Booker: It Is Wind Power That Will Send Our Bills Sky-High

[Kurt Barlow]

I note that you still fail to supply an alternative.

Presumably we should also scale up the definition of low wind event to take account of the newbuild

Would you oblige in posting a link to that particular dataset that shows <20MW days back in 2009/10 in the UK. I know there was some data on Germany showing one day in December where winds contribution dropped to 5% of supply. Every other day it was >10%.

2009 capacity was 3000MW. 2011 it was 6000MW. That growth consists of much bigger turbines 2-5MW and much of it offshore which has significantly increased overall capacity factors and the baseload one can assume from a diverse portfolio of wind farms across a large geographic base.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Kurt Barlow

[snowflux]

what part of the fact that gas power stations are going to be closed down in Germany if not subsidised like renewables, you have problem to comprehend ???

I understand that it does not fit your theory of cheap green future, but there is nothing you can do about it. if you have any objectivity left you would research the German press for last 6 months on this topic ...

doubling or tripling the green electricity price is inevitable

Sigh, once again: because electricity demand varies, some generating capacity is seldom used and therefore already requires cross-subsidy. This is nothing new. Now of course the expansion of renewables means that somewhat more gas capacity than before will sometimes be idle, which inevitably means that EON will have to increase electricity prices to cover this. That is not in dispute. No gas plants will close in Germany, though; Mr Teyssen is simply dramatising in order to justify the necessary price increases.

Contrary to the words you are putting in my month, I am fully aware that electricity prices will have to rise in the future. Green is not cheap. I don't dispute that. Not surprisingly, protecting our environment from destruction has a cost, but probably not as high as the VIs make out.

[Kurt Barlow]

Sigh, once again: because electricity demand varies, some generating capacity is seldom used and therefore already requires cross-subsidy. This is nothing new. Now of course the expansion of renewables means that somewhat more gas capacity than before will sometimes be idle, which inevitably means that EON will have to increase electricity prices to cover this. That is not in dispute. No gas plants will close in Germany, though; Mr Teyssen is simply dramatising in order to justify the necessary price increases.

Contrary to the words you are putting in my month, I am fully aware that electricity prices will have to rise in the future. Green is not cheap. I don't dispute that. Not surprisingly, protecting our environment from destruction has a cost, but probably not as high as the VIs make out.

Unfortunately Damik cannot comprehend the fact that the German people don't want nuclear yet despite this he keeps banging on about wind and solar in Germany. I actually agree that I think its a mistake in energy policy but it is their choice. As far as Im concerned if they are going non nuclear every bit of wind / solar / geothermal / hydro etc they exploit is ultimately less coal, lignite, or oil used so is a good thing.

[Goat]

Would you oblige in posting a link to that particular dataset that shows <20MW days back in 2009/10 in the UK. I know there was some data on Germany showing one day in December where winds contribution dropped to 5% of supply. Every other day it was >10%.

From page 7 of this thread. My link

There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).

The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

2009 capacity was 3000MW. 2011 it was 6000MW. That growth consists of much bigger turbines 2-5MW and much of it offshore which has significantly increased overall capacity factors and the baseload one can assume from a diverse portfolio of wind farms across a large geographic base.

Are you relying upon the discredited work of Mr Sinden there?

I note that you still fail to supply an alternative.

[snowflux]

Unfortunately Damik cannot comprehend the fact that the German people don't want nuclear yet despite this he keeps banging on about wind and solar in Germany. I actually agree that I think its a mistake in energy policy but it is their choice. As far as Im concerned if they are going non nuclear every bit of wind / solar / geothermal / hydro etc they exploit is ultimately less coal, lignite, or oil used so is a good thing.

I think the Germans will have a hell of a struggle to abolish nuclear power without increasing CO2 emissions, but if anyone can do it, the Germans can. I'm also of the opinion that the closure of coal-fired power stations should be the highest priority, even if it means more nukes.

[sossij]

"Climate change: It's even worse than we thought"

http://www.newscientist.com/special/worse-climate?cmpid=NLC|NSNS|2012-1911-GLOBAL|worseclimate&utm_medium=NLC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_content=worseclimate

More helpful disinformation from the lefty arch co-conspirators over at the New Scientist - keep it up chaps!

[sossij]

based on the practical experience from last 60 years the nuclear is the most safe and cheaper energy and it has killed the lowest ammount of humans. feel free to ignore this fact ..

Yup and dinosaurs were happily stomping around for several hundred million years before a meteor wiped (most of) them out.

Ooops, you're supposed to be on ignore.... fixed.

[Damik]

Of course oh King of lies and misrepresentation, once taxes and VAT are taken out of the equation France's electricty costs are not that dissimilar to to that of Denmark and Germany.

Perhaps you should try analysing the data in the post you made some time back in this thread:lol:

http://epp.eurostat....rice_statistics

you are clearly blind and do not understand that the fees are the fees for renewables:

[Damik]

Sigh, once again: because electricity demand varies, some generating capacity is seldom used and therefore already requires cross-subsidy. This is nothing new. Now of course the expansion of renewables means that somewhat more gas capacity than before will sometimes be idle, which inevitably means that EON will have to increase electricity prices to cover this. That is not in dispute. No gas plants will close in Germany, though; Mr Teyssen is simply dramatising in order to justify the necessary price increases.

Contrary to the words you are putting in my month, I am fully aware that electricity prices will have to rise in the future. Green is not cheap. I don't dispute that. Not surprisingly, protecting our environment from destruction has a cost, but probably not as high as the VIs make out.

1/ yes, that is the whole point. thanks for this.

2/ also burning more coal or gas is not green at all

[Kurt Barlow]

From page 7 of this thread. My link

There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 till December 2010 when total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of 1600MW).

The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

Are you relying upon the discredited work of Mr Sinden there?

I note that you still fail to supply an alternative.

The JMT report is described as an analysis of the UK Wind Power Generation but is actually specific to output from Scottish wind farms and just the stats from UK wind farms towards the end of the data set. It throws up some interesting points but is somewhat discredited by its selective use of a dataset over a relatively small geographic area and then referring to the UK.

Since that report large wind farms almost exclusively off the English and Welsh coasts have been commissioned which increase the spread significantly and reduce the risk of low wind events as described.

[Kurt Barlow]

you are clearly blind and do not understand that the fees are the fees for renewables:

Tax is tax whether it be levied for renewables subsidies, social services or running the local nuclear waste respository for the next 100,000 years. If you want to compare electricity costs fairly you take away the external taxes.

From what you keep saying it would imply France should be the economic power house of Europe. Despite all this cheap electricty its economy is still going down the $hitter well ahead of Germany or Denmark.

Again you fail the logic test

[Kurt Barlow]

you are clearly blind and do not understand that the fees are the fees for renewables:

You clearly can't read. You keep saying France has the cheapest electricity in Europe when clearly it hasn't based on that graph you keep reproducing. Secondly it would appear that German and French electricty prices (inc all Germany's terrible Green tarriffs) are fairly similar - give or take a cent.

Are you applying the same analysis to these charts as you do to tree ring data from Sweden?

[Kurt Barlow]

I think the Germans will have a hell of a struggle to abolish nuclear power without increasing CO2 emissions, but if anyone can do it, the Germans can. I'm also of the opinion that the closure of coal-fired power stations should be the highest priority, even if it means more nukes.

Given the size of European energy demand there is plenty of space for both renewables and nuclear. They shouldn't actually be competing with each other. However there isn't a hope in hell of Nuclear meeting even 25% of Europes electricity let alone energy needs in the next 20-30 years - there simply isn't the skilled manpower, manufacturing facilities or uranium fuel production (other than in Damiks fantasy World) to reach that level.

[Goat]

The JMT report is described as an analysis of the UK Wind Power Generation but is actually specific to output from Scottish wind farms and just the stats from UK wind farms towards the end of the data set. It throws up some interesting points but is somewhat discredited by its selective use of a dataset over a relatively small geographic area and then referring to the UK.

That is not strictly accurate:

There is no central instantly-accessible record of all industrial wind generated electricity. NG can only “see” the generation which is metered at the point of connection to the transmission system under NG’s control and where it has operational metering.

NG can “see” around 50% of all industrial UK wind generation. There is no reason to believe that wind generation not “seen” by NG performs any more efficiently. Indeed, it is possible that, since all the onshore wind generation in the metered total is presently in Scotland, which is generally windier than the rest of the UK, the “unseen” wind generation may perform less well.

Until July 2010, all wind generation “visible” to NG, and in the data analysed in this Report, was from onshore wind in Scotland. It represented about 80% of all industrial wind generation in Scotland and had a good geographical spread. It is reasonable to assume, due to the good geographical spread, that the “visible” generation was a fair representation of all generation in Scotland at that time.

After July 2010, with output from offshore wind farms off North East England, in the Solway Firth and at Thanet off the Kent coast having been added to those “visible”, the geographical spread became dispersed, and the data is no longer representative of any particular area

Since that report large wind farms almost exclusively off the English and Welsh coasts have been commissioned which increase the spread significantly and reduce the risk of low wind events as described.

It is clear from the rest of the report that low wind events continue after the inclusion of the new wind farms in July 2010.

The volatility of wind was underlined in the closing days of March 2011 as this Report wasbeing finalised. At 3.00am on Monday 28th March, the entire output from 3226MW capacity was 9MW.

See also appendix B to the report.

[fluffy666]

Given the size of European energy demand there is plenty of space for both renewables and nuclear. They shouldn't actually be competing with each other. However there isn't a hope in hell of Nuclear meeting even 25% of Europes electricity let alone energy needs in the next 20-30 years - there simply isn't the skilled manpower, manufacturing facilities or uranium fuel production (other than in Damiks fantasy World) to reach that level.

In theory I'd disagree - if we went down the modular route (plus/minus the various other technologies, i.e. molten salt reactors, etc..) then with factory production we could have a quick ramp up.

However.. that would take a concerted and informed, engineer-led effort by governments, and a major state funded R&D effort - the private sector doesn't look bothered. The approach being taken, which seems to be slightly-improved-more-of-the-same, won't get there.

[Kurt Barlow]

That is not strictly accurate:

There is no central instantly-accessible record of all industrial wind generated electricity. NG can only “see” the generation which is metered at the point of connection to the transmission system under NG’s control and where it has operational metering.

NG can “see” around 50% of all industrial UK wind generation. There is no reason to believe that wind generation not “seen” by NG performs any more efficiently. Indeed, it is possible that, since all the onshore wind generation in the metered total is presently in Scotland, which is generally windier than the rest of the UK, the “unseen” wind generation may perform less well.

Until July 2010, all wind generation “visible” to NG, and in the data analysed in this Report, was from onshore wind in Scotland. It represented about 80% of all industrial wind generation in Scotland and had a good geographical spread. It is reasonable to assume, due to the good geographical spread, that the “visible” generation was a fair representation of all generation in Scotland at that time.

After July 2010, with output from offshore wind farms off North East England, in the Solway Firth and at Thanet off the Kent coast having been added to those “visible”, the geographical spread became dispersed, and the data is no longer representative of any particular area

It is clear from the rest of the report that low wind events continue after the inclusion of the new wind farms in July 2010.

The volatility of wind was underlined in the closing days of March 2011 as this Report wasbeing finalised. At 3.00am on Monday 28th March, the entire output from 3226MW capacity was 9MW.

See also appendix B to the report.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/873232/wind_industry_and_decc_urged_to_come_clean_on_output_of_wind_farms.html

Helen McDade, head of policy for JMT, acknowledges that only half the UK’s wind power is accounted for, including over 80 per cent of Scottish onshore installations, but says this is the only hard data publicly available, updated to December 2010.

‘The website data used in the report includes all wind developments feeding directly into the transmission grid managed by National Grid. In Scotland, this system includes lower-voltage power lines. In practice this means none of the English and Welsh onshore wind developments feed directly into the transmission and so are not monitored on the publicly available website.’

[Kurt Barlow]

In theory I'd disagree - if we went down the modular route (plus/minus the various other technologies, i.e. molten salt reactors, etc..) then with factory production we could have a quick ramp up.

However.. that would take a concerted and informed, engineer-led effort by governments, and a major state funded R&D effort - the private sector doesn't look bothered. The approach being taken, which seems to be slightly-improved-more-of-the-same, won't get there.

If that were the case I'd be more positive about Nuclear. However this is simply not the reality we live in.

[Damik]

You clearly can't read. You keep saying France has the cheapest electricity in Europe when clearly it hasn't based on that graph you keep reproducing. Secondly it would appear that German and French electricty prices (inc all Germany's terrible Green tarriffs) are fairly similar - give or take a cent.

Are you applying the same analysis to these charts as you do to tree ring data from Sweden?

Kurt, I do not know what kind of mental block you have, but I would suggest to speak with a specialist

if you bother to check the graph or read any related article in German press the message is absolutly clear. I am OK you put your head into the sand. but one day the reality of the real world will catch you:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/medium-sized-german-companies-criticize-energy-tax-breaks-for-industry-a-863430.html

Major industry is being spared of the costs relating to Germany's expensive shift from nuclear to green energies. The burden is being placed on small and medium-sized business as well as German consumers, who pay the second highest price for electricity in Europe. Resentment is starting to grow.

The current debate over the relative fairness of this system began in response to an increase in the contribution German energy consumers pay to cover the higher costs of producing energy from renewable sources. As stipulated by Germany's Renewable Energy Act (EEG), these costs are passed on to energy customers at a cost of 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour this year. But next year, that amount will rise dramatically to 5.28 cents. For the average household, that amounts to an increase of at least €50 annually. Edeka as a whole will pay €170 million this year and €250 million next year.

...

Take the example of steel manufacturer Saarstahl, which was quite active on the energy market in the summer of 2011. In Ensdorf, birthplace of Environment Minister Altmaier, Saarstahl AG leased one block of an aging coal-fired power plant, instantly qualifying itself for the self-produced energy privilege and saving the €25 million it would otherwise have paid as its EEG contribution.

...

Now Götz is taking his case to the regional court in Chemnitz and a hearing is expected to take place this year. The businessman will present a simple case to the judge in Chemnitz: "My competitor in France pays as much for a kilowatt hour as I pay for the EEG contribution," he says.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

It amazes me that people on here still don't seem able to grasp the simple concept: It doesn't matter if wind power drops out once a week or once a month, you still have to idling standby power to cover it. You can't rely on emergency/peak supplies because they are there for EMERGENCIES and peaks not for regular use.

If you use emergency/peak supplies to cover a wind shortfall you don't have any emergency/peak supplies to use in emergencies/peaks.

Sooner or later a lull in the wind will coincide with an outage and/or a peak and you won't have enough, the frequency will drop and rolling blackouts will commence. And when that starts heavy industry/manufactures will leave the UK in droves. They wont be able to close the factories fast enough.

Work on this simple premise: You can't allow the country to run out of power EVER.

You want wind? Accept MASSIVE investment in (pumped) hydro, matching wind output 1:1 to even out the wind peaks and troughs.

Wind power is a great idea, but it needs hydro with it.

[Damik]

Given the size of European energy demand there is plenty of space for both renewables and nuclear. They shouldn't actually be competing with each other. However there isn't a hope in hell of Nuclear meeting even 25% of Europes electricity let alone energy needs in the next 20-30 years - there simply isn't the skilled manpower, manufacturing facilities or uranium fuel production (other than in Damiks fantasy World) to reach that level.

yes, French could do it, but Kurt can not ... and it is my fault ...

[Goat]

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/873232/wind_industry_and_decc_urged_to_come_clean_on_output_of_wind_farms.html

Helen McDade, head of policy for JMT, acknowledges that only half the UK’s wind power is accounted for, including over 80 per cent of Scottish onshore installations, but says this is the only hard data publicly available, updated to December 2010.

‘The website data used in the report includes all wind developments feeding directly into the transmission grid managed by National Grid. In Scotland, this system includes lower-voltage power lines. In practice this means none of the English and Welsh onshore wind developments feed directly into the transmission and so are not monitored on the publicly available website.’

The very next paragraph:

She flatly refutes Decc’s statement on offshore wind, highlighting the inclusion in the report of four English facilities: Burbo Bank and Barrow, Robin Rig East and West, Part Thanet 1 and 2, and Balance of Thanet, all of which came online in the last six months of 2010, with no demonstrable change to wind averages and variability.

‘We don’t claim this to be a perfect analysis of UK wind generation, but it’s the best anyone can do with the publicly available data,’

Edited November 20, 2012 by Goat

[snowflux]

It amazes me that people on here still don't seem able to grasp the simple concept: It doesn't matter if wind power drops out once a week or once a month, you still have to idling standby power to cover it. You can't rely on emergency/peak supplies because they are there for EMERGENCIES and peaks not for regular use.

If you use emergency/peak supplies to cover a wind shortfall you don't have any emergency/peak supplies to use in emergencies/peaks.

Sooner or later a lull in the wind will coincide with an outage and/or a peak and you won't have enough, the frequency will drop and rolling blackouts will commence. And when that starts heavy industry/manufactures will leave the UK in droves. They wont be able to close the factories fast enough.

Work on this simple premise: You can't allow the country to run out of power EVER.

You want wind? Accept MASSIVE investment in (pumped) hydro, matching wind output 1:1 to even out the wind peaks and troughs.

Wind power is a great idea, but it needs hydro with it.

Well, let's have a look at the current figures (last graph) for usable output, shall we:

Wind: 5554 MW

Pumped storage: 2828 MW

Hydro, non-pumped: 1034 MW

As you can see, 2828 MW + 1034 MW = 3862 MW, which is substantially less than 5554 MW, thus proving you wrong.

[sossij]

Influential investors call for action on 'serious climate danger'

A coalition of the world's largest investors called on governments on Tuesday to ramp up action on climate change and boost clean-energy investment or risk trillions of dollars in investments and disruption to economies.

In an open letter, the alliance of institutional investors, responsible for managing $22.5 trillion in assets, said rapidly growing greenhouse gas emissions and more extreme weather were increasing investment risks globally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/20/global-investors-call-for-action

Excellent news, more .. er... lefty co-conspirators.

[fluffy666]

If that were the case I'd be more positive about Nuclear. However this is simply not the reality we live in.

Damm reality. Should be abolished.

[Goat]

Wind power is a great idea, but it needs hydro with it.

The problem with pumped hydro is that it's a time limited reserve that requires time to refill. A prolonged low wind event could exhaust the reservoirs within 24 hours.

The reality is the only option is 100% backup from oil/coal/gas but then why build the wind farms in the first place.