Tuesday
Jun122012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill New Commons inquiry: wind power
Jun 12, 2012 Climate: Parliament Economics Energy: wind The House of Commons Committee on Energy and Climate Change has announced that it is to hold an inquiry into the economics of wind power.
The Committee is particularly interested in the following, although written submission need not address all, of be confined to, these questions:
- What do cost benefit analyses tell us about onshore and offshore wind compared with other measures to cut carbon?
- What do the latest assessments tell us about the costs of generating electricity from wind power compared to other methods of generating electricity?
- How do the costs of onshore wind compare to offshore wind?
- What are the costs of building new transmission links to wind farms in remote areas and how are these accounted for in cost assessments of wind power?
- What are the costs associated with providing back up capacity for when the wind isn’t blowing, and how are these accounted for in cost assessments of wind power?
- How much support does wind power receive compared with other forms of renewable energy?
- Is it possible to estimate how much consumers pay towards supporting wind power in the UK? (i.e. separating out from other renewables)
- What lessons can be learned from other countries?
- What methods could be used to make onshore wind more acceptable to communities that host them?
Looks like policy-based evidence making to me.
Reader Comments (79)
Go for it Duke of E
Any suggestion that this rotten to the core BS is intended to be anything resembling an examination of the economics of the wind power fraud (for fraud it is) is rendered null and void by the choice of The Yeo as head whitewasher. To say this sinks to high heaven merely puts it on a par with everything else this government of Blue marxists gets up to.
If economics are ever to be brought kicking and screaming into an examination of the consequences of the AGW religion then any economist worth his salt is going to realise immediately that CO2 brings no discernible costs (it has no detectable effect on climate) but bestows enormous benefits in terms of increased crop yields and more efficient use of water. In rough terms it has been said that crop yields have increased by 15% since the fifties but experiments have determined the relation between CO2 concentration and yield for different types of crops. It cannot therefore be beyond the wit of man to integrate up year by year over the past six or seven decades the financial benefits to agriculture that increasing CO2 has brought. I would be very surprised if the added value is less than many £ trillions.
The cost of CO2 is negative, i.e. we are better off for its existence. If there was any need to invent a market in CO2 (of course emphatically there isn't) it would more logically involve paying people for manufacturing the compound, not taxing them. It makes no more sense than taxing people for adding value, i.e. VAT.
Sparticus is free: Whether wind provides 2% or 10% of overall generated need, the question I still keep trying to get an answer for is: What is the percentage of wind-generated power compared to the 'brass-plate' rating for all installed wind turbines?
I tried to fathom this and got a rough figure, iirc, of around 9Gw installed in the UK. (Wiki actually suggest 6Gw installed in 2010 producing around 10Tw/h per year) There are various sites for finding the number of installed turbines (thanks Phil Bratby) but the problem is, the number installed is a moving target (no pun intended) especially if they are not grid-connected at the time.
It seems my sarcasm has been taken as support for perpetual motion machines!
I was hoping people would understand my analogy that there's no scientific basis for PMMs and thus no economic basis for Wind "power". PMMs always require a hidden energy "subsidy" and are peddled by charlatans, totally unlike wind power (that was another bit of sarcasm!)...
Both are net negative in their respective areas.
Hope this clears it up lol.
Snotrocket @ 11.39
I took a screenshot of the neta website on 6 February 2012 which was a cold and windless day over the whole UK. Wind had produced an average of 45MW over the 30 minutes between 12.00 and 12.30 which, assuming the total "installed" capacity is 6,000MW, equates to 0.75% of installed wind capacity.
It is curious that regarding backup capacity (5th bullet point) the only questions are about cost and not about the resulting CO2 emissions.
Surely the myth that wind energy has very low CO2 emissions is a key argument in installing it.
It has been shown that when wind energy has a significant contribution to the national electricity grid (say more than 20% of the demand ) the emission of the backup to compensate wind variability is more than when the wind turbines are switched off and the gas power stations can run at maximum efficiency.
Snotrocket @ 11.39
From the IEA Wind 2010 Annual Report it can be deduced that the average net contribution of wind turbines ovber the year is about 25% of the "brass plate"rating. For the UK it was 22% in 2010.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
Are not Commons committees rather lightweight affairs? That is to say that their findings will be adopted or neglected according to the direction of stronger political winds. And that is decided by the power brokers.
So it may not be worthwhile making representations to the committee as requested.
On the other hand it might be worth while reminding the Chancellor and/or the Treasury of the folly of windfarms, not by means of a multipaged technical treatise but rather one of the Bishop’s short sharp paragraphs.
Maybe from/through the GWPF. But the Foundation would, I would think, already be on to it unless Lawson thought it would do no good.
Slightly off-topic, the Olympic opening ceremony will be based on a Miss Marple-ish view of the English countryside.
"Viewers will see farmers tilling soil while animals graze. These include 12 horses, three cows, two goats, 10 chickens, 10 ducks, nine geese, 70 sheep and three sheep dogs."
What they won't see are the wind turbines already blighting this idyllic countryside and which the government hopes to install in even greater numbers.
Ironically, Danny Boyle said the show " is about a land recovering from its industrial legacy".
Andy Scrase - I can well outbid you..!
As I write, wind is providing a staggering 0.1% of UK electricity demand - 44MW out of an installed ('nameplate') capacity of around 4000MW. Check the NETA site, folks...
When the wind doesn't blow - you get - how can I put this in terms that even a politician could understand - NO ELECTRICITY....
Mr Yeo - are you LISTENING, at all..?
As a follow-up to my previous, I have submitted a missive to the Energy Sub-Committee (much good it'll do, but there 's no point just grumbling into my beer)....
The answer to all these questions is "Shale gas".
As a follow-up to my previous, I have submitted a missive to the Energy Sub-Committee (much good it'll do, but there 's no point just grumbling into my beer)....
SORRY - pressed 'Create Post' twice...!
I do hope that some of the knowledgeable people posting here will submit responses to the questions.
Thanks to posters who have shed some light on the political backdrop - as we all know, it's all about politics, not science. So, please correct me if I'm wrong, the Chair of this committee is up to his ears in conflicts of interest? So, how did the inquiry come about, and how did he get to be appointed?
As a politics junkie, I appreciate that BH may not be the best place to ask these questions, but any tidbits would be appreciated.
snotrocket: don't believe the propaganda. The figure of 25% capacity factor applies to current wind farms. By 2020, according to the NGC, the need to disconnect 11% of the time to protect the grid from blowing up will remove ~30% of the energy in the gales. So average capacity factor will be more like 17%.
As the designer of the robots in I Robot says to the Will Smith character
'THAT is the right question'
Snotrocket & Spartacusisfree
Yes this is one of the key questions.
Another is the variability and the cost of managing that variability.
We need an 'all up' cost per kWhr, including construction, decommissioning, maintenance, connections to the (hugely extended) grid, the standby generators, the pumped storage schemes and the interconnectors to France so we can use French nuclear to keep the lights on.
But more than that, how much CO2 do they REALLY save?
And how much rise in average Global Surface Temperature does that prevent? (OK, use the IPCC's bogus maths to make it easier).
THAT is the question. How much cooler is it and at what cost?
And why are the promoters of this scam (both BigWind and DECC) not in Police custody awaiting trial for criminal conspiracy to defraud?
And why are the promoters of this scam (both BigWind and DECC) not in Police custody awaiting trial for criminal conspiracy to defraud?
Jun 13, 2012 at 7:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby
---------------------------------------
Martin, your childlike faith in the courts misses the point. If you think that giving lawyers the power to over-rule elected representatives is the way forward ... talk about going from the frying pan into the fire.
It is like a child who can't get what it wants from Mummy, so runs crying to Daddy. Meanwhile, Child Protective Services is observing the breakdown of the family.
Be careful what you wish for.
"Yeo: "“Wind farms are over forty times less polluting than.....""
This presentation by John Droz at the recent Heartland event should be compulsory viewing.
http://www.viddler.com/v/ce3f7a95?secret=108446888
It mentions that one 300MW (ie about 14% of a large powerstation) wind project destroys 60,000 m2 of vegetation, generates 18,000,000 m3 of toxic air pollution, contaminates 1,800,000,000 lb of sand and results in 300,000 lb of radioactive waste - just to make the magnets!
Then there's concrete bases, roads, towers, non-biodegradable blades ...
Will they be reviewing these costs, I wonder?
Martin Brumby: the World is now cooling significantly as three cooling factors combine for the first time since the 17th Century: low solar magnetic field, the Arctic freeze cycle giving significant regional cooling over N. Europe and N. America, also the ENSO 30 year cool phase, just starting.
There may be some CO2-AGW to compensate but because the heat transfer in the climate models is wrong as any engineer immediately sees,it's probably much less than claimed.
Jun 14, 2012 at 6:45 AM | spartacusisfree
No doubt.
But the alleged reason for throwing Billions at Ruinable Energy schemes is to combat "climate change" (which is what they started calling Catostrophic Global Warming when the climate awkwardly stopped following their computer prognoses.)
So is it an entirely unreasonable request to ask (computing, if they wish, on the basis of the already falsified claims of the IPCC) how much "warming" their wretched whirligigs have avoided and at what cost? After all, they've had a good run at it and plan loads and loads more. Is it unreasonable to ask for information on what "results" they have achieved so far?
Johanna
Where did I ask for "giving lawyers the power to over-rule elected representatives"? You think the promoters of BigWind or the eco-crats in DECC were elected by anyone? Do you not think they should not be held to account by anyone for their conspiracy? What do you suggest? Peasants with burning torches and pitchforks?
I have to admit that the latter would likely be more effective.
Martin Brumby: I suggest you read 'Animal farm' [one windmill] and the History of Easter Island [hundreds of useless statues which for ~300 years kept in place a ruling caste which enslaved the population in forced, useless labour and ruined their ecology.
Hot off the press from the authors of a recent engineering study of the Dutch wind energy system: www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2012/02/epn2012432p22.pdf
'Decisions to install large-scale wind-powered electricity generation are based more on the expectation to save significant amounts of fossil fuel and CO2 emission than on any evidence that this is indeed the case. Wind technology is not suited for large-scale application without a good buffer and storage system. We propose to stop spending public money on large-scale use of wind. This money should be spent on R&D of future power systems. We expect that wind will not play an important role in these future systems.'
DECC has reportedly been informed that before our wind turbines can save any CO2, we need to flood the Lake District and the sea lochs with pump storage. This programme has been an engineering disaster run by incompetents.
Johanna
Where did I ask for "giving lawyers the power to over-rule elected representatives"? You think the promoters of BigWind or the eco-crats in DECC were elected by anyone? Do you not think they should not be held to account by anyone for their conspiracy? What do you suggest? Peasants with burning torches and pitchforks?
I have to admit that the latter would likely be more effective.
Jun 14, 2012 at 8:11 AM | Unregistered CommenterMartin Brumby
--------------------------------------
Martin, I apologise for my tone, which was grumpy and un-called for. But, you wanted the courts to mete out justice for what are essentially political decisions. Firstly, it is not (or should not) be their job, and secondly, giving this power to unelected people (even if they come up with a result you like this time) is a huge mistake.
If it can be proved that lies were told to make ordinary punters invest in a Ponzi scheme, there are laws to deal with that. If politicians have lied, there is the ballot box to deal with that.
I frequently see cries for proponents of CAGW to be tried in the courts, and usually let it go as uninformed rhetoric. Your comment was a 'tipping point', but in no way excused me being discourteous. Sorry. Your comments are among those I most appreciate on BH.
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2012/02/epn2012432p22.pdf
Worth a read, an examination of wind turbine overall performance and otherwise. Examines the backup requirements and implications. It examines a few studies that have stated that sizeable savings are made and draws conclusions as to whether they accurately reflected all factors. Interesting note about the transfer of imbalance costs from the producers to consumers.
Their conclusion is that large scale wind power is not yet fit for purpose and may never be. Obviously no one told them about how a "smarter" electricity grid can easily overcome the problems. :)
From the study.
A. “The cost of onshore wind energy reaches the cost of
fossil energy…”
Our comments are the following:
1. The product of a windmill is supply driven, so it does
not have the same value as conventional electricity.
Formerly this was partly expressed by the imposition
of imbalance costs on the producers of wind energy.
These costs are now paid by the consumers. Experts
estimate the true value of wind energy between 1 and
3 cents per kWh. [14]
2. The interest rates have been exceptionally low in the
last years, while the dominant part of the cost of wind
energy is capital. This partly explains the recent de-
crease in cost of onshore wind energy.
3.
The environmental costs are omitted in the price of
onshore wind. Land occupation: The distance between
turbines of a wind farm must be large due to the wake
effects described in ref. [3]. The result is that the capac-
ity density cannot be more than 9 MW/km2, so 9 GW
of wind capacity will occupy around 1000 km2 of land
area. This territory will be unfit for human occupa-
tion because of continuous noise and flicker effects.
Lowering of estate values. Surveys have shown that
houses within sight of wind parks lose an appreciable
percentage of their value. In highly populated areas
this depreciation is larger than the amount of capital
invested in wind turbines.
B. “…it is expected that the relatively young offshore wind
technology will experience a strong learning curve, leading
to significant cost reductions”
We note: From 2005 to 2010 the cost of installing offshore
wind farms has increased from 2 million euro/MW to 4 mil-
lion euro/MW [15]. This is a strong learning curve indeed.
Jun 14, 2012 at 6:19 PM | Mick J
I know the people who made this analysis and wrote the paper. They know all there is to know about electricity feed-in, including what the grid requirements are. I do not know what you mean with a smart grid. When the electricity grid cannot store energy, "smartness" has no effect whatsoever. But perhaps you had your sarc/ button on...
Jun 14, 2012 at 6:27 PM | Albert Stienstra
"When the electricity grid cannot store energy, "smartness" has no effect whatsoever. But perhaps you had your sarc/ button on..."
It most certainly is. :)
It was in mind because the Grantham Institute is parading the statement in some report designed to counter negative attitudes to Wind Farms, they have sent it to every politician where sadly it is likely to be believed or simply exploited.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/9323003/Hay-Festival-2012-Electricity-from-wind-turbines-will-soon-be-as-cheap-as-gas.html