Discussion > Economics of wind power
It's not up to you to prove a negative (impossible) it's up to your friends to prove the positive
1. If it is close to conventional then why are we paying a subsidy ?
It's not
2. If they disagree ask them to name a large unsubsidised project somewhere in the world.
3. The other strong proof is how the wind proponents spin the figures quoting capacity when in fact the average is often 20-30% of that. If they were so great they would be able to quote the CO2 footprint of everything ..the mine in China, transportation, maintenance, the huge amount of concrete needed in construction, Transmission losses (cos they are so far from the demand), the agricultural land they take out with their roads etc.
- "New Grain will cost £350-500m the London Array is 1/3 the size and costs £1500m, You'd neeed 3 LA's to match the gas plant at a cost of £4500m so the construction cost is 10+ times more. "
..but then you have to add on top of that the fact that the gas is independent, whereas the wind station cos it's intermmittent has to have the cost of a partial gasplant running on low efficiency standby in tandem.
wind is OK for things like pumping water into standby tanks
- If your friends were really concerned about CO2 they'd get fracking and replace coal with gas
The CO2 decrease you get for your $ far outweighs what you get from even any practical estimate of $ spent on wind.
- Same for Energy conservation $ per $ it's best at reducing CO2. Not a cent should have been spent on wind when it would have saved far more CO2 if used properly in home lagging etc.
- Windpower is about feeling good, not practically making a CO2 difference
- Meanwhile 10+ years of big wind construction, has made practically no difference to CO2 which has shot up+, strangely temperature hasn't ..just as if there is no strong linear relationship.
stewgreen
cross post of blog comment : from the anti-wind guy who won a landmark case in court against the Irish government
To me that really sums it up, as over 100,000 MW of wind energy have been installed in the EU and there is zero information as to verified emission savings. In fact the work that some Irish and other engineers have done looking at our system, is the closest which we come to knowing what is going on. On a pro bono basis, Dr Joe Wheatley, Biospherica Risk Ltd, completed an analysis of the CO2 performance of the Irish grid based on the modelled emissions available from Eirgrd, in order to better analyse the inefficiencies on the grid with increasing amounts of wind input. This was presented in March 2013 at a Seminar organised by the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI)http://joewheatley.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/co2.pdf
Jan 17, 2014 at 12:47 PM | Unregistered Commenter Pat Swords
stewgreen
Difficult question to answer I think as a lot of the costs are hidden. others posting here may know of some good sources of information.
EU energy prices here
EU wind power installed capacity here, near the bottom there are per capita %age and leading European countries tables.
Comparing the cost with these two tables may give a hint of the additional costs from wind power.
SandyS
Basically we pay twice as much for land based wind as we do for conventional energy. We pay three times as much for offshore wind. New nuclear will be twice the standard price. Despite all the activities towards cutting CO2, the UK CO2 footprint has gone up when imports are included. We will import more and more stuff because stuff is cheaper from countries with cheap energy. Then there's the problem with the unreliability of wind and having to have capacity to switch in when the wind drops or becomes too windy. Wind power may also be plentiful at times when we don't need it (eg at night or at Christmas) and wind power generators will be paid to disconnect from the grid.
Try these links
Why it's expensive:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10562274/UK-homeowners-caught-in-EUs-tangle-of-green-targets.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22772441
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21592615-britain-world-leader-something-rather-dubious-rueing-waves
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10542388/Wind-farms-handed-5-million-to-switch-off-turbines-as-thousands-of-homes-left-without-power.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/10566029/Britons-pay-more-for-wind-farms.html
Why it's not working to reduce CO2:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22267231
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/12/us-energy-shale-gas-uk-industry
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/high-energy-prices-will-see-uk-energy-intensive-industries-lose-market-share/946252
TinyCO2
This might help colorado consumers paying steep price renewable power mandates
SandyS
Many thanks, everybody. I'm genuinely surprised to find we don't have a fully worked out costs/benefits spreadsheet for the various power generation options. Do you think there would be much interest in a community effort to produce such a thing? I really would like to find out how (un)justified is my picture of the world.
ralphbecket
It would be very useful but I'm not sure it could be done. You'd have to know all sorts of things, price of coal + gas, cost of new coal stations versus wind farms, inefficiency of conventional stations when wind is being used, number of times wind asked to turn off and for how long (which will vary), stress on grid from wind variability, how long wind generators really last, how much they cost to repair, cost of new infrastructure to transmit wind power, cost to tourism and house prices....
TinyCO2
I think the Meridian windfarms at the Manawatu Gorge and coastal Wellington in NZ aren't subsidised. The rest of the company's generation is hydro so they can cover the variability that way. I don't know if the wind turbines are covering their capital cost, especially as the spot market for generation has dropped, but there is no overt subsidy for them being "green" . they have got the advantage that anyone who has been in the area knows in that they have a very high load factor - over 40% - so that would change their benefits significantly.
ChrisM
This relevant but not an actual answer to your question. People can make their minds up about which is preferable. I used to live near Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, and prior to that in Gainsborough so large coal fired power stations have been part of my landscape for 35 years. Now when driving from Limousin to Derby to visit family I pass a single French Nuclear Power Station and Ratcliffe -on-Soar and many 10s of wind turbines in both countries.
London Array
With the commissioning of the 175th and final turbine on the 6th April, 2013, the world’s largest offshore wind farm, the London Array, is now at full capacity. Situated off the coasts of Kent and Essex and covering an area of 90km2, the 630MW initial phase of the project is now delivering enough green electricity to the UK national grid to power around 500,000 homes a year.
Ratcliffe-On-Soar, the area covered appears to be less than 2km2
Ratcliffe-on-Soar is one of the most efficient coal fired power stations in the UK. With a total generation capacity of 2,000MW from four 500MW units, it produces enough electricity to meet the needs of approximately 2 million homes.
Civaux Nuclear, again I can't find an actual figure but the footprint is lass than 2km2 I'd say.
The Civaux Nuclear Power Plant is located in the commune of Civaux (Vienne) at the edge of Vienne River between Confolens (55 km upstream) and Chauvigny (16 km downstream), and 34 km south-east of Poitiers.
It has two operating units that were the precursors to the European Pressurized Reactor, being the "N4 stage". Designed for a net power output of 1450 MWe per unit, power was uprated to 1495 MWe in 2003. Water from the Vienne River is used for cooling.
As of 2004, 692 people work at the plant, with 12.9% women.
The cooling towers of Civaux Nuclear Power Plant are 180 metres in height, making them the tallest cooling towers in France.
So those two power stations probably produce more power than all the wind mills I pass on the same journey.
SandyS
So those two power stations probably produce more power than all the wind mills I pass on the same journey.
Jan 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM | Unregistered CommenterSandyS
There is no probably about it, the Wind Developers installed capacity figures are fantasy 100% utilisation, 20% is the norm reality.
Breath of Fresh Air
I wonder if anyone else has seen this article?
http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/02/03/wind-power-german-data-shows-what-the-dutch-found-out-years-ago/
Newly released numbers from Germany, collected and analysed over several years, show what disappointed investors have long surmised: around half of wind parks are doing so poorly, investors will be lucky to get their initial investment back after the 20 years.
Investments in renewable energy that were supposed to deliver annual returns of up to 20% have been averaging around 2.25%. German renewable energy firm Prokon is in fact insolvent, and fears are mounting that Merkel’s green energy promise will never be able to meet expectations. In courts around the country, complaints are mounting from wind park investors who haven’t received a dividend disbursement in years, or whose parks went belly up.
etc
Sadly I can't see a link to reference the data behind that.
Keith Macdonald
Keith M; there was an article in Der Spiegel on the same topic but with a bit more detail:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/wind-power-investments-in-germany-proving-riskier-than-thought-a-946367.html
mikeh
MikeH - thanks.
I wonder how far ahead Germany is in the "life cycle" of the wind farm industry?
Putting it another way, how similar are the investment models in Germany and the UK?
Or, how long before we have similar scenes in the UK?
Keith Macdonald
HC 517 The Economics of Wind Power
Memorandum submitted by W R B Bowie (WIND 59)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/writev/517/m59.htm
Though, when I look at the OCGT generation dial here:
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
it always looks as if the figure is very low.
Robert Christopher
ralph, the spreadsheet can't be done because it's never apples and apples. No two wind farms are the same in terms of cost and outputs, and there are many different kinds and sizes of conventional power plants, so we have to work on averages which are not always satisfactory.
However, these people have done a lot of research and number crunching:
http://www.masterresource.org/
although a lot of it is US based data. Well worth a look.
johanna
Robert C; I noticed the same. So the CCGT plants are being used to compensate for wind's erratic output on top of the normal demand pattern with coal also being turned down at the extremes. That must really bu**er up the efficiencies.
mikeh
Following the stories about financial malarkey in the German wind business, things look rough in Spain too according to a quote on GWPF from Wind Power Monthly :
" The Spanish government said it plans to end all price subsidies for wind capacity online before end-2004, while slashing remuneration for younger capacity. "
mikeh
...That must really bu**er up the efficiencies.
Feb 6, 2014 at 11:25 AM mikeh
butter?
buffer?
buzzer?
No, don't get it.
Martin A
[I tried posting this question a couple of days ago without being logged in -- apologies if the original turns up.]
I'm having an argument with some friends. I claim wind power is extremely expensive, very inefficient, and does not reduce CO2 emissions in any significant way. My friends claim the opposite. In particular, they claim that either wind generation costs are on par with conventional or, if not, so close that environmental benefits and energy independence win out.
This has me thinking: could I be wrong? If not, how can I present a watertight case?
Surely someone has already done the sums here, taking everything into account, and using sources uncontroversial to either side of the debate? I'm hoping for a one-page result rather than a weighty tome -- there surely can't be that much wiggle room in the numbers.