Sunday
Aug122012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Wind: a zero-sum industry
Aug 12, 2012 Energy: wind Christopher Booker has a devastating critique of the government's energy policy today. The numbers speak for themselves.
At one point last week, Britain’s 3,500 turbines were contributing 12 megawatts (MW) to the 38,000MW of electricity we were using. (The Neta website, which carries official electricity statistics, registered this as “0.0 per cent”).
It is 10 years since I first pointed out here how crazy it is to centre our energy policy on wind. It was pure wishful thinking then and is even more obviously so now, when the Government in its latest energy statement talks of providing, on average, 12,300MW of power from “renewables” by 2020.
Everything about this is delusional.
Reader Comments (66)
A link to Booker's story is
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9468604/The-great-wind-delusion-has-hijacked-our-energy-policy.html
A statesman would take a long term view of what is in the country's best interest and would obviously reject wind power except where a rational case can be made for it, e.g. it might be worth considering in conjunction with pumped-storage hydropower schemes.
It would be unfair to say that politicians take a short-term view - it would depend on how far away the next general election is. However politicians, in contrast to statesmen, are more concerned with appearing to do the right thing than actually doing what is right.
Ironically if our politicians were as cynical as is often assumed they would reject a substantial part of the Green agenda because they would realise how unpopular many Green taxes are. Unfortunately the ruling classes do seem to think that they are taking a long-term view and that the great unwashed mass of the public can be educated to see things from a Guardian/BBC perspective. Furthermore, if all the main parties, and some of the fringe ones, embrace the Green agenda it hardly matters what the public think.
Just for the record, I was looking at a weather map of the UK (from NZ) and seeing a big high I browsed to the Neta site, where I screen capped the 0.0% figure
(I was expecting a low figure, but 0.0% surprised me)
I sent this to Pete North via Facebook who published on EURef from whence Christopher Booker ran his story (presumably)
Not that I am trying to blow my own trumpet (much) but this is basic fact checking that anyone can do by visiting the NETA site which it appears all of the so-called leaders of the UK are completely incapable of doing..
.
All it takes is a slightly obsessive compulsive personality....
Speaking of which, at the time of posting, wind was 4.8% of total.
Roy, for a politician 'long term' is the time between sound bites.
Considering that you can count the number of our politicians that have any sort of technical/industrial background on the fingers of one hand it is not surprising that we have such stupid energy policies from them.
Windpower might be of some use in a country such as New Zealand where most power is generated from hydropower schemes with very large lakes. The rainfall in a year is not sufficient to run those at maximum capacity, so wind turbines can keep water in the lakes. In addition the largest hydropower schemes are at one end of NZ while the major users are at the other end, so transmission losses are great. Wind turbines can be closer to the end users. That's fine by me if they compensate people living within 5km of them.
The policy of investing heavily in wind power is not based on science. Neither is it based on economics. It is based on the pursuit of wealth and power by a small number of influential individuals.
Booker says:
This is what we're up against. Scientific arguments have no effect. Economic arguments are pointless. And with all major U.K political parties apparently living in the same Alice in Wonderland version of reality, it seems to me that only a very major change in public opinion could change things. This of course may happen when energy bills skyrocket just as the lights go out.
There is an alternative explanation which is that carbon trading and renewables has taken over from BTL as the investment of choice for our MPs, in which case we need to out their interests.
And when DECC were warned of these low wind periods they said 'Its always windy somewhere in the UK'
Not quite right, remember the last 2 cold winters where the blocking highs caused the freezes, there was no wind anywhere in the UK for long periods during max electricity usage periods.
aymam,
"...most power is generated from hydropower schemes with very large lakes"
The breakdown is: SI hydro 37%, thermal 23%, NI hydro 21%, geothermal 12%, cogen 4%, wind 3%,
http://www.energylink.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/mr-12-08-05-issue-795.pdf
"In addition the largest hydropower schemes are at one end of NZ while the major users are at the other end"
No, see the breakdown. Power can and does move in either direction across Cook Strait but mostly north. Also Manapouri hydro exclusively supplies a SI aluminium smelter (major user) at knock down prices.and other major users are distributed around.
"Wind turbines can be closer to the end users"
Nope, it's way more complicated. Recently a major national grid upgrade was approved from central NI to Auckland largely the result of Auckland growth and a govt policy to "facilitate the potential contribution of renewables to the transmission system" and to conform to the Electricity Act that aims "to create a preference for renewable electricity generation by restricting new baseload, fossil-fuelled, thermal electricity-generation capacity".
Up to 30 per cent of the winter peak load in the upper North Island can be supplied by local generation in the Auckland area. Of that 30 per cent, over half is supplied by a single combined-cycle, gas-fired generator at Otahuhu.in Auckland. So additional fossil-fuelled, thermal (including nearby coal) sited in Auckland would reduce the need to secure the Central NI to Auckland section of the grid to the extent that it will be.
But the “potential contribution of renewables to the transmission system” are from south of Whakamaru in the Central NI, hence the need (in part) to upgrade that section of the grid.
Why the govt is favouring renewables (read wind) in this situation is beyond me except to accede to the green agenda and proclamations that man's fossil fuel emissions are threatening the planet.
You can read more up and down from this CCG link that provides more details and further links:-
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/open-threads/climate/climate-science/energy-and-fuel/comment-page-2/#comment-111604
I used to live in Suffolk and Gummer was my local MP. He was crass, loud mouthed and ignorant. Yeo was of a similar ilk. I would give neither house room.
Booker's article was his usual accurate reporting of UK energy planning (?). Zero energy with zero planning. Lord Coe would certainly do better.
If like Scottie we are unhappy with the small number of influential individuals selfishly driving the wind agenda and the ignorant politicians who support them, then there is only one thing to do. In a democracy, we must remove the politicians.
The political parties are not all the same. There is one political party that supports pretty much everything Booker is saying about wind power. Booker himself has already joined it.
Louise Mensch resigned her seat in the Corby constituency last week. The by election this has provoked is our first opportunity to tell former energy ministers Ed Miliband and Chris Huhne as well as Tim Yeo, John Gummer and the rest what we really think of their energy policies and their profiteering and/or gullibility. We might even ( though I doubt it) encourage Alex Salmond to tone down the asinine comments he makes on the subject of wind power.
The party Booker supports will stand at Corby. The seat is marginal and with our support it could win. Let us stop wingeing about this and get out and do something about this.
aymam I should add that there is 1 planned wind project close to Auckland and 1 operational but demand is such that the planned farm is currently uneconomic and may be years before development.
The operational farm is only "up to" 64 MW but the postponed farm is for "up to" 504 MW. These projects are some distance from a grid connection
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6682364/Wind-taken-from-Waikato-power-plants-sails
Wind problems as I see seem to be: wind prediction, too much power (need to dispatch down), none when it's needed, backup requirement and transmission..
Wind LRMC (about #7) ranks below CCGT (#1) and coal (about #5) at 0$ carbon tax. The ranking is reversed with a punitive carbon tax at say $100. Fortunately NZ emitters can avail themselves of cheap European offsets and pay far less than the NZ $25 cap and NZ offsets.
I made a (rather long) comment prior to 12:07 PM that's hung up in moderation if the 12:07 seems out of place to anyone
Nz wind was also close to zero last week. We only have graphs and not raw data though.. Luckily it is hosing down here and filling the hydro lakes just down the road
" … rent-seeking is the use of social institutions such as the power of government to redistribute wealth among different groups without creating new wealth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
Blatant: Completely obvious, conspicuous or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner : BRAZEN.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blatant
Many thanks to Andrew for linking to my column today and also to Andy Scrase (see above) who was indeed the source of my reference, via Richard North's EU Referendum blog, to that moment last week when the entire contribution of windpower to the UK national grid was just 12 megawatts or '0.0 percent'. Like Andy, I nerdishly make pretty regular checks on the Neta/BM Reports website to see where our power is coming from, Quite often recently the contribution of wind has been far below 1 percent,while we rely on French nuclear to supply up to 5 percent or more of our power through the interconnector. But the lowest wind input I have recorded was 14MW (so a gold to Andy in New Zealand for spotting the moment when it got down to 12MW!). Also very interesting, however, is how much we are now relying on our poor old coal-fired power stations these days, which are pretty consistently putting more into the grid than CCGT gas. And of course we are uncomfortably aware that six of those coal-fired plants are heading for closure under the Large Combustion Plants directive (some must be fast nearing the limit their permitted hours under the EU directive). What will we be able to rely on then? With the carbon floor tax approaching next April and much else, Comrade Davey and his pals are trying to skew the market so absurdly in favour of their friends in the wind industry that the incentive to build the gas-fired stations we so desperately need is diminishing by the day. I only wish the media as a whole could wake up to just what a dire plight we are in, while the MPs remain fast asleep in that bubble of make-believe.
Aug 12, 2012 at 10:49 AM | Breath of Fresh Air
When there are blocking highs affecting most/all of the UK, then a lot of northern Europe is also affected. Who will get the French nuclear exports then?
Probably not the UK?
Sandy
Mr Booker, re your comment:
"And of course we are uncomfortably aware that six of those coal-fired plants are heading for closure under the Large Combustion Plants directive (some must be fast nearing the limit their permitted hours under the EU directive)"
Kingsnorth have already announced they will close early - March next year in fact. Scary times ahead indeed.
OT, re: "...stop wingeing ", from Dave, above:"
"Stop whining", I'm familiar with. I have seen "wingeing" pretty much only in climate debates, only a few times, and always meaning "whining". Do those who use "wingeing" have dyslexic keyboards, or is this one result of a degenerate modern-day culture (and yes, I understand in that case, if you are very young and of easy virtue in your use of language, you would be inordinately fond of "wingeing" in place of "whining")?
whinge ...verb (used without object) ... British and Australian Informal .
to complain; whine.
The neta web site's interesting to see current and predicted outputs, but what we need is a site that shows historic outputs, for the ladt day, week, year etc...
If you can show politicians a graph showing periods of NO wind contribution it might be easier to get them to see the problem with wind.
Does anyone know if these figures exist anywhere?
@ Mr Huffman
Whining does not mean the same as whingeing (the more traditional spelling) and, far from being a product of degenerate modern culture whingeing has a very ancient and respectable pedigree from Old English.
On Friday on the “Wind payback” thread, having noted that for the third consecutive day our entire fleet of wind turbines were contributing essentially nothing to the UK’s energy demand, I suggested that, although there are many powerful objections to wind power, its unreliability is surely the most serious.
Within a few years we will be obliged to phase out many of our older coal and nuclear power stations. Moreover, as Christopher Booker reminded us last week, by 2016/2017 about 20% of our power is supposed to come from “renewables” (see Ministerial Statement here - ninth paragraph). In practice, that means wind turbines. Yet there will be several days when, whether we have 3,500, 35,000 or 350,000 turbines, they will produce negligible power. The failure of 20% of our potential energy supply almost certainly means power outages. Power outages mean no water, no trains, no phone systems, no computers, no ATM machines, no traffic controls, no petrol stations, no factories, no airports, no air conditioning, no central heating, no street lights, no refrigeration, no sewerage … and a much more that almost everyone takes for granted. Had, for example, the UK’s energy supply depended substantially on the wind last February, many people would have died of frostbite and our economy would have suffered another severe blow. Few people appreciate, for example, the fragility of a modern city: in periods of extreme heat or cold, it’s electricity that prevents disaster. And, throughout the UK (onshore and offshore), the wind typically doesn’t blow in periods of extreme heat or cold. See this. In other words, we are blindly heading for a potentially intolerable and tragic situation.
Support for wind energy is impractical, dangerous, sanctimonious piety. It’s a message that cannot be repeated too frequently.
@ Robin Guenier
Absolutely agree.
The trouble is that those presently in power are deaf and blind to practical arguments such as yours. They appear to be too busy lining the pockets of themselves and their cronies. They do this simply because they can, and will not change their ways unless they receive a proverbial bloody nose from the court of public opinion.
Climate science created this monster but is, shamefully, aboard the same gravy train – so don't expect any help there.
Sooner or later people will object to paying through the nose for an unreliable and intermittent electricity supply, but by then most of these charlatans will be long gone.
Aug 12, 2012 at 9:17 AM | Roy said
Harold Wilson once said
From the evidence of the Gordon Brown's premiership, I would maintain the time horizon might be even shorter now.
By the way, even if you take out time horizons, the policy makes no economic sense.
This is not a bug in the renewable plan - it is a feature. When enough wind generators are installed and enough backup fossil/nuclear generators are gone, then when the wind stops people will have to figure out how to live without any electricity at all. And the greenies will be there with all sorts of answers to try to convince people to do without electricity. It is the purpose of all of this - to drive us all back to a time when we did not use these technologies, because they are evil, and contrary to the romantic, green religion. Fantasies of living in some utopian past that never actually existed.
I would like to take great exception to the tone of this piece.which seeks to denigrate those dedicated and tireless men and women in the Department of Climate Change and in the Wind industry who have toiled so hard to bring you the magnificent achievements that you so sneer at.
Chairman Mao said that 'The Longest March Begins With the First Step'. Today we can see that we have taken that first step in becoming entirely dependent on Wind Power. 12 MW is a magnificent total. First under my inspired leadership and now with Ed Davey taking sound instructions from me, we have laid the foundations.
Only another 38,488 MW to go! With the wind in our sails and a following breeze and swept along by the tide of public opinion (albeit one still shell shocked and in mourning about my own temporary departure form high office), we can emulate our Olympic gold medal winners and strive towards our goal.
My advisers tell me that we need only another 11,225,000 wind turbines to meet our 100% commitment to Windiness. Surely we canmange such a trivial number.
We should set as our motto 'Higher, Taller, Bigger, Costlier...but above all Windier!'
Down with the naysayers. Down with the so-called 'realists'. If we dream enough we can get there. Just believe!
(That was a Personal Political Broadcast on behalf of The Rt. Hon. Christopher Paul-Huhne MP).
What Chris said!
+10
Dear Chris
See you in court.
There is an interesting article in today's Sunday Telegraph review section about Dan Ariely's book "The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty. A couple of quotes....
"The widely accepted view among today's psychiatrists is that a healthy mind actually dodges the truth" and that "Human kind cannot bear very much reality".
I think that explains a lot about our delusional politicians.
Stuart Young has produced a comprehensive report, showing just how frequently "low wind" events occur in the UK. Download it here: www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/wind-report.pdf
Perhaps I'm a bore, but I think that joking about this is unwise. This is a desperately serious matter.
Scottie: you say,
That may possibly be a part of it - but I don't think it's what's really happening. I think they are deaf to these arguments because they have been persuaded that all is under control and, to some extent blinded by green prejudice but mainly by a fear of seeming politically incorrect, have not really tried to think about it. Thus, when officials in the DECC publish a paper (here) entitled "HOW EFFECTIVE ARE WIND TURBINES?" which includes such meaningless stuff as this, they suppose all will be well. And those who go a little further and actually read the National Grid report (link), find this equally meaningless but nonetheless plausible statement: So (they think) that's OK then.@nial 3:29pm.
http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/ gives the old data as graphs for year, month etc. I don't know if it is in as much detail as you would like but they may have the actual data stored and might give it to you.
dave ward:
Thanks for providing the link to the Stuart Young report. It's most important and interesting. I'm surprised we haven't heard more of it. Here's the conclusion of the Executive Summary:
And yet we're putting all our eggs in the wind power basket.
@Robin Guenier at 8:43 PM
You say:
You may well be right, but the politicians at the top are not stupid. They've thought of it alright. Most have had an excellent education – some at Britain's finest public schools. They are accomplished politicians and many are successful businessmen.
My take on it is that they are quite cynically exploiting the situation. After all, gullible or quite possibly corrupt scientists (with their own agendas?) give them all the excuses they need to implement planet saving policies, with all the business opportunities that go with it.
They also believe that "green" policies are popular with the voters, so what's the harm in making a little cash?
I don't buy it, Scottie. For a politician to be aware that his policies are quite likely to cause widespread death, misery and damage but to press on anyway because of "business opportunities" would, quite simply, be evil. I'm not enthusiastic about our leading politicians. But I don't think they're evil.
It has to be remembered that the National Grid will make a fortune in profits, because it's profits are regulated according to the investment it makes. So it makes big profits from connecting remote wind farms to centres of population and everything else it will have to do to sort out the collapsing electricity system in the next ten years. It's no wonder the National Grid supports the Government's mad energy policy and goes along encouraging the madness.
Robin
I think you overstate it. "Evil" doesn't come in to it.
Remember, these politicians are the people who quite happily forged their expense claims with little thought to the morality of what they were doing.
I'm sure in their own minds that they're quite happy to follow 'best scientific advice' even if they have doubts as to the validity of that advice. Not my fault, guv!
Scientists eager for research funding are merely saps who unwittingly perpetuate this nonsense.
I'm sorry Scottie but you're saying that these people "are not stupid" and have "thought of it alright" yet are "quite cynically exploiting the situation" (the disastrous consequences of which they understand) because of "business opportunities". If true, that would be evil. As I said, I don't buy it.
My view? Well, I agree they're not stupid. But I think they were once genuinely persuaded of the green agenda and some of them possibly still half believe it. In any case, they felt the green pressures (many self inflicted) were so great that they had no choice but to try to implement these "solutions". But now they're beginning to see where it could lead. However, they don't have the strength, bravery or wisdom to admit they were wrong. Fortunately however there's a safety net: it's obviously quite impossible to build all those wind turbines in time. So they know that compromise - even policy reversal - is inevitable. Probably quite soon. Thus they can escape the worse consequences of all this but claim that they really tried.
There is something that people can do in the short term to stop the spread of the wind farms. There is a monster wind farm proposed for the Bristol Channel. Final date for objections is 31st August. See http://www.slaythearray.com/
The huge wind turbines (as high as the Gherkin in London) will blight the views from the North Devon and Lundy Island coasts.
Richard C (NZ)
I was considering Roy's comment "would obviously reject wind power except where a rational case can be made for it, e.g. it might be worth considering in conjunction with pumped-storage hydropower schemes."
New Zealand has more than 2,300 square km of storage lakes that feed hydro schemes. I believe that is enough to supply power when the wind is not blowing. Quite possibly no other country can justify wind power.
Now if you were to say that wind power is uneconomic you probably have a good point.
jaymam
"I believe that is enough to supply power when the wind is not blowing"
Except in dry years - then it gets interesting.
"Now if you were to say that wind power is uneconomic you probably have a good point"
LRMC becomes economic at specific total MW levels but It's ranking is low without a carbon charge. I'm wondering if the generators that have developed farms have done their NPV and IRR calcs on the expectation of a higher carbon price regime to what it has fallen to (except Australia).
I note that Contact Energy shelved a planned "up to" 504 MW development because it was uneconomic due to (as they say) "decline in demand". I suspect too that they've also looked at the low carbon charge scenario using a Generation Cost Model as presented here:-
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/energy/energy-modelling/modelling/new-zealands-energy-outlook/interactive-electricity-generation-cost-model-2010/
Blurb:-
Interactive Electricity Generation Cost Model 2011
This model is an interactive tool designed to provide users with insights into the potential costs of new generation, and the uncertainty surrounding these costs when key assumptions such as fuel prices, emissions price, exchange rates, etc. are changed.
The projects are ranked from cheapest to most expensive based on their estimated “Long run marginal cost” (LRMC). LRMC is the wholesale price a generator needs to earn, on average, in order to recover capital and operating costs and earn an economic return on investment.
The model also explores how future demand growth might be met. It assumes the cheapest projects are selected first and that sufficient plant must be available to meet both energy demand and peak demand.
NZ is blessed with ample hydro and geothermal generating capability. We have a number of "run of river" hydro possibilities (like the Stockton one) that would actually have a positive benefit to the environment by reducing mining tailings from the rivers.
Run of river is less reliable than dammed hydro but still better than wind, when you locate the projects on the wet west coast.
The north island also has significant geothermal capability - the recent eruption of Tongariro reminded us of this.
It's puzzling why the wind sector gets so much attention in NZ when there are no obvious subsidies like ROCs to support it, and it appears to be more expensive than other options.
A number of recent proposed and actual wind projects are located on seismic fault lines which will be interesting the next time we get a big shake.
Harry Dale Huffman says" ""Stop whining", I'm familiar with. I have seen "wingeing" pretty much only in climate debates ..."
"Wingeing" has been a familiar word to me in Australia since at least the 1940s. It lies close to "whining" but is definitely distinct in that where I would tell someone to stop wingeing I would not tell them to stop whining in the same context. The difference is subtle, but there is certainly a difference in my mind.
To me, a whiner is not an attractive person. A winger, on the other hand, can be an amusingly attractive one; perhaps to the point of bringing a good-humoured laugh in response.
The hydros in NZ can't be used easily to offset wind as many have rate of change flow restrictions and minimum outflows. They also have quite wide dirty running regimes that make them expensive to maintain if partially loaded for any length of time.
The windfarms in NZ did get subsidies. They used European carbon credits. Right now in NZ, wind is providing next to nothing and coal is doing as much as geothermal: http://em6live.co.nz/Default.aspx
Most of the windfarms around Wellington have their foundations in the greywacke. That should make them a lot more resiliant to nearby earthquakes.
There are a lot of problems load following on CCGTs. The boilers fail from the stresses. If one is going to use GTs to supplement a variable generation source, they need to be small units and open cycle so the efficiency drops from about 60% to 40%
I don't hear whine being used much in Oz. Whinge/whinger is used more frequently. I understand it is an amalgam of WHIne and criNGE.
"To me, a whiner is not an attractive person. A winger, on the other hand, can be an amusingly attractive one; perhaps to the point of bringing a good-humoured laugh in response."
At last, I understand why, from about the 1950s - when the emigration of Brits to Australia picked up after WW2 - Australians described any Brit who seemed not entirely appreciative of all things Australian, as a "whingeing Pom". Contrary to what we stay-at-home Brits understood, this was in fact a term of approbation and appreciation.
I had a Latin teacher * who used to say that pupils were "whinging and gurning", describing both the noise and the accompanying facial expressions. I never liked Latin, so I did both quite a lot.
* Spot the grammar school boy
Most of the comments in the Torygraph gave windmills and renewables a good panning. However there was a comment from a warmista which showed that its author understands the laws of arithmetic.
Abbreviating his argument, he observed that since electricity makes up only 20% of energy consumption this puts an upper bound of 20% on the effect of renewables.
In practice, in MHO the savings are lkely to be only a quarter of this.
So, in keeping with the aim of attaining the 80% total decarbonisation that we are enjoined to accomplish by 2050 he says that almost all energy comsumption in the UK should be electrified, meaning that electricity production should be quadrupled and by renewables only!
I am not sure that arithmetical competence implies sanity in other fields
Years ago I was indirectly involved in a U.S. controversy over the physiological effects of exposure, industrial or otherwise, to microwave radiation. The industry (largely military-industrial, btw) response was, essentially, "there is no evidence of any adverse effects." They never mentioned that there was virtually no research, as it had been quietly blocked and supressed by government and industry. There was no evidence because they refused to look for it.
I am reminded of this as I read the preceding arguments about the efficacy and economic viability of wind. "It's not viable because there isn't enough of it." Wind's low contribution to current energy supplies is the result of a long history of no investment or development. To compare it to long-established (oh yeah, and highly polluting) technologies is one thing. It's only a present-tense snapshot, though. To conclude that based on its current low contribution, wind is not viable, is flawed logic that ignores both the historical context and the fact that the future is not the past.