

BigOil is not that bright…don’t be rational. Tell them how stupid their ideas are over and over. They are truly evil people.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 10:18 am

“AGW amplified polar vortex blasts”

How does that work? The amplification of the polar vortex by AGW, I mean.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 21, 2021 10:44 am

The amplification of the polar vortex by AGW, I mean.”

Please note that the next worst winter calamity in Texas took place a decade ago.

https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/climate/definitions/what-is-the-polar-vortex

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:45 am

Mr. bob: Please note, as further proof of AGW, that before these two polar vortex events, low levels of CO2 stopped winter weather at the Oklahoma panhandle.
Once you focus, you can find proof of AGW right outside your window.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 3:51 pm

I’m going out on a limb and guess that you actually believe your response had anything to do with the question Tom asked.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 7:42 am

Polar vortex gets larger when it gets colder. Global warming should decrease it.
Once again, when models disagree with the real world, the trolls hype the models.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 3:19 pm

I’m supposed to draw a conclusion from that?

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 21, 2021 11:39 am

Bob has been assured by his local deacons that CO2 makes everything worse. That’s all the data he needs.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:38 am

As usual, Bob makes no sense, and indicates an extreme hatred towards anyone who doesn’t worship as he does.

DonM
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 12:05 pm

… there it is ….

Hate and jealousy of others. The driver of your life (whether you admit or not).

DrEd
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 2:03 pm

Idiot. There is no climate crisis. CO2 is NOT the cause of the slight warming we’ve experienced. Just ‘splane to me, Lucy, why was the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period warmer than it is now?????? It certainly wasn’t because of man-made CO2.
You can’t fix stupid.

LdB
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 7:05 pm

>>> The renewable shift must happen <<<

Why?

Ruleo
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:18 pm

“Texans, pray to the Imaginary Guy In The Sky, twice on Sunday and Wednesday nights, for no more AGW amplified polar vortex blasts. Maybe a bigger love offering to Joel Osteen, or another tennis court for his McManse..”

Ah, you’re a bigot…

Oooo scary religious people, oooo!

Tim Gorman
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 23, 2021 4:42 am

Baseload. Emergency deliverability will be maintained.”

If emergency deliverability can’t meet base load then of what use is it?

If you get rid of all existing base load nat gas generation then exactly how are you going to handle emergencies?

We’ve already seen that the *existing* nat gas baseload generation can’t keep rotating blackouts from occurring in CA. Whack out that “base load” capacity and CA is *still* going to be in trouble, modern nat gas storage or not.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 23, 2021 4:45 am

“If emergency deliverability can’t meet base load then of what use is it?”

In Texas, it can. Easily. All it takes is some common sense winterization of existing facilities. As with virtually every future such event, the Feb ’21 event was followed for over a week, pre striking. Plenty of time to deploy.

“We’ve already seen that the *existing* nat gas baseload generation can’t keep rotating blackouts from occurring in CA. ”

It can now. Unlike comatose Texas, which has only made faith based improvements, post 2/21, Calilfornia realized their mistake and rectified it. Yes, they moved too fast. But it’s still a tale of 2 states. One is in denial. One is acting.

https://www.power-grid.com/td/is-california-ready-for-the-summers-of-2022-and-2023/#gref

Last edited 28 days ago by bigoilbob
paul courtney
Reply to  Tim Gorman
December 21, 2021 11:33 am

Mr. Gorman: Elsewhere, bob has told us that NG is dead, fracking is over, blah blah. Why upgrade NG storage, indeed, unless bob is wrong? He has that prog feature, the capacity to forget his last comment.

MarkW
Reply to  paul courtney
December 21, 2021 11:40 am

Like most alarmists/socialists, bob says and believes whatever he needs to say/believe to win the argument in front of him. Whether it makes sense, or even if it contradicts what he has said before isn’t relevant. What matters is defeating those who don’t worship as he does.

bigoilbob
Reply to  paul courtney
December 21, 2021 4:06 pm

Elsewhere, bob has told us that NG is dead, fracking is over, blah blah.”

You read what you wanted to read. Not all. Most of my fracking comments included comparisons to OPEC+ oil production. That is what will be on life support until the lower CAPEX and OPEX/boe OPEC+ oil is produced off. I.e., most of what we call “fraccing” activity. Natural gas is not “dead” at all. It s a vital bridge fuel. Gas fraccing is hanging on in W. Va and Pennsylvania, thanks to Ben Dover regulation. But note that the biggest operator, EQT, has lost half of it’s market cap since the mid teens.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/eqt-corporation/marketcap/

Ruleo
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:22 pm

Why is this link extremely vague and obtuse about who they are?

https://8marketcap.com/ runs that site. Still no information available.

Who runs that site?

Blind faith I take NOT.

Bryan A
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:43 am

They are a festering abomination but only because we had a Festering Obama-nation for 8 years from 2008 -2016
And now we have a Kowtowing O’Bai-den nation

Jeff Corbin
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 9:13 am

The cart before the horse, (i.e. wind generation and solar without an adequate storage and distribution systems) seems like Mother Superior jumping the gun. Whose dollars caused that to happen. We are all still waiting for THE BATTERY. What gets propped up crumbles.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 10:43 am

Christ on a bike, a night in the pub with you would be torture.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 21, 2021 10:49 am

Then stay in your subterranean comfort zone, winding up fellow dead enders.

Folks, LOVE how their is a sizable cadre willing to post facts in this fora. But the mutual aid society members here don’t go on above ground blogs like andthentheresphysics, because they are technically outed right away, and thereby get their tender tissues irritated. Let alone peer reviewed pubs…..

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:29 am

Mr. bob: So we learn you are a fan of Gavin and ATTP in one string. And I thought you were worth mockery.
Humans learned not to leave the dead above ground too long, such as Mr. Appel. A stench in the nostrils. Meanwhile, Gavin wants you tried for your (fossil-fuel extraction) crimes against the planet. Why don’t you spend your time and expertise showing Dave Middleton how to recap the carbon you loosed on us?

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:36 am

I’ve had a spar with andthentheresphysics. It was most amusing: he’s a CAGW zealot who gets all his, um, physics out of whack.
As for the pubs I frequent, providing they’ve got a good beer on tap, locals who like to chew the fat, and a landlord who’s not afraid of a lock-in, it’ll pass my review.
You, however, wouldn’t last a minute in such a pub if you started mouthing the nonsense you’ve been spewing here; you’d be slung out and barred for life, providing you haven’t already been glassed by one of the locals (and no, that’s not a threat)

bigoilbob
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 21, 2021 11:59 am

I’ve had a spar with andthentheresphysics.”

Interesting. I can google search posters on either this site or ATTP and get their posts. You, nada. Maybe you posted on your nextdoor site by mistake….

paul courtney
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 2:35 pm

Mr. bob: Ask your friend Dave what happens to your end of the google search if ATTP deleted the exchange Mr. Appel lost.
If you can’t discern Appel’s BS, you’re further gone than I imagined.

bigoilbob
Reply to  paul courtney
December 21, 2021 4:10 pm

if ATTP deleted the exchange Mr. Appel lost.”

Ah, the inevitable Dr. Evil “they erased the exchange” conspiracy theory. But feel free to dredge up ANY recent instances of WUWT posters venturing out of their comfy bubble bath, and offering a cogent argument in ATTP.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 4:41 pm

I was using a different name.
Nice try sweetcheeks, but you’ve failed.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Andrew Wilkins
December 21, 2021 6:30 pm

I was using a different name.”

“Yeah, that’s the ticket.”

Moving ahead:

What name?

“I can’t tell you. You’re one of them.

Andrew Wilkins
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 4:57 am

I won’t be telling you the name. I started using a different name on alarmist blogs to stay incognito: When I used my real name I once had a wing-nut CAGW zealot on an alarmist blog try to dox me by tracking down where I worked and then try and get me fired for daring to question his zealotry. Hence I started posting comments under a different name.
You trawling attp’s site to find my comments proves how obsessed you CAGW nutters are with anyone who dares to question the orthodoxy. What were you going to do once you’d found my comments?
As for your little YouTube vid, I think you labour under the misapprehension that you’re witty. Believe me, you’re not.
Anyway, we’ll leave it there as you’re boring me now.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 7:46 am

I find it funny that the guy who doesn’t post under his own name, ridicules someone else for not posting under their own name.

Then again, Bug Oil Boob was never the brightest candle on the shelf.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2021 8:00 am

I find it funny that the guy who doesn’t post under his own name, ridicules someone else for not posting under their own name.”

I use my nomdeWUWT for everything. Unlike Yeah, That’s The Ticket….

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 11:16 am

He uses his real name here, and a fake name at sites that are known to be hostile towards those who don’t worship as they do.
Nothing wrong with that. As usual, since you can’t actually refute the points made, you dive into an irrelevancy and use it to change the subject.

bigoilbob
Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2021 11:29 am

“…and a fake name at sites that are known to be hostile towards those who don’t worship as they do.”

Yah, one that he conveniently forgot, so we can’t check on this Big Foot argumentative victory.

It’s ok. I already had my feet up from his earlier posts….

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:41 am

Once again, bob demonstrates that his hatred towards those who don’t worship as he does knows no bounds.

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:47 pm

Bob, you say,
“Gas pipelines are “powered” by the most appropriate form of energy for that situation.”
And claim you’re “big oil? Small oil maybe and for sure not NG Bob.
Not using natural gas for compression on a cross country interstate natural gas transmission pipeline is so stupid that no one that ever worked in oil and gas could ever “honestly” say that IMHO.

paul courtney
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
December 22, 2021 4:07 am

Mr. Sandberg: Above, bob pretends he isn’t talking NG. In a post last week, he posited that WV NG fraccing was an environmental disaster across that state. But I learned something from him yesterday- his only connection to NG is his propensity to gaslight this site. Like here. I learned he’s not worth mockery.

MarkW
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
December 22, 2021 7:48 am

As always, bob says whatever he needs to say to win the argument. The fact that he completely ignores the various EPA regulations on this subject is just more proof of that.

ATheoK
Reply to  Dennis G Sandberg
December 22, 2021 2:00 pm

And claim you’re “big oil? Small oil maybe and for sure not NG Bob”

Boiled bob has all of earmarks of a total zealot.

That effort it is trying to dox people commenting here, coupled with nonsensical blustering and insults betray the hater of all things modern.

Kinda like McKibben or kook, er Cook. All zealous crackpot and no reality.

D M
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 5:13 am

BigOilBob, r u suggesting TX create near big cities storage facilities like CA’s infamous Aliso Canyon (aka Porter Ranch) facility?

To all, Aliso Canyon leaked vast amounts of natural gas from Oct 2015 into Feb 2016.

bigoilbob
Reply to  D M
December 22, 2021 3:51 pm

“To all, Aliso Canyon leaked vast amounts of natural gas from Oct 2015 into Feb 2016.”

Aliso Canyon’s inherent problems were all too typical. What was atypical was Guv Gavin’s response. He radically reorganized CalGEM, girding up their gas storage staff in both numbers and skill level. A leading authority on downhole safety systems and well integrity is running the show.

Nat gas storage fields are vintage production fields with nominal well integrity, into which they’ve thrown some sundry, often vintage, downhole safety systems. Accidents waiting to happen, but we need them badly. Hence Gavin’s uncommon sense response…

Last edited 29 days ago by bigoilbob
AWG
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 5:12 pm

Pretty much every statement you made there is a lie, Bob.
As for your lie about a “butt yanked parameter”, there are a number of studies that show not just a doubling, but a little more than doubling due to the fact generators have scheduled maintenance.

Then its also important to note that to be able to provide leveling with the fickle tax subsidized wind/solar installations, they can’t use efficient CCGT gas plants, but 40% less efficient GT. So the windmills actually force thermal generators to be less efficient and thus use more energy and put more plant food in the air.

FERC has also made Winter Resiliency a problem by strongly discouraging a practice called “Name That Fuel”. We all know that coal and oil can be stored and provide a level of resiliency, but FERC won’t let the RTOs actually plan for that – it has to be fuel neutral, which is plane stupidity.

We could blame either the Obama or the Trump administration for that, but FERC is an independent federal regulator and operates outside any practical political oversight.

The only way that wind/solar could make any sense is to drive operations that don’t require dispatchable energy, like crypto mining, water desalinization and maybe reverse pumping water uphill to a hydro reservoir (aka battery).

The problem with that is the owners of the unreliables (e.g. Walmart, Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook) they desperately need the tax write-offs and the carbon credits so whatever crap they generate wins the supply auctions and makes reliable energy uncompetitive.

william kotcher
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 5:47 pm

Oh, and maybe follow Governor Gavin in California, and modernize your natural gas storage facilities. They are a festering abomination everywhere, with only California improving them.

Sure, that would be modernization after the 2015 Aliso Canyon natural gas leak? Pretty easy to modernize stuff after it completely fails and you have no choice?

California modernizing natural gas storage after the storage failed and poisonous gas leaked into a residential neighborhood is the example bob gives us to follow?

Jeffery P
Reply to  Patrick B
December 21, 2021 10:15 am

Exactly — Wind and solar are unreliable and intermittent. Foolishly choosing to use these as primary energy sources forces some hard choices.

Do you build enough natural gas powered generation capacity to replace wind and solar when they don’t work? Do you build a lot of storage capacity? Do you just do without?

Dennis G Sandberg
Reply to  Patrick B
December 21, 2021 8:30 pm

It’s not complicated.

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 7:15 am

2010 was not a major freeze in Texas, the last were the ones (2) at each end of the year in 1989. I saw it reported during the 2021 freeze that they did not go back that far for the reference freeze, link around somewhere. On the central coast where I live the wind died during the freeze. Without denying other problems, the two major times wind dies in Texas is the middle of both winter and summer. As of last Tuesday the port offloading the parts had oil supply boats and the land stock of blades and turbine parts was the lowest that I have seen in years. Windmill lack of reliance has been known for centuries, in Texas a long known problem because of using them for water supply over much of the western part of the state for well over a century.

bigoilbob
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
December 21, 2021 11:55 am

2010 was not a major freeze in Texas, the last were the ones (2) at each end of the year in 1989.”

Forgive me please. Early 2011

https://www.weather.gov/crp/feb2011_icestorm

Windmill lack of reliance has been known for centuries, in Texas a long known problem because of using them for water supply over much of the western part of the state for well over a century.”

And yet, they are the cheapest form of Texas power. Especially if you include the external costs of fossil fuel energy that are put onto mostly low income, low net worth folks. Those fossil fuel cost communizations are orders of magnitude higher than those incurred by renewables. And even paying for their intermittence, with extra grid capacity and surge capacity, the costs are still much lower.

The head scratcher is why ERCOT thought there wouldn’t be a wind shortfall in this extreme event. Especially because they were told what to do in 2011 – and again this year. I.e., the solution I ripped off from the 2011 report. Even in wind energy states that properly freeze resist the innards of the turbines, they know they will have to feather them in freezing sleet, and plan for it.

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 3:54 pm

First off, there are no external costs to fossil fuels.
Secondly, wind is only cheap if you fail to account for the costs of backup.

Ebor
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:24 pm

Haha, you’re rich…EPA, Greenpeace…give me a break.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Ebor
December 21, 2021 8:25 pm

Messenger murder. Got any actual rebuts?

LdB
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:38 pm

I am not sure the green peace one in particular actually needs any rebuttal … it is comedy gold just read what it says. Start with the 230,000 deaths per year ….what retard would buy that (hint doesn’t appear in official deaths records). That trash it attribution statistics and it is total and utter crap which would require a brain injury to believe.

Climate science seems to be the only field that accepts attribution statistics most fields just roll there eyes as they know it’s marketing junk used to make your claim look good.

Last edited 29 days ago by LdB
Ruleo
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 11:26 pm

Genetic fallacy does not apply as a defense to your citations that are indisputably documented being biased and routinely false. You would be better off sourcing 8kun or reddit…

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 7:51 am

Would reality be sufficient for you?

ATheoK
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 2:07 pm

Neither is a credible source. Period!

LdB
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:35 pm

I wet myself laughing at the GreenPeace $8 billion every day lose … that is a classic. If you counted the profit per day it would run to trillions especially of you used their version of “special greentard accounting”.
Thanks for that one … got a good giggle.

Last edited 29 days ago by LdB
MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 22, 2021 7:51 am

Every single one completely refuted.
Both hurricanes and tornadoes have not increased in number or size.
Droughts, well within historical norms.
Floods, well within historical norms.
Wildfires, only a problem in areas where government does not permit proper forest management.

The fact that you believe anything that supports what you want to believe is one of the reasons why we love you so much.

Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 7:44 am

There is no question that we COULD have wind power work reasonably well. The correct question is: Why would we bother with unreliable and intermittent electricity?

Derg
Reply to  Dennis Topczewski
December 21, 2021 1:30 pm

Bingo

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 7:48 am

Who stole yer coffee this fine AM, blob?

MarkW
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 8:13 am

Is there anyone out there who is able to interpret that?
Outside blind hatred towards all things conservative?

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 8:36 am

I don’t even read anything that big old boob writes. Just scroll on by. Life’s too short.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 9:36 am

I don’t have access to a blob—>English translator.

Derg
Reply to  bigoilbob
December 21, 2021 1:23 pm

BigOil shows up with a Simonesqe clown show. Good one.

griff
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 21, 2021 7:17 am

Texas discovered how your fossil fuel plant fails if you don’t winterise it and the folly of not connecting your grid outside your state.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 7:24 am

of course Texas is a huge state and shouldn’t have to hook up to an outside grid and wouldn’t have to if it had reliable power- as for winterizing- we’ve been told that there wouldn’t be any more winters due to climate change- at least not like winters used to be

Bryan A
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 21, 2021 8:45 am

Of course the neighboring States were also freezing and had no surplus to send to Texas either so interties would have proven fruitless

Harves
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 21, 2021 11:36 am

You’re confusing climate change with global warming – the previous time the “science was settled” when winters were to be a thing of the past. Now the “science has been settled” again climate change will cause the worst of of everything blizzards, heatwaves, tornadoes, pandemics, plagues of locusts and earthquakes. Keep up.

menace
Reply to  Harves
December 21, 2021 3:52 pm

yep and today we had one of those “extreme” nice days caused by climate change – not a cloud in the sky – must be the first time in history not a cloud in the sky! unprecedented!

MarkW
Reply to  menace
December 22, 2021 7:57 am

Around here, they are predicting that we break the record warmth for Christmas day by a degree or two.
However this number will still be 3 or 4 degrees below the record for the month, which was set almost 50 years ago.

So, is this new record high due to “climate change” or is it due to the fact that records for this city only started about 150 years ago?

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 7:38 am

Can’t you at least try Griff. Texas wind went to functional zero while gas ramped 450%.
Not in dispute.
Wind is crap.
Same thing you are seeing in GB

H. D. Hoese
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 21, 2021 7:50 am

As I reported above in checking around a few Texas places the maximum wind speed was 3mph in Corpus Christi where a large number are in the area. San Antonio, among others, was zero.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  H. D. Hoese
December 21, 2021 11:52 am

Here’s the picture to go with the words.

ventusky-wind-10m-20210216t0300-31n100w.jpg
H. D. Hoese
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
December 21, 2021 1:48 pm

Those were surface winds, at 11AM saw the edge of the Corpus field, they were not moving. These winds look more to the east where I didn;t check E of San Antonio, not sure of any whirleys over there..

MarkW
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 21, 2021 8:20 am

You don’t understand, had gas increased by 500%, there wouldn’t have been a problem. Therefor gas is at fault. /sarc

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 21, 2021 10:29 am

Thanks to the nutters in GB, Britain is no longer “Great”.

I can’t wait to see a repeat of 9th august 2019, but in mid January or February 2022, preferably with an outdoor temp of below -10C.

meab
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 7:53 am

Uh, griffter, the states surrounding Texas had very little excess electricity to sell to Texas because they were cold too.

This is so simple that even you should be able to understand it. Texas spent too much money on unreliable renewables and too little on reliable, dispatchable power with energy storage (coal, nuclear, and even natural gas that doesn’t rely on the grid). There’s no way that any thinking person can come to a different conclusion.

Rich Davis
Reply to  meab
December 21, 2021 8:39 am

You mention “thinking person” in a reply to griff?

Lrp
Reply to  meab
December 21, 2021 10:03 am

Stupid people can’t think

paul courtney
Reply to  meab
December 21, 2021 11:52 am

meab: griff was thinking of tying TX to Mexico’s grid. (I’m sorry, had to get done laughing). Okay, back on.
The Mexican gov’t heard TX needed dispatchable power, so they dispatched folks from Guatemala and Ecuador.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:18 am

1) The biggest problems was changing gas compressors from being powered by gas to be powered by the grid. Texas had no choice in that, it was an EPA mandate.
2) Texas is connected to grids outside the state.

Jeffery P
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 10:27 am

Actually, Texas is an isolated power grid so that it isn’t subject to FERC regulation.

Robert of Texas
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 10:31 am

“changing gas compressors from being powered by gas to be powered by the grid. Texas had no choice in that, it was an EPA mandate”

Thank you, I am so tired of having to repeat points like this to the uninformed.

ERCOT also had power turned off to natural gas producers and distributors – they had never audited their lists.

Winterizing wind turbines in Texas is a useless proposition. It makes them cost even more and they use some of the very electricity you need to stay warm. Meanwhile, they are useful about once every 10 years, assuming the wind is actually blowing (it wasn’t by Day 2 of the freeze). Investors will not invest in an economical fail situation without government subsidies, which is the only reason why we have wind turbines in Texas.

Winterizing the cool water intake at the nuclear facility is straight forward and easy. Winterizing natural gas distribution – not so much. The best approach is to require more onsite storage just like we used to do with coal.

Our wonderful TEXAS government watchdog called ERCOT is incompetent or we would not be building more wind turbines. You fix the TEXAS base load for peak demand, and then use the intermittent power for sales across state borders. You also pay for more power grid restart facilities – something intermittent power can’t do as it requires stability.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 10:01 am

Do you need to winterise a coal power plant?

MarkW
Reply to  Lrp
December 21, 2021 11:44 am

If you get a rain followed by a freeze, you might need a bigger skip loader to break free the coal.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Lrp
December 22, 2021 3:45 pm

That coal-fired powerplant located about 20 miles from my house never missed a beat during the Feb. 2021 arctic freeze, and we had no blackouts in this area, although other parts of the State did have a few, minor blackouts.

Last edited 29 days ago by Tom Abbott
Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 10:22 am

“nd the folly of not connecting your grid outside your state.”

If Texas were connected to other grids, it wouldn’t have made a difference, since the other grids were having their own problems keeping electricity flowing during that cold spell.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
December 21, 2021 11:45 am

Here in Arkansas we were being asked to conserve electricity so that rotating blackouts could be avoided.

Jeffery P
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 10:24 am

So it’s the fossil fuel plants to blame for wind failing? The fossil fuel plants wouldn’t have come into play if wind generation hadn’t failed, griff.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 11:32 am

You have been told numerous times, that Texas has grid connects to power pools outside Texas’ borders.
When you know one thing and habitually claim another, you shouldn’t wonder at the instant skepticism and contempt which greet any and every thing you say here.

menace
Reply to  Alan Robertson
December 21, 2021 4:42 pm

There are two DC ties to the eastern interconnect and one to Mexico, the total power transfer capacity is just 1.1 GW. Apparently it was not adequate to prevent the issues.

There was a private $1.6B project planned for a 5 GW 3-way DC tie between Texas, East and West that fell through.
Tres Amigas SuperStation – Wikipedia

I assume they would recover some costs by taking a cut off the power they transfer but I suspect they also hoped the power companies or gov’t to throw a lot of money their way as well. Maybe they realized there were too many palms to grease to get it done and gave up.

stewartpid
Reply to  Tom Halla
December 21, 2021 7:36 am

Paul’s nought percent of nothing made me think of the old Billy Preston song Billy Preston – Nothing From Nothing – YouTube

richard
December 21, 2021 6:11 am

What is, Germany, going to do without coal- https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE

Patrick B
Reply to  richard
December 21, 2021 6:59 am

Germany can fall back on all their solar – because it works so well at high latitudes.

MarkW
Reply to  Patrick B
December 21, 2021 8:21 am

Especially when covered with snow.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 8:53 am

At night

Rusty
Reply to  Patrick B
December 21, 2021 11:58 am

And at night. /wink

Rainer Bensch
Reply to  Rusty
December 22, 2021 4:31 am

Hey, night sky is black, coal is also black. So what’s the difference? /s

Beta Blocker
Reply to  richard
December 21, 2021 7:01 am

Richard says: “What is, Germany, going to do without coal – https://app.electricitymap.org/zone/DE

The Germans will quietly hope that France and Poland build enough new nuclear capacity quickly enough to cover their needs.

The oncoming SMR’s will be capable of doing a much better job of load-following than legacy third generation nuclear plants can now do.

However, load-following capability is a double edge sword in managing the financial risk of a new-build nuclear plant.

If you aren’t selling as much electricity during periods of reduced output, then you aren’t getting as much revenue for amortizing your capital and operating costs.

The solution for the French and the Poles in dealing with this problem is very obvious and very simple — charge the Germans significantly higher prices for peak output electricity.

As with any marketing strategy, the assumptions being made upfront will largely determine the success or failure of the strategy.

For the French and the Poles, the assumption would be that the Germans will not wake up to reality soon enough to handle their power shortfalls on their own.

Here we see another major benefit of the oncoming SMR technology. More units can be added to a plant site over time as demand grows. If demand isn’t growing as expected, then adding another SMR unit can be postponed until market conditions improve.

Joel O’Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  Beta Blocker
December 21, 2021 8:15 am

Like a heroin dealer on his buyer-users, Putin first has to get Germany deeply addicted to his product. Then when the addiction hooks are set, Germany will fall inline and become his bitch whore..

Camaalot
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 21, 2021 8:57 am

Of course, because it’s the big bad Putin who sets Germany’s energy policy???

pigs_in_space
Reply to  Camaalot
December 21, 2021 10:36 am

Putin was just a pretty poor KGB hack from DDR until he latched on to the idea with his best mate Seichin, using energy as a weapon was the best way to get a poverty stricken country noticed when it has nukes but an economy no bigger than that of Italy.

Kleptocrats are worse than useless biz managers, so since stealing Yukos, all they could do was make the country poorer aand take everyone’s human rights, while clapping successful business managers in prisons full of torturers, raping and wounding the hapless new style Gulag victims.

If Sakharov were still alive, he would be a new “enemy of the people”.

meab
Reply to  Beta Blocker
December 21, 2021 8:17 am

SMRs are high cost per kW-hr. – quite a bit higher than Gen III nuclear. Their construction and licensing costs are very high now, and since they produce far less power than Gen III (a factor of ~30 less), their operating costs are much higher per kW-hr too. One way to get the cost down would be to manufacture them by the many dozens to hundreds in factories but that won’t happen until licensing costs are significantly reduced. That isn’t likely to happen until the public sees that unreliable renewables can’t get the job done. At that point it will take much additional time to get SMR factories built and cranking out SMRs. I’m a big proponent of nuclear power (PhD nuclear engineer) but we need to stay realistic, SMRs aren’t going to take over anytime soon – it’s several decades off.

Joel O'Bryan(@joelobryan)
Reply to  meab
December 21, 2021 1:52 pm

The absolute resistance from the Left to building new nuclear reactors is the clearest evidence that the climate scam has nothing to do with climate or CO2 emissions.

oeman 50
Reply to  Beta Blocker
December 21, 2021 8:54 am

Except France has declared they are phasing out nuclear because greens don’ t
like it Fessenheim 1 & 2 are the first to go, having been shut down in 2020.

pigs_in_space
Reply to  oeman 50
December 21, 2021 10:41 am

the greenies were campaigning not to have Fessenheim at all, then when it was keeping the lights on in nearby Colmar, then campaigned to have it turned off. By the time it was a little old, but had contributed mountains of energy to Alsace, the greenies had another pop at it under that cretin Hollande.

guess what party Hollande came from?
Socialists.

Raven
Reply to  richard
December 21, 2021 7:16 am

Just wait a week!

The Grohnde Nuclear Power Plant will be decommissioned on 31 December 2021 as part of Germany’s transition to a renewable energy future.

In 2021 the plant passed the mark of 400 TWh total low-carbon electricity output since it was connected to the grid. Over the period the plant has prevented 400 million tons of CO2 emissions

Units operational: 1 x 1,430 MW
Nameplate capacity: 1,430 MW
Capacity factor: 87.8%
Annual net output: 10,996 GW·h

All that juice sitting on the acreage of a hobby farm.
Poof . . gone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grohnde_Nuclear_Power_Plant

Grohnde Nuclear Power Plant.jpeg
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Raven
December 21, 2021 7:27 am

400 million tons of CO2 emissions plant food

corrected it!

Raven
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
December 21, 2021 8:32 am

Haha, yes . . my mistake . . it’s deprived the world of plant food.
Below is another view of the plant.

And these dumbasses will gleefully blow up those cooling towers and dot that beautiful countryside with windmills.

And to think, my father (British Army, Royal Engineers) was posted to Germany (where I was christened) after the war to help with their long process of rebuilding & reconstruction.
Just tragic.

the_Grohnde_nuclear_power_plant.jpg
stewartpid
Reply to  Raven
December 21, 2021 7:40 am

Good thing they shut it down …. it is a prime location for Pacific tsunamis 😉

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  Raven
December 21, 2021 10:22 am

Construction started 1975, operational September 1984.

This is a large reactor; in 6 different years it produced the most net electricity of any reactor in the world.

That capacity factor of 87.8% is over 37 years of operation. It’s being retired probably 20 years earlier than technically necessary. Presumably the construction loans have all been paid back by now, so any remaining years of operation have the lowest possible operational costs. For people worried about nuclear safety, low OpEx means a plant can afford expensive safety upgrades while remaining profitable.

Vogtle (Georgia) units 1 and 2 were re-licensed in 2009 to 2047 and 2049 respectively, which will be 60 years after each first went into operation.

The oldest US reactors I could find still operating are:

  1. Nine Mile Point unit 1 (New York) at 644 MW. Operational December 1969 and licensed until 2029.
  2. Ginna (New York) at 610 MW. Operational June 1970 and licensed until 2029.
  3. Dresden 2 and 3 (Illinois), at 867 MW each. Unit 1 went operational June 1970 and unit 2 went operational November the following year. In 2004 the NRC extended their operating license from 40 to 60 years, until 2030 and 2031 respectively.

I don’t see any US reactor licensed for more than 60 years. I don’t know if this is NRC policy or just that the technology of the early reactors became obsolete. In any case, there are plenty of US reactors contemporary with Grohnde that will be producing power for decades to come.

paul courtney
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 21, 2021 12:08 pm

Mr. Watt: When U.S. enviros went to war on nukes in the 70’s, they were very effective. Some nuke plants were all built, but the operators switched to coal before the nuclear fuel could be brought in (over enviros having die-ins- think ER invented that?).

Rod Evans
Reply to  richard
December 21, 2021 8:23 am

That is an easy one to answer Richard. They will freeze. The next few days and weeks will be an indication of how difficult it will get for Germany without a reliable supply of Gas. Russia are turning the valves off currently, so stand by.

Reply to  richard
December 21, 2021 8:46 am

Import nuclear and coal power from Poland and boast how they manage wiithout – er – nuclear and coal?

fretslider
December 21, 2021 6:16 am

There hasn’t been any wind here for some time – several days. There might be some wind on Friday

Further south, it will turn drier with sunny spells. Friday will be a wet and windy day for most as outbreaks of heavy rain move in from the west. “

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather

In the meantime…

LdB
Reply to  fretslider
December 21, 2021 6:22 am

In the meantime sponge off your neighbours and hope they have extra and aren’t upset with you over fishing rights or the like. When really in the deep end burn coal.

patrick healy
Reply to  LdB
December 21, 2021 7:38 am

or better still – import clear felled trees thousands of miles from North America and burn them in power plants in Drax in Yorkshire ( which sits on top of 600 year coal seam).

Reply to  patrick healy
December 21, 2021 8:53 am

Whatever it takes. Drax is running flat out – 3GW of wood and 1GW of coal.

It burns wood because it was told it wouldnt be allowed to burn coal any more and would get renewable subsidy for wood.

Then after a billion had been spent installing wood handling plant, it was told it wouldn’t.

The coal under Drax would cost about three times what importing US or Australian or even Polish coal would, There may be 600 years of it, but its not worth digging up.

Not when there ten thousand years of uranium in the seas round Britain, that is.

There is nothing coal plant can do that nuclear plant cant do better. at one percent of the fuel cost.

fretslider
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 21, 2021 9:18 am

I’m sticking with coal in my fireplace

angech
Reply to  fretslider
December 21, 2021 1:14 pm

Heating if needed yes.
Health long term no.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 21, 2021 9:56 am

Leo Smith,

What you say about importing coal to the UK is true because of political actions in the 1980s and 90s. The UK coal industry was then closed for purely political reasons (I was the Vice President of the British Association of Colliery Management).

Prior to the closure of Britain’s coal industry, British coal was the cheapest fuel available to the power stations. This was mainly because the power stations were built near the mines so British coal had small transport costs from the ports. Also, infrastucture investment had been made for the mines.

Re-opening deep mines is not practical because closure of the mines has allowed settlement which has fractured coal seams. And few surface mines are practical in the UK which has been mined for centuries.

The UK’s coal industry discovered North Sea oil and gas. The oil and gas are running out but an additional – and plentiful – supply of gas would be available if fracking were allowed, but it is not.

So, the UK has a disaster of an energy policy which was initiated for political reasons and is being maintained for political reasons.

The situation was predictable. Indeed, it was predicted, see
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf

Richard

Oldseadog
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
December 21, 2021 10:41 am

There is still a lot of oil in British offshore waters, what is running out, or indeed has already run out, is the common sense to allow the oil to be developed.
But no matter, we can just import what we need and never mind the extra expence.

By the way, a great sadness to see Longannet’s lum fall last week.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Oldseadog
December 21, 2021 11:17 am

Oldseadog,

One chooses how much detail to put in a blog post. I thought I said sufficient to make my point which was that the UK has a disaster of an energy policy which was initiated for political reasons and is being maintained for political reasons. As you say, it is not only UK gas production which is inhibited by political idiocy and perhaps I should have said that.

I, too, regret the end of Longannet where coal was conveyed out of the mine by a drift that had its surface-end within the power station. I proudly display on my mantlepiece a silver hip flask and a cut glass tumbler each engraved with the Longannet coat of arms: the pit presented them to me.

Richard

MarkW
Reply to  Richard S Courtney
December 21, 2021 11:55 am

It’s a political decision to shut a mine that is losing money?

Reply to  LdB
December 21, 2021 8:48 am

In the meantine burn coal and wood and uranium and send it to France who is in far bigger trouble than you are

Dave Yaussy
December 21, 2021 6:16 am

It is difficult getting people to understand that the capital cost of reliable backup, like natural gas combined cycle or nuclear, is the same regardless of how often it is used. Those costs have to be recovered over whatever period of time the backup is used, even if it’s just a few hours per week. That need to recover the cost of backup power is obvious to those who are interested, like those reading WUWT, but it’s less clear to those who have never thought about it.

The mainstream media doesn’t accurately inform their readers and listeners, the ratepayers, about this fact. At some point, people facing higher rates and sketchy service will start to wonder why, and investigate. Hope they come here to learn more.

MarkW
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
December 21, 2021 8:26 am

If you only have minutes to get the plant up and running, you can’t wait for your staff to drive in once the call has gone out.
They have to be on site, 24/7. Equipment has to be fired up an run on a regular basis, to make sure it’s all lubricated and that it is ready to go to full power when the call comes.

The difference in cost between running a plant at 0% vs 100% is quite small.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2021 8:06 am

There is one difference between 0% and 100% that makes a big difference. At 100% they are producing a product that can be sold to cover the costs of running the plant.
If you reduce the average output of a plant from 90% to 80%, while not reducing the cost of operating the plant, then the cost of the product has to go up. This is one of the reason’s why renewables make all other forms of power more expensive.
I know griff and his fellow anti-science types, like to claim that the increase in energy costs is the fault of fossil fuel, but that has never been true.

Bro. Steve
December 21, 2021 6:24 am

In the 2000s, the financial sector attempted to cobble together large numbers of bad loans to create a “fund” that would yield reliable returns. We discovered in 2008 that that strategy merely built up bigger failures, and we were introduced to the unforgettable phrase, “too big to fail.”

Now the power sector is being compelled to make the same mistake with electricity — cobbling together large numbers of unreliable generators in the attempt to build a reliable grid. Texas, California, the United Kingdom, and Germany are showing us it won’t work. The harder we push into this, the bigger the failures will become. Please, can we stop this before it’s really serious?

Mr.
Reply to  Bro. Steve
December 21, 2021 8:52 am

A very appropriate analogy.

MarkW
Reply to  Bro. Steve
December 21, 2021 11:57 am

The bad loans, like the unreliable power generators were both done at the insistence of regulators. Companies were forced to either find a way to adapt, or die.

TonyG
Reply to  Bro. Steve
December 21, 2021 1:23 pm

Please, can we stop this before it’s really serious?

Probably not. Those pushing it are completely disconnected from reality.

Alan Millar
December 21, 2021 6:24 am

In the UK, at this exact moment, wind is ‘providing’, if you can call it that, 1.8% of demand.

If we had ten times more wind resource, something that will never happen, we would be way way short of being able to manage the grid and that is before we start lumping vastly more demand on the system, with electric cars and the abolition of gas boilers.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Millar
December 21, 2021 8:32 am

Just from that number you would need more than 50 times as many turbines to keep the lights on.
The reality is that you would actually way more than 50 times for two very basic reasons.
1) Most of the best sites have already been taken. Future sites will not provide as much power per turbine as existing sites.
2) The bigger your fields get, the more the turbines start interfering with each other. The upwind turbines are stealing power from the downwind turbines.

Peter Barrett
December 21, 2021 7:00 am

There really is a very simple solution for the UK, I can’t think why it has not already been enacted. I understand it is now feasible to construct “floating” windmills. A couple of thousand of those, roped together in batches, could be towed around our shores by nuclear powered tugs to points where the weather forecasters (never wrong) indicate there should be the strongest breezes.

A few hundred waterproof exterior connectors (available in good hardware stores) strategically placed permanently around our shores would enable the power to be fed via extension leads directly into the national grid network. I’m wondering if I can patent this scheme before someone at the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (yes, the word strategy is in their title) steals my idea.

Reply to  Peter Barrett
December 21, 2021 8:17 am

Thanks! I need a good laugh!

MarkW
Reply to  Peter Barrett
December 21, 2021 8:32 am

I sure hope that was sarcasm, because it really sounds like something griff would say.

Reply to  Peter Barrett
December 21, 2021 8:55 am

Why bother finding the wind? The nuclear powered tugs would privide enough wind to make the blades go around.

Harves
Reply to  Peter Barrett
December 21, 2021 11:46 am

I’m sure you could live the high life on the subsidies you could get for such an innovative proposal. Failed renewable projects are a big earner world wide.

H.R.
Reply to  Peter Barrett
December 21, 2021 6:56 pm

Why bother with nuclear tugs, Peter?

Just reverse half the windmills to power the raft of turbines to wherever the wind is blowing the strongest. Simple physics.

(For MarkW, who needs to take his Model 3 SarcDetector in for a tuneup… 😜)

Dean
Reply to  Peter Barrett
December 21, 2021 9:19 pm

Why not just tow the windmills behind the tugs permanently so that there is always wind to produce electricity?

Each tug could also tow a barge with batteries on it so you could just hook up the barge when back in port.

The answers are just so simple.

Bruce Cobb
December 21, 2021 7:01 am

Not with wind, or solar, fairy dust, and unicorn farts either.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
December 21, 2021 7:25 am

Oh really? I thought Unicorn farts were the most reliable source of renewable energy available to mankind!!!

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 21, 2021 10:10 am

Alan the Brit,

Yes, you are right at present, but I am told unicorn farts will soon become redundant because electricity storage is nearly perfected. s/

Richard

H.R.
Reply to  Alan the Brit
December 21, 2021 7:00 pm

CUFT, Alan. CUFT.***

Compressed Unicorn Fart Technology. It’s the future!



***Just when you thought there were one too many acronyms…

Peter W
December 21, 2021 7:03 am

Here in central Florida there is seldom enough wind to supply any reasonable amount of electricity. Having lived here for several years, sun isn’t that reliable either. Lots of showers in the summer along with miscellaneous clouds all year. Right now we are going through a period of practically constant cloudiness.

MarkW
Reply to  Peter W
December 21, 2021 8:34 am

How well do wind turbines survive at cat 4 or 5 hurricane?

Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 10:33 am

I was surprised to see that all of Disney’s solar panels survived Hurricane Irma. I had expected to see carnage.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
December 21, 2021 12:01 pm

Any numbers on how quickly those panels were able to return to full power?
A lot of damage isn’t readily apparent.

Tom
December 21, 2021 7:03 am

I am confident that eventually they are going to understand that heavy reliance on wind and solar is going to require either large scale storage capacity or dispatchable power of the kind that people have grown accustomed to. Time and Mother Nature are on our side on this.

griff
December 21, 2021 7:16 am

There is 36GW of offshore and floating wind already scheduled to arrive in the UK before 2027… which will be widely distributed and situated in high capacity areas not now exploited. The Irish republic will also see well in excess of 5GW of offshore wind. It is very likely that by 2030 the UK has 50GW of wind capacity.

That massively expands the minimum figures given here and of course there will be still further expansion across the connected and about to be more connected nearby parts of Europe.

There is no suggestion of reducing gas capacity in that timescale (there are at least 2 gas plants sitting unused) and a plethora of non wind renewable projects including tidal, pumped storage, largest yet grid scale battery etc etc.

I’ve been reading now for over a decade about how this can’t work and yet it still is.

Curious George(@moudryj)
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 7:36 am

How much is 0% of 36GW?

Bryan A
Reply to  Curious George
December 21, 2021 8:53 am

Holey gobsmackers fatman, 5GW…that’ll power 4 Delorean time machines

menace
Reply to  Bryan A
December 21, 2021 4:44 pm

Do the brits say “jigga-watts’?

Rich Davis
Reply to  Curious George
December 21, 2021 9:38 am

Now, now, be fair and ask the grfftard how much is 5% of 50GW.

Then you can ask him how to deal with a swing from 2.5GW when you need 40GW and your neighbors don’t have any surplus to 50GW when you need 20GW and your neighbors also have a surplus.

Of course we know his answer. You just need £100 trillion for batteries. Easy peasy.

Another easy solution is just to turn off everybody’s smart meter except for Politburo members.

And £3/kWh seems like an appropriate rate dontchathink?

menace
Reply to  Rich Davis
December 21, 2021 4:53 pm

I wonder, what do all the gas and coal power plant workers do on the days when the wind blows good and their plants have to shut down to preclude excess generation?

Do they get to stay home with full pay and benefits for like 1/3 of the days in a year? Where do I get in line to apply?

Or do they multitask and go on the road to do maintenance on the wind generators and stuff? (yeah right…)

MarkW
Reply to  menace
December 21, 2021 6:26 pm

They have to stay at the gas and coal plants, ready to fire up the burners just in case the wind stops blowing or a cloud passes over the solar arrays.

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 7:45 am

50GW?
Wow
That means it would be producing 5GW right now instead of the current 2?
Amazing.
All for the low low cost of hundreds of Billions.

Because GB is running massive surpluses and doesn’t know where to spend it all right?

Alan Millar
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
December 21, 2021 8:29 am

Wind is currently ‘supplying’ the UK with less than 1GW not 2.

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:06 am

Are you really unable to utilise the most basic logic in that brain of yours?

Wind is currently supplying less than 1GW to the UK. If we had 50GW of capacity it would be supplying less than 2GW. i.e less than coal is supplying, which is surprising, given we have actually closed most of the coal plants and removed coal the rest from day to day supply of the grid.
It costs a fortune to pay for them to be restarted to supply the grid, something UK citizens are forking out for at the moment.

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:16 am

It works in the UK because it is backed up by our gas supplies. The UK has fallen from 100% home produced gas to half now. The rest is imported from week to week and we have hardly any usable storage and are utterly reliant on other countries maintaining a day to day supply.

The UK has been disinvesting from exploiting new gas fields, meaning that home produced supplies will fall to only one third in this decade, increasing the need to import more and becoming ever more reliant on the goodwill of other countries. If some of these countries pulled the plug, the UK economy would collapse and you would see deaths on an unprecedented scale.

Go forward to a week like this in the future, with your magnificent wind capacity of 50GW producing less than 2GW in actuality. What would be holding the grid up, especially since we will have switched to electric vehicles and banned gas boilers?

meab
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:30 am

Don’t be dishonest griffter, grid scale batteries won’t work.

The Hornsdale power reserve in Australia was the world’s biggest back-up battery when it was built in 2017. There are larger batteries now, but only marginally larger. Hornsdale was originally built with 129 MWh of storage yet it could not store enough energy to buffer solar or wind without fossil fuel backup. Why? It could provide a total of 70 MW for just 10 minutes or 30 MW for 3 hours. That’s TINY. What it can do is buffer a small wind farm so that when the wind dies off it gives the utility enough time to bring a Natural Gas fired turbine on line. 

To store enough energy from a solar or wind farm the size of one nuclear power plant (1000 MWe) to last through one single night would require a battery about 90 times bigger than Hornsdale (more in the winter when daylight hours are few) but Hornsdale cost over $70 million US dollars. Even a battery 90 times larger than Hornsdale costing $6.0 billion wouldn’t be anywhere near big enough to buffer the unreliable renewable farm through a single day of cloudy or calm weather, let alone a week. And that’s just for a farm the size of a single nuclear plant. Do the math(s).  That’s why batteries won’t turn solar or wind into a reliable source. No matter how many wind turbines you build in the UK there will be many hours when the entirety of the UK is calm, so a connected grid isn’t the answer either, unless the connected grid has the capacity of all the wind turbines. Think!

JeffC
Reply to  meab
December 21, 2021 9:27 am

They are crowing in the UK about building Europes biggest battery. 360 MW. However they don’t say whether that will last for 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days or whatever. In any case MW when GW is what’s required is no use.

https://www.nepic.co.uk/blog/memberposts/europes-largest-battery-storage-plant-could-be-built-on-teesside/

Joel
Reply to  JeffC
December 21, 2021 9:53 am

I think 4 hours is the industry standard.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  JeffC
December 21, 2021 3:16 pm

It’s very difficult to take any reports of batteries seriously when the describe them in terms of MW. Not understanding basic scientific units is very telling, because it means that they don’t understand the basic scientific concepts behind it.

In any case, using any of these revolutionary grid scale batteries have be a pathetic effect on the actual grid. At best they will keep a few places powered until reliables can be ramped up to replace unreliables that stop providing power.

If they were actually employed to replace the lost unreliable power, the massive draw would cause the batteries to explode.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:35 am

It doesn’t matter how many turbines you have, when the wind isn’t blowing.

Jeffery P
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 10:33 am

Then let’s double capacity! No, wait…

Alan Millar
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:39 am

Grid scale batteries? Laughable.

The worlds largest storage battery, cost way over a billion and can output 300mw for four hours. Four hours! What do you do then?

Oh and these batteries have to be replaced very regularly if they haven’t already exploded by then. A report on this ‘worlds largest battery’ said that………….. The project began construction in December 2019 and Phase 1 began operating at the end of 2020. It is made of LG JH4 cells in TR1300 racks in two storeys in the old turbine hall. In September 2021, Phase 1 was shut down after a high temperature event, while Phase 2 kept operating.”

Got good value for that billion or so, nine months of back up!

Mr.
Reply to  Alan Millar
December 21, 2021 9:00 am

Like socialism & communism, the batteries will work properly NEXT TIME.

MarkW
Reply to  Alan Millar
December 21, 2021 12:04 pm

griff keeps using that word, but it’s obvious he really doesn’t know what it means.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 12:05 pm

Just a minor nit, you mean 300MW, mW is for milliwatts.

Rich Davis
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 1:14 pm

Nah it probably really is milliwatts

Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:57 am

I’ve been reading now for over a decade about how this can work and yet it still isn’t.
.

fretslider
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 8:59 am

“I’ve been reading now for over a decade about how this can’t work “

Then you are determined to ignore the patently obvious. When there is no wind and it’s dark, wind and solar do not work. How can they?

What you are advocating, griff, is future abandoned engineering that will have to cleared away after it has failed. Along with all the toxic nasties that turbines contain

How much has that been costed at?

If it has to be done by big oil then big green should do the same.

Last edited 30 days ago by fretslider
TonyG
Reply to  fretslider
December 21, 2021 1:31 pm

griff is pretty firmly of the mindset of “if it hasn’t happened yet then it can never happen”, and will probably still believe in his rainbow unicorns even while freezing in the dark because they’re taking a nap. I doubt even a hard smack of reality will change his mind.

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 9:11 am

 “…non wind renewable projects including tidal, pumped storage, largest yet grid scale battery etc etc.”

Tidal in the UK is finite, you run out of places to put it. Never going to exceed 10% of the mix even in best case scenario.

Pumped storage, again, very small gains, tiny even.

Rampant production of more and more, larger and larger grid batteries is an ecological disaster, and then everybody is going to be doing it, great.

fretslider
Reply to  Climate believer
December 21, 2021 9:23 am

Tidal in the UK is finite”

And in places like the Severn estuary it would be an ecological disaster. It’s funny how green solutions always end up punishing the wildlife far more than any fossil fuel or nuclear power station ever could.

MarkW
Reply to  Climate believer
December 21, 2021 12:07 pm

Two problems with tidal.
First putting the generators in place disturbs the resonances you need to get big tidal differences.
Second, tidal is available when it’s available, it isn’t always available when you need it.

Climate believer
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 2:55 pm

At least the intermittency is regular and foreseeable with tides, easier to manage and integrate.

England basically has one main tidal estuary that it could be worth exploiting plus a few tidal lagoon projects that cost a fortune but have potential longevity.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Climate believer
December 21, 2021 6:35 pm

Of the three “sources” mentioned, only one is a source: tidal. The other two are storage systems for energy. Pumped storage requires suitable geography and “permission” from the environmentalist whackos (never forthcoming, and generally for pretty good reasons), and grid scale batteries are impossible in principle. It is exasperating to me, as an engineer, to hear people say that “the technology isn’t quite here, but will be.” No, it won’t, because it can’t. We will never be able to stuff enough mass of fuel and oxidizer (which is what a battery consists of) into a battery to produce the same energy output as a plant that produces energy by taking oxygen from the air and reacting it with fuel.

Last edited 30 days ago by Michael S. Kelly
Joel
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 9:50 am

And how will this solve the problem of CO 2 in the atmosphere? Compared to China everything the UK does is insignificant.

Ben Vorlich
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 10:05 am

Griff,Manufacturers specification, as with cars and EVs usually optimistic

Siemens SWT-2.3-108

Cut-in wind speed:
3.0 m/s =6.7mph
Rated wind speed:
11.5 m/s = 25.7mph
Cut-out wind speed:
25.0 m/s = 55.9 mph
Survival wind speed:
59.5 m/s = 133.1 mph

Even at sea the wind speed can frequently be less than 7mph and even more frequently less 25.7 mph.

MarkW
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 21, 2021 12:08 pm

You can also expect to get 133 mph at least once during the wind farms expected lifetime.

Capell Aris
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 21, 2021 3:13 pm

Ah, you’ve just ‘blown it’.

Redge
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 10:23 am

Griff mate

Do you seriously believe this stuff or are you just here for a laugh?

Jeffery P
Reply to  Redge
December 21, 2021 11:09 am

I was going to admonish everyone for letting griff’s inane comments dominate the discussion but I found myself replying to him as well. At least he’s entertaining in his delutions.

But has it occurred to everyone it’s a put-on? He posts silly things just to get attention?

Redge
Reply to  Jeffery P
December 21, 2021 11:17 am

But has it occurred to everyone it’s a put-on? He posts silly things just to get attention?

Many times

If Griff really believed what he’s saying or understood the issue, he would have real data links to back up his inane mutterings

TonyG
Reply to  Redge
December 21, 2021 2:11 pm

If he understood the issue, perhaps. But real data is not necessary for him to really believe it.

Although I admit that I sometimes think he’s really a plant, playing a TrueBeliever(tm) to make them look bad.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Redge
December 21, 2021 6:46 pm

Or, maybe he’s a “reverse troll”…writing provocative, but transparently false, screeds in order to evoke responses containing genuine information for the enlightenment of all.

I just thought of that one. “Reverse troll” Copyright 2021 Michael S. Kelly.

Capell Aris
Reply to  griff
December 21, 2021 3:10 pm

I thought the whole idea of going offshore was that it was all a ‘high capacity area’, unlike onshore. Now you imply that this is not the case as your explanation of why the present wind fleet isn’t producing very much at all, for weeks on end. Across the whole of Europe . . .?

I suppose, in your world, eventually we will find this ‘high capacity area’, tow all our floating windmills into this area, connect them up, and ‘all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well’. I do hope it’s not too far away. in both time and distance. And what could possibly go wrong??

Incidentally, an expansion to 36 GW of offshore will raise the nameplate capacity of offshore wind by a factor of ~3.5. You may think that’s ‘massive’, and indeed it would be if it was reliable, but 36 GW times a capacity factor of <2.5 % is less than 1 GW and if the nukes were doing that I think you’d be somewhat dismayed.

You’re not related to Milborrow (see top of article) are you?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  griff
December 22, 2021 7:18 am

Aren’t a number of UK offshore windfarms currently having problems with their undersea connectors?

Rhs
December 21, 2021 7:31 am

It’s just junk wind, it just doesn’t have the quality it once did.

Rhs
Reply to  Rhs
December 21, 2021 7:36 am

On a more serious note, the required wind speed is between 35 – 40 mph, and it needs to be a steady wind. Too slow, the blades don’t spin, too fast, the blades are stopped to prevent damage. This seems to be a terribly narrow window of speeds.
To put this in sailor context, this is the over lap of near gale to gale, terribly difficult to walk in. But great for struggling news reporters.

Mr.
Reply to  Rhs
December 21, 2021 9:01 am

mph or kph?

Reply to  Rhs
December 21, 2021 10:58 am

No. turbines begin to work in relatively light winds – I think 10-12mph will get them turning
Of course the power goes up as I think the cube of wind speed, so they are just ticking over till the sorts of speeds you mention. That’s when they develop full power, then a bit over 50mph, you need to shut them down 🙂

Last edited 30 days ago by Leo Smith
It doesn't add up...
December 21, 2021 7:42 am

A couple of charts on that. This one is monthly average cacapity factors from refactored weather data as provided by Staffell & Pfenniger, which shows that months – and even several months – of rather lower output are hardly unusual.

Monthly UK wind 1980 2016.png
Michael Jackson
December 21, 2021 7:44 am

I don’t really care that it is unreliable. My criticism is that wind turbines are extremely ugly and dystopian, a blight on the landscape. I much prefer nuclear.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Michael Jackson
December 21, 2021 9:48 am

I’m with you on them being hideous blights, but I also care that it’s unreliable, and that it may cause infrasound health effects, and hurt property values, and raise electric rates.

Other than that Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

It doesn't add up...
December 21, 2021 7:45 am

This one shows the same data at daily total resolution, correlated with temperature. With natural gas prices having shot up today in Europe – over €180/MWh for TTF, and electricity for baseload in France trading as high as €780/MWh for February it is clear that energy insecurity is not solved by wind.

UK Daily Wind Temp 1980-2016.png
Raven
Reply to  It doesn't add up...
December 21, 2021 10:09 am

At €780/MWh, that brings some wallet insecurity, though . . . phew.

MarkW
December 21, 2021 8:04 am

To be meaningful, you need to plot the hours where wind is generating at 100% of capacity, not 0%.
Whenever wind is at less than 100%, something else needs to be picking up the slack.

menace
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 5:13 pm

See plot from It doesn’t add up… (7:42 am).

Wind never generates at 100% of capacity. That would require 30 to 50 mi/hr winds to blow everywhere (and no more and no less). Never happens. It doesn’t even reach 50% capacity for 10% of the time. The highest it had ever reached was 75% in 1989.

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 21, 2021 8:05 am

Winds will pick up in the UK, with the arrival of a Greenland Sea low that will bring snowstorms and frost to the British Isles.

Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 21, 2021 9:04 am

Possibly. As with Heffalumpi, semper dubitandum est…

heffalumpus.jpeg
Dan
December 21, 2021 8:12 am

You’d think that the proponents of wind would consult meteorologists regarding wind and when and why it happens. They don’t. When atmospheric high-pressure zones settle over an area, there is very little wind, sometimes none at all. And when that high pressure comes, you get clear skies. In summer that means sunlight and lots of heat. In winter it means cold, as the daytime heat radiates off freely into space overnight. So when you need the most electricity, you get the least. No airconditioning, no light and heat.

Solar? During a nice sunny day, not much any other time. None at night. Good for industry on those sunny days, maybe. Not so good for the citizens’ homes.

Reply to  Dan
December 21, 2021 9:05 am

Why would they bother when incomes are guranteed by the European Union.

MarkW
Reply to  Dan
December 21, 2021 12:12 pm

If it’s winter, even during a “nice sunny day”, you won’t get a lot of power from solar. The sun is too low on the horizon.

menace
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2021 5:21 pm

I believe that it is more so that the day is only 9 hours long in winter and so really only 7 hrs of useful solar output versus >12 hours in summer. But also that most cells are fixed installations so the cos of incidence angle is also at play.

MarkW
Reply to  menace
December 21, 2021 6:39 pm

It’s low angle of incidence plus the fact that the sun has to shine through much more of the atmosphere weakening it even further.

Rod Evans
December 21, 2021 8:14 am

We have been banging the drum of intermittency issues for as long as the wind energy industry grew to the inconvenient state it is now at.
The Green energy advocates simply ignore this huge negative that is a fundamental part of so called renewable energy.
The pat answer offered up by the Green advocates is, the wind is always blowing somewhere we just need to have interconnectors. That is of course a complete cop out as high pressure can sit across the whole of Europe which is the only realistic interconnector option.
The practical answer to all of these green energy demands is to limit the maximum grid level the intermittent producers can occupy. My rule of thumb is 20% of grid. Anything above that brings increasing complications to maintain supply which no one needs.

MarkW
Reply to  Rod Evans
December 21, 2021 12:14 pm

The other problem with interconnectors is that the further you have to transmit the power, the more of it you are going to lose.

Linda Goodman
December 21, 2021 8:34 am

Is this news to ANYONE? Best way to protect a scam is to repeat well-known facts like they’re news and selectively ignore others, like Climategate. And above all, to avoid asking the most enlightening question of the carbon scam: ‘Cui Bono?’ – a rabbit hole studiously avoided in favor of mental masturbation. So the monster of big lies lives on as we sleepwalk into the tyrants’ dream of an eco-totalitarian ‘new world order’. Good work, WUWT.

Jeffery P
Reply to  Linda Goodman
December 21, 2021 11:13 am

There’s always some scheme to work around the problems. And another scheme to work around the problem the first work around causes. It’s a never-ending cycle. To mix metaphors, it’s a house of cards built by Rube Goldberg.

gringojay
December 21, 2021 8:39 am

Germany suddenly getting very sparse wind generated power; see graph below showing recent months. The customers there are right now being charged over 400€ euro for a single mega-watt hour of power.

02A2861E-2E23-4D70-947D-21A9C0BD023E.png
Last edited 30 days ago by gringojay
gringojay
Reply to  gringojay
December 21, 2021 9:01 am

If confused by mega-watt figure that means 1 kilo-watt hour of power is over 0.4€ euro. Which is equivalent to paying over 0.45$ U.S. when comparing by any reader in the USA to their own bill.

Reply to  gringojay
December 21, 2021 9:56 am

Yes, and thats ex power station onto the grid. Now in UK I pay around 20p a unit for electricity that used to be on the grid at 4-6p for coal gas hydro and nuclear, and around 14-16p for wind. I think solar is up around 25p or more.

So green levies, distribution and grid costs and a slender margin for the retail companies added (let’s say around) 14p to the cost of delivering it to me.

So in fact they are selling at 20p but it’s costing them around 40-50p to supply me. Well its EDF so perhaps its all nuclear power.

Perfect storm. Tight gas market, unreliable renewables, and cold weather.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  gringojay
December 21, 2021 10:36 am

More. Those price figures are almost certainly for wholesale, i.e., what grid operators would pay. Add in distribution costs for consumer retail prices.

menace
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 21, 2021 5:45 pm

Yeah, I don’t think the end users pay the spot prices. The utilities absorb them and hope the markup on the end user prices cover it when you average it all out. Maybe once a year they reassess the markup and increase end user charges if necessary to compensate for increased spot prices in the previous years. In the US, most states have utility commissions and the utilities have to prove need to increase end user price schedules so as to operate at a modest profit margin.

Of course intermittent green power makes spot prices much more volatile and so end user costs end up going higher even though “green power” is supposedly lower cost to produce it is more than offset by the skyrocketing spot prices when it doesn’t produce (not to mention all the cost incurred to keep other power generation at hand, manned, and ready to ramp up or come online to produce more power in order to come to the rescue to make up for the intermittent green power shortfalls).

December 21, 2021 8:41 am

Right now, over NW Europe we have a massive blocking high, bringing cold temperatures, overcast with no sun, and very low wind speeds.

Gridwatch (thanks for mentioning me) is showing more wood burning than I can ever remember, EDF has all its reactors bar 2 working and I haven’t seen so much coal on the grid for years.

its dark, cold and wind is producing only a GigaWatt. Solar is producing nothing at all. France has become a net importer of electricity, and the continent wide forward pricing for electricity has become an nightmare of acutely inflated costs.

And it is, obviously, since the interconnectors are arbitraging out price differences, similar in Britain

And a national news agency wants to talk to me about Gridwatch.

Perhaps the Christmas turkey in my fridge, is after all, merely a renewable chicken, come home to roost.

NW Europe has not only had a very low wind year, but it is looking like winter is going to be – courtesy international gas prices – very expensive on electricity, and, courtesy (lack of) renewable energy and blocking highs, right on a knife edge of grid collapse.

Although the NW Europe electricity is well interconnected, it is potentially still able to be split into national sized units, or smaller. And Britain and Ireland are fairly disconnected from it, and certainly not phase locked.

It is somewhat analagous to the USA in that areas could black out and be disconnected from the rest.
Who will be the first to go is a matter of pure chance.

weathermap.png
Capell Aris
Reply to  Leo Smith
December 21, 2021 3:22 pm

Sampling wind data from METARS have a look at this plot of daily average wind speeds across northern Europe in spring this year:


C.L Rhodes
December 21, 2021 8:57 am

Not to worry…Sanford says it will all work out with ZERO blackouts when it is all solar and wind. https://woods.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-point-way-avoiding-blackouts-clean-renewable-energy

David Wells
December 21, 2021 9:37 am

in 2017 the uk experienced 7 consecutive months of wind free days. Today when demand was 42.50gw wind was generating 0.76gw. That means to meet demand with wind we would have needed 504,000 3mw turbines or 1344gw’s of turbine capacity. Joke.

MarkW
Reply to  David Wells
December 21, 2021 12:18 pm

Given the inefficiencies associated with adding more turbines, you would probably need twice that. If not more.

Ben Vorlich
December 21, 2021 9:54 am

The wind can be blowing at a constant 5mph and a wind turbine will produce nothing.

Siemens SWT-2.3-108Cut-in wind speed: 3.0 m/s
Rated wind speed: 11.5 m/s

3.0 m/s = 10.8kph= 6.7mph
11.5 m/s = 42.12kph = 26.17 mph

Most Uk citizens would consider a wind over 25mph as being a strong wing. It is Force 6 on the Beaufort Scale

MarkW
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
December 21, 2021 12:20 pm

Whenever you hear a wind power advocate talking about average wind speeds. Remember that a large percentage of the time the wind is either too low to provide power, or too high and the turbines have to be feathered in order to prevent them from being torn apart.

Quoting averages is one of the ways scoundrels hide their shortcomings.

Redge
December 21, 2021 10:18 am

Laughable that these clowns think unreliables are the answer to a non-question

Screenshot 2021-12-21 181733.jpg
Last edited 30 days ago by Redge
Brian J. BAKER
December 21, 2021 10:27 am

As characteristics of wind are broadly similar.

So why put them in the North Sea with double the infrastructure costs. And why cannot I have the roaring forties in my backyard. If the world was flat and moved in one direction … but then it us that are called flat earthers. Wonder what is the entry qualification for the Oxford University Climate Change Institute. Probable a social science degree like PPE like CCC propagandist Ed Miliband.

MarkW
Reply to  Brian J. BAKER
December 21, 2021 12:21 pm

double the infrastructure costs, and shorter lifetime expectancy.

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 21, 2021 10:55 am

Will we have the winter of the century in Europe? I think it will start in January.comment image

Stephen Philbrick
December 21, 2021 12:10 pm

As incompetent as that summary may be, – it actually points to an inescapable conclusion.

Let’s start with a basic summary. Given a variable source of power, how much backup capacity you have to have? The simple answer, assuming you don’t want to live with blackouts or brownouts, is the complement of the minimum deliverable capacity from the variable source. The fact in that summary (as opposed to the conclusion), is that the minimum deliverable capacity during the year is zero. Therefore, the necessary backup capacity is 100% of the mean variable capacity. 

Curiously, they emphasize that the minimum is rare, but that’s not the relevant conclusion. The minimum is zero therefore required backup capacity is 100%. That makes an expensive source of energy. 

Bill Sprague
Reply to  Stephen Philbrick
December 22, 2021 2:21 pm

In other words, run the back up 100%, and get rid of the renewables. The renewables are superfluous.

But what about CO2 Emissions? China, India, Japan are building new coal fired power stations at a rate that will swamp any CO2 reductions made by the rest of the world. The Earth will be warmer anyway. Adapt!

Ireneusz Palmowski
December 21, 2021 12:25 pm

The polar vortex in the lower stratosphere (which directs the jet stream in winter) has clearly taken aim at Europe.comment image

Last edited 30 days ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
menace
Reply to  Ireneusz Palmowski
December 21, 2021 5:56 pm

The jet stream over Europe confuses me… why is it so discontinuous

Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  menace
December 22, 2021 1:18 am

Jetstream is now above the north pole because the polar vortex in the lower stratosphere is breaking apart.comment image

Last edited 29 days ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Ireneusz Palmowski
Reply to  menace
December 22, 2021 1:22 am

Strong planetary waves disrupt the polar vortex in the upper stratosphere.comment image

MarkMcD
December 21, 2021 12:44 pm

When we try to talk to people about the AGW scam or the renewables scam, a common reaction is to scoff and claim it would mean many thousands of scientist conspirators – for which a valid answer is, “it doesn’t take thousands, just the few controlling the data!”

But there IS a question about the so-called ‘scientists’ regarding their ongoing manipulations of the narrative. What kind of person could pride themselves in their work if they have to make up a statistic of ‘hours where there is no wind across the nation’ to try to get published?

Surely even a true believer from the church of AGW would be self-reflective enough to know that’s a bullshit stat to use? So it HAS TO BE deliberate.

The things that matter are the ability to meet load requirements WHEN the load is applied and neither solar nor wind can promise that. In Australia we have lots of solar but the sun goes down right about the time everyone gets home and start switching stuff on. So we push batteries in the homes, nice little ticking bombs in your garage that are supposed to be money earners when you personally don’t need the power – except the feed-in tariffs are dropping, year-by-year.

Our virtue-signalling pollies do crazy shit like, rather than spend a few $million to modernise a coal plant or convert it to gas (which we export at criminally low rates while charging Aussies a fortune for it)they do a big publicity thing by blowing the plant up, making sure it can never again provide us with cheap and constant electricity.

This was in South Australia, a state that seems to be striving to provide the highest cost power in the world to the residents. We spent more than $100 million on a battery for the state – which in ideal conditions would keep the state running for a few minutes – and then brought in diesel generators to act as backups!

The world is insane and I think next time around I’ll be saying, “Anywhere but Earth please!”

Ed wolfe
December 21, 2021 2:35 pm

Why do we say gas is a backup to wind
Should it not be the other way around
At best a supplement to gas

Rhs
Reply to  Ed wolfe
December 21, 2021 5:51 pm

A supplement has to be controlled by on/off ability.
The wind may be predictable but there is almost no way to decrease the output of gas based on the expected wind.
If I missed the sarcasm font please let me know, I’m married.

menace
Reply to  Ed wolfe
December 21, 2021 5:57 pm

We don’t need wind to backup gas as long as we keep up fracking and drilling

Old planning engineer
December 21, 2021 2:38 pm

Complaining about minimum output from wind is missing half the story. The really interesting part is at the other end of the scale – when weather dependent renewables are actually producing near rated capacity.

Lets say that you want sufficient installed capacity for 80% of peak demand at an average capacity factor of around 40%. The rest of demand you will manage through short term storage and voluntary load curtailment. Then at those times when either load is well below maximum – Spring, Autumn or 4:00 am on most mornings or your capacity factor is above average then you will have:

  • large scale curtailment of renewables generating plant due to grid balancing requirements; and
  • zero or negative prices market prices due to zero marginal costs of production.

This plays havoc with budgets due to lack of production (less MWh’s to spread capital costs over) and lack of value of each MWh produced.

To me these are the true limiting factor of weather dependent renewables – the lack of relationship with the underlying load and the lack of diversity in production levels

menace
Reply to  Old planning engineer
December 21, 2021 6:05 pm

Hmm, I get it but this is how a liberal might see it:

Build Back Better gubment spend $trillions to overbuild wind and solar – it will drive electricity prices to zero – free energy to everyone! Whats not to like?

observa
December 21, 2021 9:00 pm

Don’t these NIMBYs understand they have to change the climate or they’re doomed too?
High Voltage: Serbian lithium business looms as another community relations headache for Rio Tinto (msn.com)
Clearly this critical decision-making has to be taken out of the hands of these ignorant trogs and Luddites and into the expert hands of the IPCC where it rightly belongs. You know it makes sense climate changers.

Ruleo
December 21, 2021 11:14 pm

This is just a red herring

You mean ‘strawman’.

observa
December 22, 2021 5:43 am

The utilities just need better storage-
Analysis – Weak winds worsened Europe’s power crunch; utilities need better storage (msn.com)

If we had high winds or just reasonable winds over that period, we wouldn’t have seen these price spikes,”

They actually pay people for this stuff!!

James Bull
December 23, 2021 9:00 am

I spent sorry wasted quite a bit of time trying to explain to a proponent of windmills that if we get a blocking high/low over the UK and nearby Europe just building more windmills won’t make a blind bit of difference to how much power they make as none of them would be turning. They just could not get it into their mind that such a thing could happen even when shown the graphs from Gridwatch for a couple of weeks ago and back in August. I suppose it does confirm the old saying “there are none so blind as those who won’t see”.

James Bull

Mark BLR
December 25, 2021 8:47 am

NB : This is a “just putting data on the record, with a timestamp” post.

The “No Wind Friday” post a week ago was a copy of a NALOPKT post from the 17th of December, which started with :

High pressure is settling in now for at least the next week, not only in the UK but also over much of NW Europe.

The graph below shows selected electricity generation data for the “island of Great Britain” grid for the month of December (up to yesterday, the 24th).

The “blocking high/low over the UK and nearby Europe” conditions mentioned by “James Bull” (and others) only lasted until the 21st, not for “at least” a full week !
[ Editorial note : Add “sarcasm” tag here if required … ]

GB-Electricity_1-241221.png
Mark BLR
Reply to  Mark BLR
December 25, 2021 9:11 am

Follow-up.

While the timings for the German, Californian and (South ?) Australian grids to collapse are still TBD, the GB grid may well “muddle through” the upcoming winter (and even the two after that, 2022/3 and 2023/4).

The real problems are only likely to become (very) visible to the (Great British) public from approximately April 2024 …

GB-Electricity_Coal-Nuclear_Jan2020-July2026_2.png
%d bloggers like this: