UK Losing Wind Gamble a Warning for World

By Vijay Jayaraj

On a frigid January morning, the fruit of the U.K.’s overreliance on wind energy was reaped when its contribution to the national grid plummeted to a pitiful zero. Solar output, meanwhile, was a paltry 1% of power generation.

This wasn’t just a fluke but rather a stark illustration of the dangers of building an energy system around inherently unreliable sources like wind and solar. The British government’s gamble on wind energy to meet aggressive and unattainable net-zero targets is leading toward an energy crisis of unprecedented proportions.

The Volatility of Wind Energy

Wind power’s appeal has always been its promise of environmentally clean, inexhaustible energy. But real-world experience shows the technology to be damaging to ecosystems and unreliable. Although Earth will always have wind, knowing when and how much is as impossible as the foolish pursuit of controlling the climate.

As the monthly production chart from GridWatch demonstrates, wind energy swings wildly from nearly 100% of the output to complete collapse within days or even hours. This winter, as a very cold high-pressure system settled over the U.K., wind turbines went idle just when demand for heating and electricity surged.

January’s failure forced the U.K. to rely heavily on gas-fired power plants and electricity imports from the continent. During these periods, the high cost of imported power inflates energy bills that are already among the highest in Europe.

British households, on average, pay nearly double the electricity rates of their mostly nuclear-powered French counterparts. This disparity is largely due to British policies that subsidize renewable energy while penalizing more reliable fossil fuel-based generation.

Paying to Stop the Wind

Adding insult to injury, the U.K.’s energy policies include a perverse mechanism: compensating wind turbine operators to switch off the machines during periods of high wind. On January 24, Storm Eowyn battered Ireland and Scotland with gusts exceeding 100 miles per hour. Such high winds require some turbines to be idled to prevent grid overload and mechanical damage.

“Consumers face a triple hit in constraint costs at times of high winds,” says Lee Moroney of U.K.’s Renewable Energy Forum. “Not only do they pay for electricity that wind farms predicted they would generate but were instructed not to because of grid congestion, but they also have to pay a bonus to the wind farms for the trouble of reducing output. And they must also pay for the costs of turning up conventional generation (such as gas-fired power stations] to make up the shortfall.”

The U.K.’s dwindling domestic gas production and reliance on imports mean that fluctuations in wholesale gas prices hit consumers hard. In 2024, energy bills skyrocketed by 80% compared to 2019 levels, a trend that shows no signs of abating. These costs are exacerbated by government-mandated levies to fund “renewable” energy projects and carbon offset schemes.

The branding of wind energy as a green solution is false advertising in the extreme:

  • Manufacturing turbines requires vast amounts of fossil fuels – from mining and processing rare earth minerals to producing the steel and concrete for their massive structures.
  • The amount of land required for a turbine to produce comparable amounts of energy is many times that of nuclear and fossil fuels.
  • Extraction of rare earths, essential for turbine magnets, is associated with severe environmental degradation and human rights abuses in mining regions.
  • Wind turbines kill wildlife, especially birds and bats, and are suspected to contribute to whale deaths in offshore locations.
  • Wind turbine blades become non-recyclable waste that often goes to landfills.

Citizens of the U.K. have missed serious power blackouts by a whisker. But recent events highlight the dangers of prioritizing ideology over practicality and serve as a warning to those who would allow climate dogma to guide energy policies.

This commentary was first published at American Thinkeron January 28, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO2 Coalition, Arlington, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.

4.9 30 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

94 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bryan A
February 3, 2025 10:29 pm

It should only take Once. Though it has happened more than once in Texas.
I guess you need an associated mortality figure as well

Someone
Reply to  Bryan A
February 4, 2025 7:43 am

But we are fighting to Save the Planet! Surely, there can be no fight without some casualties.

MarkW
Reply to  Someone
February 4, 2025 8:26 am

As long as it is someone else who has to pay the price.

UK-Weather Lass
February 3, 2025 10:38 pm

You’ll have to guess what this morning’s local temperature is from a range covering 6C starting at 3C up. Temperature is such a hit and miss affair these meteorological days. I can hear the turbines this morning although the wind is not carrying the sound as clearly as it sometimes and maybe most often can. Meanwhile we have a copious gas and oil treasure under our feet which the virtue signalers tell us must stay there forever!

Not content with getting the alternatives to fossil fuel expensively and completely and utterly wrong Britain wishes to rub citizens’ noses in ever more excreta by pretending that virtue signalling is a means to an end all of itself as if the EU gives a damn. Does anyone critically look at Germany in mainstream media anymore and think for themselves for a change…

oeman50
Reply to  UK-Weather Lass
February 4, 2025 4:38 am

“…pretending that virtue signaling is a means to an end all of itself….”

Spot on!

Dave Andrews
Reply to  UK-Weather Lass
February 4, 2025 9:13 am

Well the glow of virtue signalling seems to keep our Ed warm even if the rest of us are shivering in the dark!

February 3, 2025 11:59 pm

Go nuclear!

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Redge
February 4, 2025 1:03 am

Will take 20 years to build and generate.

strativarius
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 1:07 am

Thanks to green idiots

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 1:17 am

Due to the stupid, extreme left putting in barriers that unreliable wind and solar don’t have to face.

As sceptics have pointed out for decades, if the left really believes CO2 is causing a climate crisis, then they should have backed nuclear 20-30 years ago.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 1:38 am

They said that 20 years ago, too.

oeman50
Reply to  Archer
February 4, 2025 4:39 am

Don’t worry, we’ll have fusion power in 10 years!

atticman
Reply to  oeman50
February 4, 2025 4:56 am

or10 years after that…

Mr.
Reply to  oeman50
February 4, 2025 6:51 am

Nah.
We’ll still be fishin’ for it.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 1:40 am

What would you suggest, then? Not gas, not coal, not nuclear. Where are you going to get reliable supply of 60GW+ peak UK demand? In a week when the wind is not blowing?

Idle Eric
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 4:24 am

From conversations on other forums, magic new technologies, that haven’t yet been thought of, but are somehow going to appear in the next 5 years or so, which generally boil down to:

storage getting better, they somehow imagine that we’re going to be able to store power at GWh scale on a device the size of a cup of coffee, costing about the same as said cup of coffee, and are apparently unaware that even if we were to solve all the technical problems, and slash the price of storage by 90%, we’re still talking about trillions of dollars for an immeasurably small effect on temperature 50 years from now;

New York’s “Dispatchable Emissions Free Resources”, a completely new method of generation, that is carbon-free and has all the benefits of conventional coal/gas plants, with the only downside being that they are wholly imaginary and no such technology is even on the drawing board;

Demand Side Management (a fancy name for power cuts, Mr Fogg), ignoring the fact that an awful lot of our demand can’t be reasonably transferred to other periods. I can’t DSM my cooking until 3am, turn off my lights at 6pm and leave them off until midnight, DSM my fridge/freezer until Sunday, or move my heating from February to May.

I had an interesting exchange the other day, talking about just how much storage the UK would need for a 100% wind/solar grid, and I got the following reply:

“Goes to show you know FA about the energy sector. Storage will develop”.

Given that I’m quoting the RS and other sources, and specific numbers for storage and cost, I clearly do know something about the sector, but, nevertheless, a simple statement of “storage will develop” solves all technical and economic problems in this moron’s eyes.

As I’ve said before, it’s like an episode of The Jetsons when you’re talking to these net-zero advocates.

Edit #23,

Forum is messing up my formatting, apologies for any problems this causes.

Bryan A
Reply to  Idle Eric
February 4, 2025 5:30 am

costing about the same as said cup of coffee

Oh Great, Now Coffee will become unaffordable too

Idle Eric
Reply to  Bryan A
February 4, 2025 5:42 am

Have you ever been to Starbucks?

🙂

Reply to  Bryan A
February 4, 2025 6:36 am

It’s not cheap at the moment.

kc1_com
Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 4, 2025 11:36 am

As I understand it, one of the main reasons for the price hike is that the Chinese have taken a liking for coffee in the last couple of years.

This will put a lot of strain on supply meeting demand.

Reply to  bnice2000
February 4, 2025 3:43 pm

Poor harvest and disease is the main reason. Same with cocoa.

Reply to  Idle Eric
February 4, 2025 7:59 am

Plus infinity.

Maybe the best comeback to the idiot belief in vaporware is “Storage is already at hand. It’s called COAL, OIL AND GAS.”

MarkW
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 8:30 am

The proles don’t need reliable power. That’s reserved for the people who matter. IE, those that run the government and their friends.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 9:15 am

I bet he goes to his place in France for the week 🙂

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 1:50 am

Back in the 1970’s France installed 56 nuclear reactors in 15 years.

What’s your excuse?

Idle Eric
Reply to  Alpha
February 4, 2025 4:28 am

Town and Country Planning Act 1947.

Plus France is well over twice the size of the UK, with a (likely) smaller population.

Reply to  Alpha
February 4, 2025 7:56 am

And they’re probably all still in service. Show us a “wind farm” or “solar farm” that can do THAT.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 1:54 am

Not if you take politicians out of the process…

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 3:02 am

Then the sooner we start the better.

Bryan A
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 5:27 am

Could be done in 3 without EcoZealots intervention and regulatory red tape

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 6:26 am

About 5 years for a 4000 MW plant in Russia and China and South Korea at a turnkey cost of about $22 billion

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 6:32 am

The French managed to build 56GW in 20 years. That’s 56, not 5.6.

Mr.
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 6:50 am

Didn’t the Saudis get a couple of nukes going in half that time?

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 6:52 am

Money better spent than wasting it on replacing all the worse-than-useless windmills and solar panels that will all be due for replacement by then.

Plus unlike the worse-than-useless windmills and solar panels, the nuclear plants can provide 24/7 electricity generation that CANNOT EVER be produced by breezes and sunshine.

Someone
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 7:48 am

Average time to build a nuclear plant station is 7 years. This is average. It could be expedited, realistically to 5 years. But it takes correct leadership to plan and execute that UK does not have.

Reply to  Someone
February 4, 2025 10:59 am

Bangladesh has done it in 8 years… way to go Bangladesh!

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 8:28 am

All non-“renewable” sources take much, much too long to build because of the insanity of the green left. They’ve been attacking nuclear for much longer, so the damage is more severe.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 8:54 am

Who seriously believes that if Elon Musk was tasked with the project, and the regulatory agencies were turned back from preventing new power plants to ensuring safety, that the US and the UK could not at least meet the standard of the French who were using 60-year old technology to get the job done?

D Sandberg
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 9:10 am

Factory manufactured NuScale Power (NY stock symbol SMR) reactors will be up and running 2 years after arriving on the jobsite by semi trailer.

JamesB_684
Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 4, 2025 10:44 am

Huge, bespoke reactors take 20 yeas to build only because the “Greens” fight every step in the siting, building, & commissioning process.

Standardized, factory built SMRs and micro reactors should be much quicker to build, transport and commission. NuScale Power already has a U.S. NRC design that is already under construction.

Only unimaginative, linear thinkers believe the past experience is how things will always proceed in such endeavors.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 5, 2025 1:19 pm

They should have started 20 years ago. But, it is never too late to do the right thing.

Reply to  Anthony Banton
February 6, 2025 1:37 am

didn’t seem to take that long in India and China.

strativarius
February 4, 2025 12:09 am

GB Energy boss Juergen Maier said in his first broadcast interview today that the company won’t even hire the promised 1,000 staff in Aberdeen for 20 years. Nor could he spell out how or when GB Energy would take £300 off British energy bills. It may have a large HR team soon though…
https://order-order.com/2025/02/03/struggling-gb-energy-hiring-hr-director-for-117000/

Reform is topping the polls, hardly surprising.

February 4, 2025 12:29 am

STORY TIP.

last night (3rd Feb) at 20:00 (UK) BBC 1 Panorama – Rewiring the Grid. In-depth look at the social and environmental issues to “balance” with the “imperative” of Net Zero.

That the BBC are even showing a contrary view could be significant.

strativarius
Reply to  Hysteria
February 4, 2025 12:44 am

Being the BBC I gave it a wide berth.

Reply to  Hysteria
February 4, 2025 1:20 am

They’ll be back on song as soon as they sack the entire Panorama team that produced this heretical narrative.

Reply to  Hysteria
February 5, 2025 4:36 am

Even the halfwits at the Beeb understand that no electricity means no radio or television.

February 4, 2025 1:09 am

The UK energy strategy, and don’t forget its been almost unanimously endorsed by all political parties except Reform, is roughly as follows. By 2030:

  • raise peak demand from 45GW to 60GW+ (by moving to heat pumps and EVs)
  • close down all non-intermittent generation
  • rely substantially on imports to cover dark calm winter spells

This is supposed to make the UK energy supply more secure and less expensive and have some effect on global warming, though no-one can explain what effect or how.

The Climate Change Act was passed in November 2008 with with only 5 MPs out of 646 voting against it. This was under Labour. Then in 2019 it was amended under the Conservatives to make it stricter. The Act initially set a target of reducing UK greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% by 2050, compared to 1990 levels.. In 2019, this target was amended, without even a formal vote, to commit the UK to reaching net zero emissions by 2050.

Its misconduct in public office. Its the wrecking of a country’s economy by its political class for absolutely no reason.

The only parallel I can think of (apart from disastrous and pointless wars) is the Xhosa, who in 1856-7, under the influence of a teenage girl prophet, killed their cattle and destroyed their crops in the belief or hope that the ancestors would provide. The result was a famine in which 40,000 died of hunger.

The UK political class believes that it can supply 60GW+ of power from 90GW of intermittent wind which for several days in December or January 20630 will be producing less than 5GW. They have no idea where to get the rest of the supply. They believe that the world is going to follow their example, and that this will save the planet.

There is nothing anyone can do about it. The present government has 401 Labour MPs eligible to vote on parliamentary legislation, compared to 238 opposition MPs. And in the opposition we have the following:

  • Conservative Party: 121 MPs
  • Liberal Democrats: 72 MPs
  • Scottish National Party: 9 MPs

All of whom are wedded to the same idiotic and self destructive energy policies. All belonging to parties which supported the Climate Change Act and its amendment. That is, 202 out of the nominal 238 opposition MPs are actually in favor of this madness!

There is nothing to be done except wait for the disaster to happen, and then vote accordingly in 2029.

Rod Evans
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 1:35 am

Thanks for the overview michel.
The scorched earth policies being progressed in the UK will make it very difficult for the next government to repair the damage but at least a start can be made.
The other option would involve repurposing the pitch forks no longer used, as the farming industry is being destroyed and has no use of them….

Idle Eric
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 4:40 am

To be fair, I think the Conservatives are starting to get the picture, Coutinho (Mad Ed’s predecessor and shadow) seems to be very much an N-Z sceptic, Badenoch seems to be similar, Sunak was starting to roll back some of the more extreme policies.

What we really need is someone who’s willing to repeal Mad Ed’s Climate Change Act 2008.

Reply to  Idle Eric
February 4, 2025 6:44 am

Correct. The problem for Tories is that many of them are closet greens who don’t agree with the new official stance. It’s probably the issue that will split the party in the end. 50 MPs and 30 Lords have come out here:

https://www.cen.uk.com/our-caucus

There are only 121 Tory MPs at the moment.

Reply to  Idle Eric
February 4, 2025 9:41 am

We shouldn’t forget Cameron’s ‘vote blue, get green’ meme back in 2010. In the Sunak-Truss run-off for the Tory leadership in 2022, Sunak stated that he was ‘absolutely’ in favour of fracking, with the caveat ‘if local people support it’; pretty much the first thing he did after the defenestration of Truss was to reverse the relaxation she’d just made to the restrictions on fracking. He was also the one who created the monstrosity that is the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero. Granted, he pushed back the phase out of ICE car sales (I’m not sure if the Labour nutters have already reversed that?) but his overall record is there for all to see. Maybe it’ll be kinda appropriate if he does relocate to California with his missus.

Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 6:38 am

… the UK is an absolute basket case.

UK-energy-policy
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 9:33 am

a teenage girl prophet” The Greta of her time?

February 4, 2025 1:32 am

Reform UK is leading Labour in a YouGov voting intention poll for the first time.

Figures put Reform UK on 25 per cent of the vote – its joint-highest score to date – up from 23 per cent on its previous poll on Jan 26-27.

Meanwhile, Labour is on 24 per cent (down 3) and the Conservatives are on 21 per cent (down 1).

The Lib Dems remain unchanged on 14 per cent and the Greens stay the same on 9 per cent.

Source: Telegraph. And this is before the blackouts hit!

YouGov is a serious organization, this is to be taken seriously. Not that anyone in Labour, Conservatives or Liberals will even notice. All they think of is that there are four more years in which to play at managing a country’s energy policy.

Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 2:06 am

It doesn’t matter for two reasons.

1) There is no General Election for four years. Plenty of time for the latest version of the anti-immigration party to split into factions again, by then. It always does. Remember when UKIP came first in the European Parliament election in the UK? Remember Jimmy Goldsmith? Remember Enoch Powell? Scapegoating comes and goes with every long period of low economic growth.

2) Extremist parties (e.g. radical parties that are not near the centre of the political spectrum) can only win under Proportional electoral systems. Because in a winner takes all system, like Britain’s First Past The Post, the important thing is to vote against what is not acceptable to you. Which makes sense. No politician accurately reflects your own view unless you have no view and are an impressionable sponge or you are that politician. Switching from Lab to LibDem to Con is a hard move for many people. But if it keeps out that which is unacceptable then people will do it. The privatisation of the NHS is enough to put a ceiling on Reform UK on its own.

strativarius
Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 2:20 am

Gosh, you are behind the curve.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 2:36 am

I think yours is the view that both Labour and Conservative parties take. Nothing to see here, it will all blow over, its just another one-issue phenomenon.

I don’t think it is. I don’t think Reform is to be compared with Powell at all. Still less with Goldsmith. I don’t think its appeal is one-issue, immigration, either. On the contrary, iots appeal is exactly what you say cannot happen, a comprehensive rejection of both of the current main parties policies on a great many things..

What you all may be missing is that in FPTP systems like the UK there are tipping points. You can explore them at Electoral Calculus by putting in your own percentage vote estimates.

Its also worth reviewing the history of the collapse of the Liberal Party and rise of Labour in the early 20C.

I do not know if it will happen, but I think there is a not insignificant chance that Reform will pass the tipping point before the next election. From this perspective the fact that there are four years to go is actually to their advantage. Because what they seem to be working on is building local organizations, and for that you need time.

It can happen. Check out Electoral Calculus, and you will see how it can happen. Whether it will, I don’t know any more than anyone else, but I’m sure its getting more likely all the time, and that complacent denial by the two major parties only makes it more likely.

strativarius
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 2:47 am

If the uniparty doesn’t change tack- and it won’t – Reform will continue to grow.
More growth than Reeves’ economic strategy.

Reply to  strativarius
February 4, 2025 10:22 am

Agreed.

Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 2:49 am

It is true that the main parties have changed. Labour replaced the Liberals.
However, the electoral franchise was widened to enable that to happen. So it’s not a perfect analogy.

The key point is that, under FPTP, people can vote against. It’s not like PR where any party with some small support will get its leadership in to a position of negotiated power. And the opinion polls are quite clear. Reform is strongly associated with Farage himself. There is no other brand or history for the party. And Farage is disliked by two thirds of the electorate.

Of course, this matters not for 4 years. Things may change. But it’s very unlikely.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 3:26 am

I keyed the numbers into Electoral Calculus. They give, in seats:

Con 125
Lab 237
Lib 78
Reform 148

And this is before the blackouts hit, as they will. And Starmer obstinately refuses to either change course or fire Miliband, both of which are pretty much guaranteed.

https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=21&LAB=24&LIB=14&Reform=25&Green=9&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=%28none%29&boundary=2024

Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 4, 2025 10:21 am

Yes. Could happen. All it will take is one nationwide blackout. If they can go from 15% to 25% they have a chance to get north of 30%.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 9:44 am

Whereas 80% of the electorate had the good sense, actively or passively, not to vote for the far-left Labour nutters, and of those who did 50% regret it.

MarkW
Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 8:43 am

The belief that only government can be trusted to run the economy is happily dying out.

Reply to  michel
February 4, 2025 1:12 pm

If you want to see how an outside party can become the government research the progress of the Reform Party and the career of Steven Harper in Canada 20 or 30 years ago.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 3:18 am

I would add that neither Powell nor Goldsmith ever even got a polling intention rating. Not a factor, either one. Neither one attempted to set up a local organization. Powell was a one-issue maverick, Goldsmith a spoiler. Farage is something different. And remember, UKIP and the movement to leave the EU achieved something thought impossible, they did actually get the UK out, and they put enough frighteners into the Conservatives to follow through. Kicking and screaming.

Reform’s greatest asset is the kind of complacency which your comment expresses. They must be praying that the two major parties continue in their own complacent slumber thinking Reform is a one issue protest party. And then we shall have one of those exit poll moments when the collective jaws of the BBC commentary team drop with a clang.

The NHS? Enough people are going private, enough are being denied treatment in an acceptable time frame for this to be fading as an issue. The usual complaint was that the UK does not want to be like America, as if that was the only alternative. But what the UK is gradually realizing is that it is like America. Its a two tier system now, wait for inferior treatment if you can get it, or go private. What’s the difference?

Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 6:53 am

There is for now a far greater degree of unity within Reform than in the deeply split Tories, or come to that, Labour, not all of whom are extreme Marxists like Miliband and Rayner. But the important point to understand is that Labour got a landslide on the back of just 34% of the vote and 20% of the electorate. With a split vote among the traditional parties and support for minor parties too, Reform only need around 31% to be a majority in Parliament. At 34% they would have a Labour size landslide. Both are within sight on current polling trends. The main task for Reform is to build a party ready to take over: people who can be competent ministers, people who can go in and sort out miscreant quangos, drafts of the legislation they need to implement (much of it as repeals). There is a lot to learn from how Trump has tackled the start of his term, albeit the UK doesn’t offer quite the free rein to reign provided by Executive Orders and closure of whole government departments.

MarkW
Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 8:42 am

Yea we get it. Anyone to the right of socialism, is an extremist.

Reply to  MCourtney
February 4, 2025 11:30 am

So by your own definition you recognise Labour as the extremist party it has become under the Starmer. That’s a start.

February 4, 2025 1:36 am

It is hard to find the words to do justice to the negligence and lack of forethought that have caused this tragic situation. Why have wind droughts, Dunkelflautes, come as a surprise? We really have to talk about wind droughts.

https://open.substack.com/pub/rafechampion/p/we-have-to-talk-about-wind-droughts

They have been talked about for over a decade in some circles in Australia after independent observers tracked the wind power generation by the windmills attached to the grid and found extensive, prolonged and severe wind droughts. They saw that these droughts were associated with high pressure weather systems called “highs” by meteorologists in routine weather reports. The meteorologists didn’t bother to tell people about the low winds associated with highs, not even when wind power started to become a major source of electricity.

The politicians and planners who decided to subsidise and mandate wind power on the grid might have inquired about the wind supply, especially the reliability and continuity of the input, bearing in mind the need to meet demand continuously.
 
Due Diligence
 
Checking the security of the supply chain would appear to be the most elementary due diligence required before building infrastructure like dams for irrigation, industrial plant and windmills attached to the grid.

Think about it. Would you go farming without checking the rainfall before you start tilling and planting or indeed before you purchase the property?

The wind supply and especially the reliability of supply is to wind farming as rainfall is to growing pasture and crops. The Goyder Line was drawn on the map of South Australia to warn prospective farmers about the risk of droughts north of the line.

Similar lines drawn on the map of the world would have warned wind farmers away from Australia, North America, Europe, and possibly the rest of the world, and there would be no subsidised and mandated unreliable energy from windmills attached to the grid in those places.

That would have saved the trillions that have been spent around the world to build mountains of debt and obtain in return more expensive power and less secure supply with massive environmental damage, including the ruin of forests and farmland.

Failure of due diligence in the case of infrastructure for harvesting wind power calls for serious research in the light of the costs incurred by the failure to do it.

The windpower the experiment has failed disastrously, most obviously in Germany and Britain where deindustrialising proceeds apace under the impact of rising power prices.

Wind droughts are the root of the problem but they escaped serious attention until the Europeans metaphorically tripped over the Dunkelflaute in 2021.

https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf

Sailors at sea and millers on land must have known about prolonged wind droughts for centuries. Coal miners in England knew: “A gang may sit at a pithead for weeks, whistling for a gale,” wrote H G Wells in 1901.

The efforts that people are makingto keep the British lights reminds me of the band that played on while the Titanic went down. Short-term expedients may prolong the agony but the bipartisan obsession with more and more wind can only make things worse.

We have to walk and chew gum at the same time, prop the system up and at the same time explain to the voters that depending on wind power is a monumental blunder and the only solution is to burn more gas and coal until nuclear is available at scale.

That means teaching “wind literacy” to the general public to ensure that people know about wind droughts and understand that when there is little or no wind there will little or no wind power, regardless of the size of the windfleet. When people know the truth, the politicians may be obliged to abandon the suicidal quest for net zero using wind and solar power.

In-the-red-zone-past-the-tipping-in-2024
CampsieFellow
February 4, 2025 3:08 am

On January 24, Storm Eowyn battered Ireland and Scotland with gusts exceeding 100 miles per hour. Such high winds require some turbines to be idled to prevent grid overload and mechanical damage.
According to Wikipedia (and you can rely on them to give you the highest possible figures), “wind speeds as high as 102mph recorded on the Tay Road Bridge “ and “At around 14:15 (GMT; UTC 0), Drumalbin weather station in South Lanarkshire recorded 163 km/h (101 mph), the highest wind gust in Scotland from Storm Éowyn.”
This doesn’t suggest that wind speeds in excess of 100mph were particularly common in Scotland. So how many turbines were actually idled? Don’t give us a hypothetical analysis. Give us some actual figures.
Main point: The need for turbines to be idled at very high wind speeds is a weakness of relying on wind power but don’t exaggerate an actual situation unless you can provide some actual figures.

Reply to  CampsieFellow
February 4, 2025 5:45 am

Some were idled for a while because the wind was actually too strong for safe operation. Others were idled because there was a danger that the wind would gust to danger levels, causing them to trip out: a large potential loss of infeed, so the grid opted to cut the risk by firing up CCGT instead. The programme of shutdowns appears to have tracked the storm. I suggest you try tracking the progress of the storm and its effects here:

https://renewables-map.robinhawkes.com/#5.12/55.51/-3.83/0/11

Set the time and date from the drop down, and you can see how generation changed every 30 minutes. You can also explore whether a particular wind farm was being formally curtailed. The map gives an indication of wind speeds as well as showing the wind farm outputs.

Reply to  CampsieFellow
February 4, 2025 11:47 am

More to the point windmills have their turbines disconnected to avoid damage at wind speeds far lower that 100mph.

So many would have been “idle” due to that reason. Don’t know what stupid “pay me whether I produce or not” provisions they might have for that particular “useless csse.”

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
February 4, 2025 3:41 pm

Here’s a map of estimated wind speeds at hub height (100m) at midday on the 24th. The areas in cherry and darker are over 25m/sec (56mph) which is where turbines typically cut out.

Screenshot-2025-01-22-231124
February 4, 2025 3:38 am

https://edmhdotme.wpcomstaging.com/2024-power-generation-in-the-uk/

The illustrations of UK power generation in 2024 shown above, indicate:

  • the imposition of an additional ~48 Gigawatt of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” has reduced the overall UK power fleet productivity, normally ~90%, down to ~39.5%.
  • in 2024 ~48GW of installed Weather-Dependent “Renewables” contributed the equivalent of ~9GW to the UK grid.
  • in 2024 UK Weather-Dependent “Renewables” achieved a combined productivity of ~18.4%, a relatively low value.
  • in 2024 Offshore UK wind power, which is normally quite productive, only achieved the low level of productivity of 23.5%.
  • the unreliability and intermittency of both Onshore and Offshore Wind power is clear from the third graphic above:
  • Wind power output can vary from close to full power on occasions down to virtually nil power output within a few hours.
  • Solar power is inevitably diurnal, very variable Summer to Winter and dependent on cloudiness. The UK is one of the cloudiest nations.
  • Solar power consistently has continued its low overall productivity of only ~10%.
  • Solar power contributed most power at periods of low demand during the summer and very little during the winter, the period of high demand.
  • the daily timing of the contribution from Solar power does not meet the high power demand in winter evenings.
  • although capital installation costs of Solar power are almost comparable to Gas-firing for nameplate capital costs, Solar power output actually costs ~10 times as much as Gas-firing to install and maintain when its low productivity is taken into account.
  • the UK is heavily dependent on imported power, largely Nuclear from France, the Netherlands and Norway, amounting to ~15% of power generation over the year, with the UK exporting power only on rare occasions.
  • UK energy security is at risk by having to rely on imported power:
  • Norway is already considering curtailing its exports to the UK and retaining its power output for its own domestic use.
  • France has threatened its supply to the UK in a dispute over the Channel Islands.
  • imported power was close to equivalent to the output of the whole of the UK’s current indigenous consistent Nuclear power generation.
  • the final closure of the last UK Coal-fired power station occurred in 2024, it contributed less than 1% of power demand before closure.
  • the installation of ~48GW, Weather-Dependent “Renewables” ~65% of the present UK generation fleet, also produced a similar ~30% cumulative power output as from Gas-firing but that “Renewable” power output was non-dispatchable on demand: “Renewables” achieved at a combined productivity of only ~18.5% in 2024.
  • imported Biomass, with CO2 emissions about 4 times that of Gas-firing, contributed a dispatchable ~7% of UK demand.
  • using imported Biomass negated all and any CO2 emissions savings made by other Weather-Dependent “Renewables”.
  • with a installation of ~10GW+ Natural gas generated about 30% of all UK power at a productivity of ~87%: this power output was flexibly dispatchable, available to meet demand.
  • Gas-firing, but not using indigenous UK gas resources, was largely able to compensate for the intermittency and unreliability of the large scale imposition of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” already installed in the UK.
February 4, 2025 4:43 am

It’s important to understand that the UK pays heavily to run wind. Even in the height of the energy crisis gas was always cheaper than wind. Why? The subsidy mechanisms.

CFDs pay an average strike price of ~£150/MWh, which is what consumers have to pay via their bills. Normally that is way above the cost of power from gas generation: only at the peak of the energy crisis did it work out cheaper for a while. However, much more production is subsidised by ROCs. These currently average almost £100/MWh on top of market prices, swamping them completely.

Here’s the history of CFD average strike prices:

CFD-Average-Strike-vs-Market
Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 4, 2025 4:56 am

Here’s the history of ROC subsidies per MWh: they are indexed by RPI inflation every April. The portfolio of generation covered by ROCs is stable since the scheme was closed for new entrants.

The subsidies are in addition to the wholesale price for which output is sold. There is also a further subsidy from the sale of greenwash REGO certificates (used to claim renewables sourcing by retailers or large businesses), now worth £10-15/MWh on top.

ROC-Subsidies-per-MWh
Reply to  It doesnot add up
February 4, 2025 3:48 pm

Just for completeness, here’s a chart of the costs of various kinds of wind. The average is around £175/MWh currently.

Production-weighted-wind-princes-inc-floating
February 4, 2025 5:28 am

Wind turbine blades become non-recyclable waste that often goes to landfills.

You forgot to add “and they don’t last very long.” You’re lucky to get two decades out of these things, while *real* power plants commonly last 2-3 times as long, and produce the 24/7 electricity that windmills and solar panels CANNOT.

Sparta Nova 4
February 4, 2025 6:29 am

Reminds me of a segment in The Groove Tube, the polluted river.

The company understands the problem and the urgency to address the problem and as such, after 2 years and multiple millions invested, the company came up with this advertising campaign.
(not a direct quote, but the message is clear)

Edit: Company name was Uranus Corporation.

February 4, 2025 7:35 am

From the article: “Consumers face a triple hit in constraint costs at times of high winds,” says Lee Moroney of U.K.’s Renewable Energy Forum. “Not only do they pay for electricity that wind farms predicted they would generate but were instructed not to because of grid congestion, but they also have to pay a bonus to the wind farms for the trouble of reducing output. And they must also pay for the costs of turning up conventional generation (such as gas-fired power stations] to make up the shortfall.”

The Public shouldn’t be paying any of these costs. Structuring costs in this way is the reason electricity costs are so high in the UK.

Windmills and solar should stand on their own economically. They shouldn’t be getting special favors from the government, special favors that cost the Public dearly.

Tom Halla
February 4, 2025 8:00 am

California did recall Gray Davis after the first set of blackouts, but we got Schwartzenegger, a Kennedy affiliated RINO.

Len Werner
February 4, 2025 8:16 am

Alberta is having some of the coldest temperatures of this winter so far right now, their internal load is slightly higher than their generation and they are importing a small amount of power from both BC and Montana. When their demand was at yesterday’s peak at around 12,000 MW I noticed that wind output was 11 MW out of an installed capacity of 5688 MW. An installed capacity to deliver nearly half of peak demand was actually able to deliver 0.2% of that demand. Without disparaging wind, the simple and obvious observation is that wind has to have effectively 100% backup by a reliable source. I have nothing against wind if the suppliers of that power provide or arrange for their own guaranteed backup.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Len Werner
February 4, 2025 9:49 am

Even Lazards who developed the concept of LCOE that Nick Stokes and his ilk have constantly used to say unreliables are cheaper have now accepted that they did not include the costs required to provide power when the wind and sun cannot meet demand.

It only took them 16 years to acknowledge this.

I wonder if Nick has taken it on board yet?

Someone
Reply to  Len Werner
February 4, 2025 2:43 pm

I have nothing against wind if 

I do. It destroys the environment both literally (clear a lot of forest) and aesthetically and kills birds and bats. And who will pay for removal of these monstrosities when they become dead? Mind that many of them die years ahead of projected lifetime. Check out how many dead ones are in CA.

Len Werner
Reply to  Someone
February 4, 2025 5:43 pm

I do not disagree; killing an eagle is killing an eagle, and the penalty ought to be the same whether it’s done by a wind turbine blade or a shotgun or an oil sands settling pond. But cars kill birds in much the same way as turbine blades do, and human dwelling windows kill birds in a way analogous to Ivanpah; I doubt you want to rid society of those. And of course logging to provide for building human dwellings and space to build them also has an effect on forests, but like a cornfield they grow back if we replant them and provide them with enough CO2.

I wonder if species will adapt over time, that survival will change to favour those individuals that learn to avoid blades. There appears to be sufficient squirrels that have adapted to avoid getting squashed by Toyota Camrys. The ones that didn’t change their zip-zag pattern of predator avoidance when crossing a road were no match for four 205/70R14’s at 60 mph.

DStayer
February 4, 2025 9:14 am

So true, Wind and Solar are the alchemy of energy. The only ones who benefit are the wind companies and the politicians that get their kickbacks.

ResourceGuy
February 4, 2025 12:59 pm

AS Putin would say about the UK–They are a one-anchor (seafloor drag) country.

Brian
February 4, 2025 1:05 pm

I really don’t care if someone wants solar panels on their roof. I don’t think it’s fair you can sell me electricity, but that’s besides the point.
I do however find it offensive that we put bird and bat blenders across every mountaintop.

son of mulder
February 4, 2025 2:47 pm

Double the number of wind turbines and on a windless day 2×0 will also be zero. Mad, bad or stupid?

Bob
February 4, 2025 2:54 pm

Very nice Vijay. Wind and solar don’t work, stop building them. Fossil fuel and nuclear work, build them. Only government is stupid enough to keep dumping our money into wind and solar. Government needs to stop being stupid.