Yes, here I am again ranting on about the way windpower is portrayed in TGO. I don't want turbines littering the hills, none of us reading this forum do, but emotional knee jerk reactions, often based on dubious evidence from other groups that have other agendas, are not getting anybody anywhere.

I know that the letters published are not necassarily the opinions of the publishers, but none the less, a letter must be seen to have some worth in order to be published. This month we have a letter from Bob Ferguson (that name seems familiar) bemoaning wind turbines in a way which is typical in TGO - a string of assertions which just don't stand up to scrutiny.

[i:5b95d74111]".. the figures seem to have been revised .. from earlier estimates.....

The earlier announcement saw 18% from renewables..........by around 2020......... the latest figures talk of a more modest 14%.."[/i:5b95d74111]......Bob F

The implication being that the larger figure isn't a practical possibility, whereas in fact the smaller figure at that date is because the whole scheme has been delayed.

[i:5b95d74111]".....5-7% of our electrical energy is the sort of figure they[/i:5b95d74111] [former colleagues] [i:5b95d74111]estimate might be possible....from windfarms alone."[/i:5b95d74111]

Bob, that doesn't mean anything unless you tell us why they think that. Lots of people think otherwise, and Google reveals that Denmark produced 18.5% of it's electricity from wind in 2005, and that with a leesser wind resource than ours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark


[i:5b95d74111]"....even though there will be a theoretical possibility of meeting around 14% of the nation's electrical needs, in practical terms the actual amount supplied from wind energy at any one time will probably be nearer half that."[/i:5b95d74111]

This is the sort of statement that people rally round, but in actual fact it doesn't mean anything. Why is the theoretic possibility 14%? And why if 14% is possible is only half of that available at any one time? Sure, there will be days when the windpower output is low, but there will be other days where it'll be close to the mystical 14%.

I hope I'm always ready to learn, and hopefully somebody will tell me what this statement means, otherwise I have to conclude that it's just a meaningless soundbite.


[i:5b95d74111]"I noted from the BBC news that the average electricity bill for a family is put at just over £1000 per annum at the moment and this could be as much as £1350 at some unspecified future date, due to the deployment of wind energy on the scale proposed."[/i:5b95d74111]

At least Bob tells us where this snippet came from, but the only BBC item I can find which matches this is an item a few days old saying that "[i:5b95d74111]the average annual bill for dual-fuel EDF customers would rise by £200 to just over £1,200.[/i:5b95d74111]"

So that's for electricity and gas. And that's for EDF customers - the article also gives these figures:

Average annual bill for dual fuel customer
EDF £1,168
Npower £972
British Gas £968
E.On £967
Scottish Power £959
Scottish and Southern Energy £956

It's hard to see how the ave family is paying over £1000 just for electricity.


Then there's Bob's "[i:5b95d74111]this could be as much as £1350 at some unspecified future date[/i:5b95d74111]".

Again, what is this supposed to mean? I predict that at some unspecified future date the bill will be as much as £1500, £2000, even £5000. But what date? 2020? 2030? 2050? It's just scare tactics.


Bob's random figure is "[i:5b95d74111]due to the deployment of wind energy on the scale proposed[/i:5b95d74111]."

No it's not. From the BBC article [i:5b95d74111]"EDF said that energy prices had increased by 70% for coal, 63% for gas, and 47% for electricity since it last increased its prices."[/i:5b95d74111] EDF don't even mention that the wind is more expensive than it used to be :D

Wind power would have to be extroadinarily expensive* for Bob's anticipated 7% windpower to drive up the overall price by 35%.

Tha fact is that at present all energy costs are related to the price of oil. It's no coincidence that the recently announced electricity and gas prices happened after a massive rise in oil prices.



[i:5b95d74111]"The fact of the matter is that this form of energy will be expensive and unreliable"[/i:5b95d74111].

Yes, more expensive than we're used to, but the price of hydrocarbons is likely to be even more expensive at some point. The fact is that in the oil age we became energy gluttons due to extroadinary low price of oil. To put it in perspective, one barrel (oil drum) of oil has the same energy content as twelve men working for a year.

For all Bob's moaning he doesn't suggest an alternative, but whichever course we take energy will be more expensive. If the capital costs per Kwh are more expensive for renewables, the running costs are much lower, and not dependent on the whims of unstable regions.

John

* It would have to be 6x as expensive as conventional generation according to my back of envelope calc. Which it isn't.

Life's good here in the UK isn't it? Very good. In terms of quality of life, and looking at it worldwide, I reckon I'm in the top 0.1%, maybe 0.01%.

Maybe even 0.001% - I'm particularly fortunate. I live in a nice place and don't work very hard.

Who wants change? Wouldn't it be great if the hills stayed forever late 20th century, and I stayed forever 30 something?

It ain't going to happen.

J

Re: JH

"Yes, here I am again ranting on about the way windpower is portrayed in TGO."

Indeed ! Since we last discussed this issue new studies have been published on both the cost and performance of wind energy. BERR's official *least cost scenario* (March 2008) for deploying ~ 35GW of wind energy stands at 259 billion Euro. Given the propensity for major civil engineering projects to over run budget, the ultimate cost is likely to be far higher. Much of this cost will be passed on to electricity consumers - from memory potentially 6 billion annually. Mr Ferguson's concerns over the cost of wind energy seem to be entirely justified.

As you indicate in your post, Denmark generates significant quantities of electricity from the wind - Denmark's has installed wind energy to a capacity of 0.9 kW per capita, equivalent to the UK deploying 54,000MW. Yet recent peer reviewed studies on the Danish electricity system demonstrate that Denmark's investment in wind energy has not delivered - wind generated electricity in that country has failed to displace consumption of fossil fuel - Danish carbon emissions from electricity generation per capita are significantly higher than the UK's. Denmark will remain dependent on fossil fuel for the foreseeable future.

Hi William.

[i:ae7604ed27]"Since we last discussed this issue new studies have been published on both the cost and performance of wind energy."[/i:ae7604ed27]

And at the same time the cost of oil went from $100 to $150. Other hydrocarbons to follow.

[i:ae7604ed27]"Given the propensity for major civil engineering projects to over run budget, the ultimate cost is likely to be far higher."[/i:ae7604ed27]

But that comment will apply to all new generators. We need to build new generation - wether gas, coal, nuclear, wind - and it's likely to cost a lot more than was initially thought.

[i:ae7604ed27]" Much of this cost will be passed on to electricity consumers..."[/i:ae7604ed27]

All of that cost will be passed on to consumers. Where else can it go? I see energy prices going much higher than present levels, there's no cheap option any more.

How about we build a gas pipeline from the Caspian through Georgia? At least if there are no cheap options there are more secure options (NOT Georgia).

The fact is that the energy market in the UK is a free market. Nobody's being forced to build windturbines. If the cost is to high then nobody will want to build them. But the evidence is (like it or not, and I don't like it sometimes) that there is quite a demand to build windfarms.

[i:ae7604ed27]"Mr Ferguson's concerns over the cost of wind energy seem to be entirely justified."[/i:ae7604ed27]

It's a blinkered view, he would be better being concerned about the cost of [b:ae7604ed27]any[/b:ae7604ed27] energy in the future. Where is Mr Ferguson's future supply of cheap energy coming from?


"Denmark's investment in wind energy has not delivered - wind generated electricity in that country has failed to displace consumption of fossil fuel - Danish carbon emissions from electricity generation per capita are significantly higher than the UK's."

I didn't know that so Googled for more info

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=opera&rls=en&hs=JZg&q=denmark+wind+turbine+reduced+co2&btnG=Search
& got results like:

"CO2 reduced substantially: 35 % lower in 2004 compared to 1980"

&

"During the last 25 years, Denmark’s economy has grown by more than 70% - without an increase in the consumption of energy."

Links to you rinfo would be useful.



[i:ae7604ed27]"Denmark will remain dependent on fossil fuel for the foreseeable future."[/i:ae7604ed27]

We all will, more's the pity (not that I want the Western Highlands covered in turbines). Can we allow ourselves to be held to energy ransom by Russia?

Who on this board predicted $150 oil nine months ago? We didn't predict that, and we're probably scoffing at $300 oil now. A finite resource, with production rates possibly in decline v's increasing demand, who's to say how far the price will go? How would $300 oil change the arguments? The price of electricity from any renewable generator is more or less constant, the price from a hydrocarbon generator could double and more.

We keep seeing energy price rises but don't learn the lesson. Instead of blaming it on the rising cost of hydrocarbons we want to preserve the status quo so blame it on the newcomers.

Re: JH

�It's a blinkered view, he would be better being concerned about the cost of any energy in the future. Where is Mr Ferguson's future supply of cheap energy coming from?�

Cheap? Why use this word - other than to mislead of course. Mr Ferguson would undoubtedly wish for the least expensive means of generating electricity (low carbon or otherwise) to be deployed. This is not wind, which is one of the most expensive methods of electricity generation. The UK will need to produce roughly 405TWh/yr of electricity - from gas/coal/oil/nuclear. This will not be altered by the deployment of thousands of wind turbines. Even HMG now acknowledges that wind energy will not contribute to security of supply. We do not need an alternative to wind energy – it is irrelevant to our energy needs.

“And at the same time the cost of oil went from $100 to $150. Other hydrocarbons to follow”

You miss the point. Our favoured renewable – wind – does not lessen our dependence on “hydrocarbons”. And as acknowledged by the energy industry*, wind energy developments will require almost 100% back up from gas/coal new build.

*[Paul Goby, Chief Executive, Eon UK]

Re: Denmark

Nice to see some highly massaged and cherry picked historical data – which tells us absolutely nothing about the effects of wind energy on Denmark’s electricity supply. I am aware of two studies on this subject, both yielding the same conclusion: virtually none of Denmark’s wind generated electricity can be used in Denmark. Most is exported at significant financial loss, much is simply dumped. Moreover, significant power losses occur during long distance transmission and at the energy conversion steps of hydro storage (i.e. in Norway & Sweden via NordPool). NB: Carbon emissions from electricity generation tonnes/capita: Denmark – 4.2; UK – 2.7. This is an appalling indictment of wind energy, especially since Denmark has also invested in CHP and energy efficiency measures.

“Links to your info would be useful.”

Sorry but I am not going to read this subject for you – you will have to do your own research. For one with such strongly held views, you seem out of touch with key studies on the cost and performance of wind energy.

William,
what are we to think of the truth of references of which you will not reveal the source?

Derek Goffin

William, I hope one doesn't have to be an expert to hold strong views. As for the experts, if the government and industry leaders have come to the conclusion that windpower is a washout, why are we still seeing a headlong rush into it?

[i:623cf4a490]"And as acknowledged by the energy industry*, wind energy developments will require almost 100% back up from gas/coal new build.

*[Paul Goby, Chief Executive, Eon UK]"[/i:623cf4a490]

90% is the figure I find.

[i:623cf4a490]"We do not need an alternative to wind energy – it is irrelevant to our energy needs."

"You miss the point. Our favoured renewable – wind – does not lessen our dependence on “hydrocarbons”."[/i:623cf4a490]

William, I can't come to the same conclusion as you did after reading Goby's statement. Your conclusion seems to be that wind contributes nothing because it needs 90% backup. Eon said:

[i:623cf4a490]"But it would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants to ensure supply [b:623cf4a490]when intermittent renewable supplies were not available[/b:623cf4a490]."[/i:623cf4a490]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/04/energy.renewableenergy

My conclusion is that renewables do contribute when they are available, but need backup when not available.

Furthermore, Mr Goby is talking of new build backup for when renewables are not available, and I presume this extra generation would be needed anyway, renewables or not.

Also whilst looking on the Eon website I see:

[i:623cf4a490]E.ON is already the world’s seventh-largest wind-power company and aims to rapidly rank among the leaders.[/i:623cf4a490]

http://www.eon.com/en/presse/news-show.do?id=8650

&

[i:623cf4a490]E.ON CEO Wulf H. Bernotat: “The development of renewables is essential for climate protection and important part of our growth strategy. By 2010 we want to invest about EUR6bn in this sector alone, more than any other European company.[/i:623cf4a490]

http://www.eon.com/en/presse/news-show.do?id=8604

This doesn't look like a company that has misgivings about windpower.

John

ps Didn't understand this - [i:623cf4a490]"Cheap? Why use this word - other than to mislead of course."[/i:623cf4a490]

Not sure why the word "cheap" might mislead anybody. Is "inexpensive" a better word? Not sure I like being accused of trying to mislead when I've always been as open as possible in this discussion.

Perhaps you missed my point - IMO there is no future energy supply available at todays price, and I call today's price cheap or inexpensive. Mr Ferguson (and you) might think electricity from windpower is expensive, but it might not seem so expensive in a few years.

[i:af3db8d559]“Links to your info would be useful.”

Sorry but I am not going to read this subject for you – you will have to do your own research.[/i:af3db8d559]

William, it's just common courtesy. In order to discuss the Paul Goby comment I had to search for it myself, as would anybody else.

Most readers just treat quotes without links as opinion.

What is the purpose of wind power?
Is it to replace existing generation or is it to complement existing generation?
To cope with demand spikes you can't just flick a switch to produce that demand. Boilers must be ramped up to operating speed which means they are at full whack "just in case" and spewing out the products of combustion. Wind energy provides that capacity that can just be switched on at a flick of a switch.
Has there been any official report that states wind energy will replace conventional means?
CO2 emissions per capita. A nonsense comparison. One car with one person in it still produces the same amount of CO2 as it does with four people in it.

Paul, electricity demand is rising, existing generation capacity will likely reduce - I'll let you work out if that means replace or complement or both. Whatever, it certainly means trouble.

"Has there been any official report that states wind energy will replace conventional means?"

I don't know, but here's a report from the International Energy Agency showing how renewables might be integrated (with each other as well as with conventionals). Might be best to scroll down to "Conclusions" :(

http://www.vrbpower.com/docs/energynews/Empowering_Variable_Renewables.pdf

Remember that wind power was only ever going top make up a small proportion of electricity supply, it was never going to replace it completely.

John