Renewables cannot meet UK demand

[John D]

This report appeared this morning on BBC Scotland.
It is just as some of us have been saying for a very long time.
Hopefully the authorities involved in pushing 'alternative sources' will now re-consider their actions.

BBC News - Green energy push 'flawed' claims Adam Smith Institute

John D

[Lancashire Lad]

The “key arguments” noted from the Adam Smith Institute study, are all very valid points, and should be properly addressed and taken on board by those responsible for national energy policy.

The counter argument, by Scottish Renewables’ Niall Stuart, as might be expected, (well he does work in the wind energy sector ), emphasises the fact that onshore wind is “already cheaper than nuclear” with further mention of “large reductions in the costs of all renewables in the future”.

I would be the first to agree with Mr. Stuart that yes, onshore wind is presently cheaper than nuclear, (remember though – we haven’t yet reached critical point where the amount of installed wind farms equals the amount of daily reserve margin on the National Grid), and yes, there will undoubtedly be cost reductions in renewables technology in the future.

However, Mr. Stuart conveniently fails to make any mention of the relevant facts pertaining to his statement.

Viz:-
Onshore wind levelised cost is presently about £5.00/MWh cheaper than nuclear.
But this is effectively the “all in” generating cost at site boundary, which means that it does not take into account the cost of getting the electricity from the wind farm to the National Grid. – (Many wind farms = many requirements for connections to National Grid – cabling, pylons, infrastructure, etc. etc.), and when that cost is added, onshore wind is no longer cheaper than nuclear.
Neither does it take into account the inevitable requirement (when daily reserve margin becomes less than installed wind capacity) for construction of back-up plant, and since (on a comparable MWh basis) the cost for a typical CCGT plant on its own, is more than the cost of the onshore wind farm itself, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that onshore wind will suddenly equate to about double that of nuclear. (and this will inevitably apply to offshore wind too).

As for cost reductions in renewables technology in future, well, what do the leading specialists have to say?
The government has commissioned several detailed independent studies/reports, and these can be found quite easily by anyone with an interest in the topic:-

Mott MacDonald-UK Electricity Generation Costs Update

Parsons Brinckerhoff-Electricity Generation Cost Model 2011 Update Rev.1

They all go into great detail, and although somewhat statistically intense, they all show pretty similar trends and forecasts.

If you read nothing more, then just look at fig7.7 on page 70 of the Mott Macdonald report.

Taking all things into account, from around year 2017, nuclear becomes the cheapest (and by some considerable margin when compared to the likes of offshore wind – at almost twice the cost) - And, remember, with regards to wind generation, those costs do not include the costs for gas (i.e. fossil fuel) powered back up plant.

Regards,
Mike.

[Lancashire Lad]

For some reason this link (relevant to the points being made) would not upload as part of previous post:-

Ove Arup & Partners-Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK

Regards,
Mike.

[King Edward]

Given that this report was authored by The Scientific Alliance, an organisation with a strong pro-business as usual, anti-action on climate change agenda, I'd be extremely cautious before accepting their arguments/figures on anything at all, let alone the UK's energy future in which they have a clear vested interest.

[SheffieldLass]

Originally Posted by King Edward

Given that this report was authored by The Scientific Alliance, an organisation with a strong pro-business as usual, anti-action on climate change agenda, I'd be extremely cautious before accepting their arguments/figures on anything at all, let alone the UK's energy future in which they have a clear vested interest.

Ditto for the Adam Smith Institute - just google Adam Smith Nuclear.

[Hobjob]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

The “key arguments” noted from the Adam Smith Institute study, ...................

Regards,
Mike.

I do enjoy you erudite posts Mike.

I had not previously thought about the costs of connection - which is a bit stupid as there is a large new sub-station down the road at Sizewell, that takes the electricity from the Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind farm (between Felixstowe and Clacton); the planned Galloper Wind Farm extension has also applied to bring in its energy on the same Lines.

Do you write for a bigger (and less informed) audience in the national media. I do hope so.


As an aside, when I visit Clacton, which is 2-3x per year for family reasons, at least 30% of turbines are inactive, often more.

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

....Do you write for a bigger (and less informed) audience in the national media....

Thanks David. – I appreciate that you have what seems to be something of a rare ability. – That of being able to rationally weigh up the evidence.

I do occasionally respond to articles in the press, but only to try and address the continuing misunderstandings that many people have, and the blatant misinformation and propaganda which is purposely distributed by government and certain sectors of the energy industry.

I have no axe to grind with any particular form of energy generation, and have said many times that our national energy policy needs to embrace all the renewables as well as nuclear, and, until such time as we can economically phase them out, gas and coal fossil fuels as well.

My main bone of contention is with the blinkered rush into excessive amounts of wind power. Again, I have no problem with including wind power as a valuable part of the total energy plan. – But, I have very real objections to the fact that much more wind power is being sanctioned than the system will cope with. The fact that government signed up to the arbitrary timescale of 2020, with the European Union, and that they failed to take timely action which would have nullified the majority of the problems we now face.

What I find incomprehensible, is that many people readily accept information via the press and media, when they haven’t the faintest idea of whether that information is true, false, fact, or fiction. We also have those with the blinkered attitude of “don’t take any notice of what “X organisation” says, because they are pro/anti” etc. etc.

What I have consistently said is that people should take on board what is said (by whatever source) and then read between the lines, and take a reasoned and rational view on whether what has been said is truthful and factual. And they can’t possibly take a reasoned and rational view, if their views are clouded by ideology and misguided environmentalist fervour.

Time and again, I have given the reasons why wind power cannot be relied upon for baseload provision. – It is an incredibly simple concept.
For example, say we need ten litres of fuel to complete a particular journey.
Now, say we have seven litres of fuel in the tank, and one litre spare in a fuel can.
Ideally, we don’t want to use the spare fuel, so we need another three litres.
But as long as we can obtain at least two more litres, we can complete our journey.

Now replace the fuel in our analogy with electricity. – We need 100% of our baseload demand to avoid power cuts. Say we get 70% from coal/gas/nuclear, and that we are relying on wind for the other 30% - Let’s also say that we have a daily reserve margin (electricity available from European interconnects etc.) of 10%.

So, provided the wind blows, no problem. Provided we can get at least two thirds of the power attributed from wind, no problem, as we can use the reserve. But – if less than two thirds of the power needed from wind isn’t being generated, then we don’t have enough to meet demand. Result – power cuts.
However, if we got 90% of baseload from coal/gas/nuclear, and only needed 10% from wind, then the reserve margin would always be able to cope on windless days, so there would not be any power cuts.
i.e – keep the wind provision within the bounds of what the system can cope with.
What’s so hard to understand about that?

I have no problem with incorporating wind into a cohesive national energy policy. – But I have a major problem with incorporating more wind into the policy than the system can cope with. – I have an even greater problem with the fact that wind is the least efficient form of large scale generation of the available alternatives, and that in order to incorporate more wind than the system can cope with, the consumer is expected to pay many billions of pounds in subsidies to the energy giants, and that he will further have to pay for fossil fuel powered back up plant to cater for those occasions when wind fails to generate the required amount of electricity.

More than anything else, I have total contempt for those responsible for this needless but now inevitable situation of putting ever increasing proportions of the British population into fuel poverty.

Regards,
Mike.

[King Edward]

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

We also have those with the blinkered attitude of “don’t take any notice of what “X organisation” says, because they are pro/anti” etc. etc.

And they can’t possibly take a reasoned and rational view, if their views are clouded by ideology and misguided anti-environmentalist fervour. ['anti-' added]

Perhaps you could reconcile these two statements. Or is ideology and misguided fervour only a feature of those with whom you disagree?

To put it differently, since the views of both the 'Scientific Alliance' and the 'Adam Smith Institute' are clouded by ideology and anti-environmentalism, why should we assume the content of their report is reasoned and rational rather than agenda-driven?

[Lancashire Lad]

Originally Posted by King Edward

....is ideology and misguided fervour only a feature of those with whom you disagree?......

You are trying to distort what I said.

I couldn’t care less whether they are anti environmentalist or pro environmentalist. What I care about, is that whatever is being said by either side, should be truthful.

The views of the Scientific Alliance, and the Adam Smith Institute are undoubtedly agenda driven. They are promoting their particular stance.

Just as the views of Niall Stuart and Scottish Renewables are agenda driven – since they too, are promoting their particular stance.

If you cannot accept that the statements from both of these organisations, (and the statements of any other interested parties, regardless of which side of the argument they sit on) should be analysed and rationalised on the basis of fact, rather than blind acceptance, then you too are a victim of belief by ideology

If you would care to re-read what I said, my specific statement was:-

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

....What I have consistently said is that people should take on board what is said (by whatever source) and then read between the lines, and take a reasoned and rational view on whether what has been said is truthful and factual....

I take on board what all parties have to say, but I then base my personal judgement upon both a lifetime working in the electrical industry, and, because I have a great interest in the subject, many many hours of researching and reading of relevant documentation.

If you think that my particular stance is based on “ideology and anti-environmentalism” then you are very much mistaken.
My stance is based on the rationale that economics has to have equal priority with environmentalism.
We need to ensure that our future energy provisions are based upon sound economic sense, as well as sound environmental concepts.
There is nothing to be gained by spending inordinate amounts of money, and, in the process, causing much hardship for a great percentage of the population, by over dependence on the least efficient and least reliable option of the available alternatives.

In this instance, I personally believe that the specific (Adam Smith Institute) key arguments, as specifically listed in the BBC news article linked in the original post, are all valid statements which could (with the possible exception of the five turbines per day – as getting the relevant information on that might prove difficult) be readily backed up. I would have no qualms about saying so, if I thought the statements were erroneous.

If you think that what I have said about the consequences of over-reliance on wind is incorrect, then by all means let’s hear your counter argument.

Regards,
Mike.

[King Edward]

I am not going to discuss the pros/cons of wind energy because this is a subject I know very little about and don't claim to. The arguments made in the report may or may not be valid, I don't know.

However, the fact that the Scientific Alliance has a clear (ideological) disregard for the well-established science concerning climate change suggests to me that they have a somewhat loose attitude towards science and evidence generally. Couple this with the fact that the Scientific Alliance is essentially an anti-environmentalist lobby group, with a 'neutral' name seemingly deliberately chosen to disguise their true agenda (which has little to do with science), and I am very reluctant to take their report at face value.

Originally Posted by Lancashire Lad

If you cannot accept that the statements from both of these organisations, (and the statements of any other interested parties, regardless of which side of the argument they sit on) should be analysed and rationalised on the basis of fact, rather than blind acceptance, then you too are a victim of belief by ideology

It's nothing to do with my ideology - it comes down to trust. I don't trust the Scientific Alliance for the reasons above, not because I disagree with their argument.

Edit: To expand on the trust issue, when Scottish Renewables make a statement it's very clear where they're coming from, and it's straightforward to evaluate what they say on that basis. When the Scientific Alliance say something, though, their agenda is not immediately apparent (at least, not to someone unfamiliar with the organisation). One might well, in fact, assume this was some unbiased scientific grouping, rather than a lobby group. Hence my original post, to make people aware of this fact.