"Modern Plant" huh...

a lower end CF of 40% ?

you seriously believe that?

I assume you are aware of the published industry figures for average UK wind CF over the last 5 years?

But he did not use the GDP from 5 years ago for comparison did he? However I was indeed a little optimistic in my of the top of my head numbers, apologies for my memory lapse. So correction: new offshore wind has a CF of about 35-55% and onshore 30-35%, and as you saw from my link offshore can deliver 71% in a windy month.

Also CF is steadily increasing at about 10 percentage points a decade as old plant is retired and new more efficient designs come onstream.

71% is extraordinary.

I still wonder at your numbers as averages for onshore as far as I'm aware had a lower bound of 26% last time I looked and offshore 32% but the numbers keep getting arbitrarily revised and there is much pushing of outliers usually in a far more dishonest way than you have done.

I'd remind you that there are significant periods of calm weather and up to a month has been seen where wind has barely managed to turn the blades and output has dropped to very low numbers indeed.

Got a reference for the 10% a decade improvement in CF claim?

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/wind-power-could-blow-past-hydros-capacity-factor-by-2020

And the Hoskins piece is still crap from start to end.

Modern turbines have larger blades and can generate power at lower wind speeds, increasing their capacity factors. Capacity factors for new onshore wind farms are 30-35%. For new offshore wind farms, they range between 35% and 55%.

https://energyindustryreview.com/renewables/europe-getting-15-of-its-electricity-from-wind-in-2019/

"Capacity factors for new onshore wind farms are 30-35%. For new offshore wind farms, they range between 35% and 55%.
https://energyindustryreview.com/renewables/europe-getting-15-of-its-electricity-from-wind-in-2019/

Apr 19, 2020 at 9:40 PM Phil Clarke"

How does "capacity factor" translate in to unreliability? They can boil a kettle and toast a couple of slices one day out of three?

I notice that the lower end of wind CF is totally swerved while the extraordinary upper end is trilled over. Since averages aren't available for new installs the lower end CF are suspect as historically there is up to 8% (non trivial) annual
variation.

Intermittent generation isn't costed and reliable generators are financially punished.

The word utility doesn't seem to be in the renewable vocabulary and it isn't something that the subsidy farmers like ... constraint payments suit them just fine - saddling wind farms with an obligation to keep the lights on 24/7 might focus them a bit on what they are supposed to be supplying...

Then of course there's the subsidies...

"edmh April 20, 2020 at 3:51 am
EurObservER publishes the installed size of generation installations in Megawatts and the annual output of each technology is given in Gigawatt hours. To give viable comparisons of each technology these are converted to Gigawatts and the Gigawatt hours are multiplied by 1000 and then divided by 8760, the number of hours in a year. This gives comparable Gigawatt values that provide the Productivity ratios for each technology.

In the UK in 2019 the resulting Productivity ratios were: Onshore wind ~20% , Offshore wind ~35% and Solar ~11%.

I am sorry if you found this error so disturbing that you could not read on."

"NeilC April 18, 2020 at 10:47 pm
How can anyone with half a brain think that intermttent wind and solar can power a modern day society such as the UK?

Why do powers that be use capacity as a measurement, it is nonsence. Average UK, mean wind speed days, when turbines can produce elecetricty, over the last 21 years shows just 32.6% above the 10 mph (cut in speed). No matter if capacity is 100 times, it will still only be possible to produce electricity on 32.6% of days.

As for solar in the UK, over the last 21 years the average sunshine is 4hours per day. For more info;"

https://www.weather-research.com/articles/the-facts-behind-wind-and-solar-energy-in-the-uk

Well, now we know. So he took a perfectly good unit, multiplied it into a meaningless one, didn't mention this in the text and sourced the data from some group called EUrObservER, again not mentioned in the text where he gives REF as the source.

At least he has conceded it was an error. Now, why did he use 60 years for his capital comparisons when the average age of a nuclear plant at decommission is 35? Why does he assume US costs are applicable to the UK market? What is the source of the £250 billion? (etc, etc).

PS: the REF figures Hoskins says he used are here (sensible units). And you can get figures from the BEIS here. (Excel spreadsheet). I redid his sums using the official figures and guess what? Using that data the capacity factors for wind power are significantly larger, 26.0% (vs 22.9%) for onshore wind, 38.4% (vs 31.7%) for offshore.

High time the piety tariff made an appearance isn't it?

Pick your mix of supply and have your lights, domestic appliances and computers turned off for you when there isn't enough of your chosen source of electrons.... randomly - and you also get to pay the full costs of generation plus a "handling fee".

"Using that data the capacity factors for wind power are significantly larger, 26.0% (vs 22.9%) for onshore wind, 38.4% (vs 31.7%) for offshore.

Apr 20, 2020 at 4:59 PM Phil Clarke"

.... and all guaranteed 100% Unreliable, without any margin of error, however many fudge factors are bodged into the dubious calculations.

The case for pulling the financial plug on Unreliables is made, their subsidies should be 100% Unreliable.

More reasons to cancel ALL Taxpayer Funding for Climate Scientists and their favourite politicians:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/20/un-climate-change-fund-calls-coronavirus-an-opportunity-to-re-shape-the-world/
"Never let a crisis go to waste"

"The UN-funded financial arm of the Paris Agreement has labelled the killer coronavirus an “opportunity” to raise funds for climate change action and “relaunch economies on low-emission, climate-resilient trajectories”.

The extraordinary statements have been published in a document by the Green Climate Fund – an international organisation with a $10.3 billion budget (US)."

Green Blob Genocide

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/22/financiers-of-poverty-malnutrition-and-death-part-1/
Private ‘philanthropic’ foundations join government agencies in funding anti-technology NGOs
Paul Driessen

"The UN Food and Agriculture Organization, anti-development banks, the Agency for International Development (USAID), NGO (non-government organization) pressure groups and other eco-imperialists are properly condemned for using their money, power, and control over trade and lending to keep millions of African, Asian and Latin American families from having access to reliable, affordable energy, pesticides and spatial insect repellants to prevent disease, and modern agricultural technologies.

Those outfits perpetuate poverty, disease, malnutrition and death. Yet the eco-manslaughter continues.

Too many US, EU and UN government agencies have been captured by neo-colonialist elements in their leadership and ranks, and among the politicians who set their budgets and programs. The NGOs enjoy tax-exempt status and global prestige, because the human and environmental costs of their policies rarely receive more than superficial scrutiny by media, human rights or other “watchdogs.”

But the fact is, few NGOs would even exist without the wealthy foundations that finance them. Indeed, “philanthropic” foundation support for radical environmentalist groups and campaigns is one of the best kept secrets of modern society. It’s time to spotlight some of them and call them to account."

Michael Moore puts the boot in to the Green Blob and their racketeering

http://joannenova.com.au/2020/04/the-moment-greens-realize-theyve-been-used-by-big-money-renewables-the-michael-moore-documentary/

"The moment greens realize they’ve been used by Big Money Renewables — the Michael Moore documentary:
It’s like someone read all the major skeptic blogs in the world and turned them into a documentary.

The new Michael Moore documentary: Planet of The Humans
1 - unapologetically exposes Al Gore, Bill McKibben, Robert Kennedy, etc. for being con artists and hypocrites,
2 - crucifies the Sierra Club and their ilk for being disingenuous and primarily in it for the money and influence, and
3 - also carefully documents how wind, solar and biofuels are scams. — John Droz, jr."

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/michael_moore_stumbles_upon_the_truth_about_socalled_green_energy.html

And on a related note.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/04/its_time_for_a_reckoning_for_china_and_its_compradors.html

It’s like someone read all the major skeptic blogs in the world and turned them into a documentary.

Um, no. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, right?

Well, not really, as you'd know if you watched the movie. It's been described as a 'Michael Moore movie', and while Moore is the Exec Producer the content was written and directed by Moore's long time collaborator Jeff Gibbs. Gibbs is a hard core environmentalist and self-confessed tree-hugger who lives off-grid and sustainably in the Michegan woods, a man who started his activism by sabotaging a bulldozer that was clearing a local wood.

The film does however, borrow a lot of Moorerian techniques, archive news and PR footage (it opens with a clip of Frank Capra warning of climate change in the fifties) and candid interviews with voiceovers edited together in support of a thesis. What Gibbs lacks is Moore's redeeming wit and sense of irony and presentation skills: he presents his case in a depressing downbeat monotone.

The thesis is Gibbs' disillusionment with green energy, which he asserts is tainted by overstated claims, association with the very industries it claims to replace and is sadly inadequate to the challenge faced by man's malign influence on the environment. But the clips he presents are frequently strangely out of date. He includes the launch of the Volt electric car, an event the makers concede the electricity used was mainly from coal, but that was from 2007, in 2020 it is entirely possible to power a car with 'clean' electricity. The section on solar PV farms uses a clip from the same year of a small plant with just 8% efficiency, he also seems surprised that solar panels do not last forever and includes a clip saying some have a lifetime of just 10 years. But again, things have moved on, technology has improved, costs have dropped, modern panels are between 2 or 3 times more efficient now, and a Monocrystalline silicon panel loses just 0.36% efficiency pa and will still have over 90% of its starting efficiency after 20 years.

He does make some valid, but by now well-worn points about greenwashing, biomass and biofuels, but he is also something of a purist; a solar plant is critiqued because the mirrors are made by a company owned by Koch Industries. One suspects that nothing less than the immediate replacement of all fossil fuels with a green alternative would satisfy our Jeff, but other than recommending reducing human population ('Infinite growth on a finite planet is suicide') he offers no plausible alternative solution to the environmental crisis he has identified.

As for Gore and McKibben etc, they are just not green enough for Gibbs. Gore gets in the neck for some investments and for selling his TV company to Al Jazeera, as if this double standard nullified his Nobel and Oscar winning achievements in raising consciousness.

I agree with a lot of Gibb's diagnosis, but his extreme green stance is not going to win him many friends. In his world any organisation that claims to be green and which plugs into the mains grid seems to be a traitor to the cause. Some of his punches land but many are either out of date or a stretch.

And isn't it odd to see the likes of Watts and Nova praising a writer/director who believes the main threats are overpopulation, overconsumption, the 'suicide of economic growth' and the cancer of capitalism? Its almost as if they had not actually seen the film ;-)

Clarke, maybe one of your funniest posts.

"As for Gore and McKibben etc, they are just not green enough for Gibbs. Gore gets in the neck for some investments and for selling his TV company to Al Jazeera, as if this double standard nullified his Nobel and Oscar winning achievements in raising consciousness."

Gore's achievement : raking in shedloads of greenbacks, whilst having one of the biggest "carbon footprints" ( sic ) on the planet.

Leni Riefenstahl made great films.

Couple of facts for you Mr. C. Al Gore is a wealthy man from a number of sources, he invested in Google before they went public and has been a director at Apple since 2003, during which period the share price increased by 5,900%.

But he donates all the proceeds from his climate-related activities, including royalties on his Oscar winning documentary and his Nobel prize money, to his educational charity.

1/ Politician well placed to line his own pockets;

2/ Slush-fund "charidee" useful for tax purposes.

I hope I never achieve that degree of cynicism.

"I hope I never achieve that degree of cynicism.
Apr 23, 2020 at 4:45 PM Phil Clarke"
How do you remain so gullible, despite all the evidence presented to you?

The Guardian is beginning to realise the scale of the Green Blob con trick.

"What is happening to the Guardian? The other day they praised seafront property development, now they’re praising a movie which trashes renewables."

"Have greens secretly hated renewables all along, and suddenly feel able to talk about it? Or are they just softening us up, because they are about to spring something even worse on us?"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/23/the-end-of-big-green-the-guardian-praises-michael-moores-anti-renewables-flick-planet-of-the-humans/

""I hope I never achieve that degree of cynicism.
Apr 23, 2020 at 4:45 PM Phil Clarke"
How do you remain so gullible, despite all the evidence presented to you?"

It is an achievement, isn't it?

Maybe he's on lots of blue pills, but thinks it's Viagra.