The Real Cost Of Wind Power In Britain?

[Lancashire Lad]

I mentioned this in another thread, but think it warrants its own.

The article gives a laymans terminology overview of what's going on in the UK's wind generating sector.

Albeit that the article is of American origin, it brings together lots of information that can only be found by considerable searching elsewhere: -

Energy Tribune- Wind Power Exposed: The Renewable Energy Source is Expensive, Unreliable and Won?t Save Natural Gas.

I haven't been able to find fault with what the article says, although I would have liked to read the entire Cambridge Energy Research Associates May 2008 report. - Unfortunately, the full report appears to be available only to registered members of that organisation.

I post this with a view to enlightening those people who suggest that insufficient funding is going towards such technology, when compared to nuclear etc.

As I said on the other thread, wind power does have its place in a meaningful energy strategy. However, I have to wonder if just too many governmental heads aren't being turned towards wind in the great push to be seen to be green. - Resulting in the great British taxpayer being forced to pay through the nose, (funny that our EC counterparts don't), to subsidise a technology that isn't capable of standing on its own feet.

I would be eternally grateful if any response posts stick with the wind turbine subject.

Regards,
Mike.

[Jaeviatrix]

I'm not familiar with the technology of wind power generation, but the intensely politically loaded statements in the opening paragraphs of the article immediately set me doubting it's validity.

[Lancashire Lad]

Yes, I don't doubt that the author had an agenda relative to the American situation, but leaving aside politics, American or indeed British, the details given regarding the pros. & cons. of the British situation are sound.

All this info can be found scattered throughout many and varied government issue documents, industry statistics etc. etc., but most people are not interested enough to trawl through (to them tediously boring) documents to find it.

I was hopeful that this was a sufficiently short article, which might prompt a few of those people to make that effort, and maybe gain a more realistic understanding of where things actually stand.

Regards,
Mike.

[Burdy]

I think tide power still has a lot of potential, very interested to see where that heads

[Doggle Avaddit]

I'm afraid I find the article so politically biased as to have very little credibility at all. Just look at the amount of emotive language used.


It would be anathema

grandiose plan for wind farms

Too good to be true? Yes, and in fact it is a lot worse

and it is a pretty ugly picture

plagued by high construction and maintenance costs

voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies

U.K. electricity customers were forced to pay a total of over $1 billion to the owners of wind turbines.

burgeoning tab being picked up by the British taxpayer

gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7%



Seems to me more like a diatribe than anything educational.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

It would be anathema

grandiose plan for wind farms

Too good to be true? Yes, and in fact it is a lot worse

and it is a pretty ugly picture

Emotive wording I agree, but if people look beyond the politicising, and form their opinions on the facts and figures presented.......

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

plagued by high construction and maintenance costs

Emotive wording again, but nevertheless true.

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

voracious appetite for taxpayer subsidies

U.K. electricity customers were forced to pay a total of over $1 billion to the owners of wind turbines.

burgeoning tab being picked up by the British taxpayer

Again, emotive wording, but still true, and on the increase - largely due to the governments ongoing "Renewable Obligation Certificates" indirect subsidy schemes to the wind power generating companies.

Originally Posted by Doggle Avaddit

gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7%

But not sounding nearly so politically biased when the full comment is quoted "While 15 percent energy price rises were experienced across the E.U., in the U.K. gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7 percent".

People readily pick up on parts of an article which might suit their own personal "agenda" or point of view, but many are reticent to acknowledge the real picture - possibly stifling a more reasoned outlook.

Any article needs to be read with an eye to the fact that there may be an agenda of some sort, and the reader needs to filter out the wheat from the chaff.

Have a read at the windpower sections of the book transcribed on the other thread: - Sustainable Energy Without Hot Air An opinion drawn from that type of information is likely to be a much better informed one.

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

A couple of interesting snippets from Parliament's Grand Committee 11th march 2010 debate on Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2)
Note: Any italics, underlining & text highlighting were added by myself: -
Lords Hansard text for 11 Mar 201011 Mar 2010 (pt 0001)

Lord Jenkin of Roding speaking - (Column GC153).

QUOTE

I turn to EN-3 on renewables. I start by referring to something with which I think noble Lords will be very familiar-wind power is intermittent. However, until I saw a brief from the Chemical Industries Association, I did not realise just what the impact of that had been this winter. The document states: "Data from January/February 2010 confirms the UK's over-reliance on gas and coal and the ineffectiveness of wind. On 7th January, one of the days when a Gas Balancing Alert was issued wind supplied only 0.1% of total grid delivery, (just 5% of wind's potential contribution) this fell to 0.0% on 17th February".

The document continues: "We managed in winter 2010 because there was a 15% reduction in demand for energy from industry due to the recession". We have all said that. We have all known that you get these prolonged periods over much of the country with no wind at all. It is interesting to recognise how the grid has begun to change its attitude to this. There was a time-probably less than a year ago-when the grid spokesmen were perfectly cheerfully saying that they could cope with as much wind as the industry could produce. Of course, at present in this country it is a very low level.

However, the reports produced in north Germany, in Schleswig-Holstein and Nordrhein-Westphalia-they are now three or four years old-reveal that the Germans discovered that if wind gets above about 17 or 18 per cent of the supply to the grid, the grid becomes unstable and unmanageable. That is because wind can increase and decrease in very short order. I remember questioning the relevant person about that. It is interesting to note that in the past few months the National Grid spokesmen have begun to lay much more emphasis on the need for back-up generation. That, of course, adds very substantially to the cost of wind power because it may stand unused for long periods, yet the investment has to be made.

UNQUOTE

A little later in his speech, (Column GC154), discussing the governments proposed £75Billion spend on wind power, and referring to Ofgem, he goes on to say: -

QUOTE

It has estimated the average cost impact per household customer-this applies to gas and electricity-of the main environmental schemes in 2008, 2015 and 2020. There is quite a list of them because it includes the cost of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the renewables obligations, the feed-in tariffs-they are not yet available-and the renewable heat incentive, which is not yet available. But you have the Carbon Emissions Reduction Target scheme. You will have the CCS levy and you will have smart meters.

I shall repeat a figure that I have quoted in speeches on the Floor of the House, basing my calculations on Ofgem. In 2008 the addition was £79 a year to average household gas and electricity bills. By 2015, it is estimated that the annual addition will be somewhere between £153 and £205 per annum, and by 2020 it will be between £294 and £426 per annum. I simply do not believe that any government could remotely tolerate that sort of addition to electricity bills and its extremely difficult impact on the vast majority of households, quite apart from its impact on industrial competitiveness.

When one looks at the renewables obligation as a part of that, the cost of offshore wind goes up from £10 in 2008 to between £70 and £80 in 2020, a seven or eight-fold increase. That is why I say that it is simply impractical to think that someone is going to spend £75 billion on offshore wind, with all the huge costs that involves, while of course being subsidised by the renewables obligation certificates in order to be able to afford it. When one considers that offshore wind costs seven or eight times as much as a gas-fired power station and probably several times the cost of nuclear, it becomes quite unreal.

UNQUOTE

At long last, someone is actually speaking up about the fact that wind power can only be of so much use, and shouldn't be perceived as a major player in the overall energy strategy.

The items highlighted in green, are government direct/indirect provisions/subsidies to encourage providers to utilise renewables technology, and which are, or will be, paid for by increased costs to the final customer.

Note that the CCS levy, is currently committed at £9.5Billion over the next 10 years, to pay for four experimental schemes commissioned to determine the economic viability of carbon capture & storage. (About which much more can be discovered by reading the full text of this debate, along with the text of the Lords second reading of the main Energy Bill).

Who says going green will be easy?

Regards,
Mike.

[John D]

Hi Mike, I have found your latest posting to VERY INTERESTING. It looks as if at least some people have woken up to the reality of the proposed 'wind generation situation' and not before time.
What has been said above is oh so similar to what you and I have been saying from the very beginning of this thread and on similar threads in the past.

I just hope that some serious notice is taken by 'the powers that be' to what has now been said and some reality is now introduced into the 'future energy scenario' before we go much further.
We can only hope!

John D

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by John D

I just hope that some serious notice is taken by 'the powers that be' .....We can only hope!....

Yes, me too - but I'm not holding my breath.

Lord Reay, during his speech in the 2nd reading of the Enegy Bill (23rd March) said: -

QUOTE

"The first step ... is to be absolutely transparent about the costs to consumers of existing and future subsidies, so that the public has a clear view of the extra burdens mandated by policymakers. Under a Conservative Government all consumer-paid subsidies will be disclosed on energy bills so that bill payers can be informed about the level of contribution they are making". The present Government have made no move in that direction. Transparency is the last thing that they have shown any interest in in this field."

UNQUOTE

Now, I know that was just political sniping - both major parties are as economical as each other when it comes to keeping Joe Bloggs fully informed. But I dearly wish that clearly defined monetary amounts of these subsidies were shown on consumer's bills. Perhaps then, more people would take an interest in what they are paying towards, including the efficiencies of what each of those elements really provides.

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

By agreement with the European Union, Britain is legally committed to produce 15% of its total energy needs from low carbon sources by 2020.

Britain’s plan for achieving that target is described in “The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan National Strategy for Climate & Energy, July 2009” - (UKLCTP), and the “UK Renewable Energy Strategy, July 2009” - (UKRES).

As information is quoted from those documents in this post, I fully acknowledge the specified conditions - i.e. that text may be freely reproduced, providing it is reproduced accurately, not used in misleading context, acknowledged as Crown copyright, and the title of the document is specified.

Page 4 (UKLCTP) includes the statement: -

QUOTE

• Produce around 30% of our electricity from renewables by 2020 by substantially increasing the requirement for electricity suppliers to sell renewable electricity.

UNQUOTE

The statement is repeated in the “Power” section of the time-line graphic on pages 17/18.

Chart 2.4 on page 44 of (UKRES), includes a graphical breakdown of the projected proportions of the various renewable electrical technologies expected to satisfy the plan.

From that chart, approximately 38Gw of renewables electrical generating capacity is being proposed. And of that amount, approximately 27Gw is to be contributed by onshore/offshore wind. (27/38ths, equates to approximately 72% of the total proposed).

I really do question the common sense of placing reliance of almost three-quarters of this proposed renewables generated electrical capacity on the vagaries of the wind.

Try as I might, I have been unable to reconcile the stated renewables figure of 38Gw with 30% of the UK’s demand for electricity.

Table 2.1, page 37 (UKRES) shows the projected annual electrical consumption for the year 2020 as 386Terrawatt-hours. That being compared with year 2008 at 387Terrawatt-hours. (i.e a projected reduction of approximately 0.26%, but to all intents and purposes, much the same as it is now).

From National Grid metered half-hourly figures for total gross system demand, (Jan/Feb 2010), it can be ascertained that the average daily demand during the period was 45.297Gw. Metered maximum demand figure during that period is shown as 59.298Gw.

Peak daily demand has hovered around the 60Gw mark for some years. Thus, (excluding daily reserve margin), the amount to be generated by renewables, (30%), would then be18Gw.

If, for the purposes of my calculation, we say that 18Gw is 30% of total daily electrical demand, then according to the plan, 72% of that 18Gw, (i.e.12.96Gw), would need to be generated by wind. 12.96Gw sounds much better to me, than the projected 27Gw in the UKRES.

But hold on a minute, is even my much more conservative 12.96Gw a realistic figure?

The UK already has over 2Gw of installed wind generating capacity, but on January 7th 2010, the total amount of electricity generated was only 5% of the installed capacity. On January 17th the amount generated was zero! (Source – text for the Grand Committee 11th March 2010 debate on Draft National Policy Statement for Fossil Fuel Electricity Generating Infrastructure (EN-2).

It just so happens that January 7th was the same date that the total gross system demand during the period Jan-Feb 2010, was at its peak, at 59.298Gw.

If those by no means unusual conditions arose in 2020, when 30% of our electricity generation is to come from wind, then, in my very conservative example, only 5% of the required 12.96Gw (i.e. 0.648Gw) would actually be delivered.

Thus leaving a shortfall of 12.312Gw (i.e about 20% of the total demand), that would need to be filled by so-called intermittency/secondary back-up generation. All of which would be at increased cost, reduced efficacy, and greater carbon deficit.

My concerns on the credibility of this strategy, incorporating wind generation as a major player, remain unchanged.

Sources: -
The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan - Department of Energy and Climate Change
Renewable Energy Strategy (RES) - Department of Energy and Climate Change
National Grid: Metered half-hourly electricity demands
Lords Hansard text for 11 Mar 201011 Mar 2010 (pt 0001)

Regards,
Mike.