Prepare To Dig Deeper - You'll Have To!

[Lancashire Lad]

Yet another article is published today bemoaning the fact that excessive reliance on wind farms as source for our electrical power requirements will have dire financial consequences to the pound in your pocket. Reinforcing what I, and a few other enlightened people have been saying for years:-

Energy giants want billions for back-up to windfarms | This is Money

Here we have it in print - the big energy companies acknowledge the need to build back-up power stations because wind power can't be relied upon. Not only that, but they are now demanding "capacity" payments, as these back up power stations will be grossly inefficient due to their intermittent generating requirement. And - to rub our noses in it even further, we, the consumers, will have to foot this massive multi billion pound cost in the form of yet more subsidies paid to these energy conglomerates.

So - we pay massive subsidies for a grossly inefficient primary source of generation, and we pay yet more massive subsidies for a grossly inefficient source of back-up generation.

I say yet again - none of these ridiculous financial burdens to the public would have been needed had government maintained a national energy policy whereby the total amount of wind power proposed was maintained within the daily reserve margin available to the National Grid.

NB: As always, I would be the first to advocate suspicion when reading articles in the popular press. But there is nothing here which can't be confirmed by a little research within the more academic journals.

Regards,
Mike.

[John D]

Hi Mike,

Very interesting but to some of us not a surprise. Once again the taxpayer/energy user is going to have to pay the excess costs associated with a poorly planned 'energy policy'.
Even my 11 year old grandson was asking me the other day 'where will electricity come from when there is no wind'. I just hope that more 'grow ups' waken up to this very soon before it is too late.
Unfortunately the costly mistakes will have to be paid for and this will be done as you say, by increasing energy costs. This will affect industry, commerce and domestic users. This in turn will lead to further inflation and possibly unemployment.
The quicker a change of direction is made the better!

John D

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by John D

....Once again the taxpayer/energy user is going to have to pay the excess costs associated with a poorly planned 'energy policy'....

I think I'll start referring to these subsidy charges as government sanctioned "wind-fall" taxes on Britain's electrical consumers.

Regards,
Mike.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by John D

Wind direction?

[John D]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Wind direction?

If only it was the wind direction that was the problem it might be easier to find an answer. Getting the Government to change direction will obviously be a much greater problem.

John D

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by John D

If only it was the wind direction that was the problem it might be easier to find an answer. Getting the Government to change direction will obviously be a much greater problem.

John D

Agree with you and Mike.

The lack of scientifically trained MPs is very sad.

[STYRBJORN]

Get 38* on the case. It'll be the fastest U-turn in the history of the known universe.

[Foz]

Isnt it worth paying a few bob to see all the lovely wind farms on the mountain tops in Wales?

[tom00_uk]

google.org thinks there is money to be made from it, hence their massive investment over the last few years

Clean Energy Innovation Study

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by tom00_uk

google.org thinks there is money to be made from it, hence their massive investment over the last few years

Clean Energy Innovation Study

Show me (1) the part of this study which mirrors Britain’s current energy policy, proposing to decommission existing generating capacity, and then have more wind power than can be accommodated by available reserve generating capacity. (daily reserve margin). - And then show me (2) where the study overcomes that insurmountable problem.
(I will save you the trouble, (1) it doesn’t, and (2) it couldn’t).

The viability and logic of what is included in this study leaves much unanswered.
If you download and read the document, it suggests that “overnight capital costs” in $/kW for offshore wind will drop from $6100 in 2010 to $1600 in 2020 – a drop of almost 74%
(Presumably, "overnight capital costs" is some wordsmith’s idea of a fudge in terms. – If they mean levelized costs, or full lifecycle analysis, then why don’t they say so?).

And what will be the cause of this dramatic cost reduction? – it will be the “Breakthrough”. – But what exactly, will this “breakthrough” be? – Well, the study’s glossary says: -

QUOTE “Breakthrough – In this study, breakthrough is used to represent a highly aggressive cost/performance level. Practically, it does not represent a single technical innovation but rather represents the sum of multiple major advances in a given technology”. UNQUOTE

So, within the next nine years, they will unleash some technological innovations and multiple major advances which will reduce offshore wind costs by three quarters.
This will indeed be a major “breakthrough” as it will almost certainly defy the limits of all known turbine technology and the laws of physics which govern it.

Forgive my cynicism, but – I ain’t holding my breath.

Regards,
Mike.