Posted on 07/03/2008 11:11:54 AM PDT by Fred
The UK government has committed itself to some ambitious green energy plans. It sounds good, but is it all hot air? Eoin Gleeson reports Why the scramble for wind power?
Pressure from Europe. Last year, Britain made a commitment to meet 15% of its total energy consumption from renewable energy by 2020. But with all but one of the UK’s ten remaining nuclear stations facing closure over the next 15 years, Britain will also have to replace 40% of its generating capacity over the next six to eight years.
So the Government is hoping to stave off blackouts by boosting British wind generation from four gigawatts (GW) to 25GW, doubling the entire current global fleet of wind turbines in the process. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said his ambition is to build a wind industry that would be “the equivalent for wind power of what the Gulf of Arabia is for the oil industry”. Wind power: what does the plan entail?
The centrepiece of the Renewable Energy Strategy is a plan to build 7,000 new wind turbines over the next 12 years; 4,000 to be located off the coast and 3,000 more dotted around the country. The 4,000 offshore turbines, each the size of Blackpool Tower, will have to be lowered into the seabed at a rate of more than one every working day between now and 2020 – that’s a turbine for every half mile of coastline. More than £100bn will need to be invested for the plan to come to fruition. Wind power: how will it be paid for?
To come up with that £100bn, the Government is laying out a slew of incentives to the private sector. So far, the main mechanism for encouraging wind generation has been through subsidies. Under the Renewables Obligation scheme, electricity suppliers are obliged to buy a set percentage of renewably generated electricity each year. In 2004/05, this stood at 4.9% of the electricity they generated, but this will rise to 10% by 2010. This allows wind farm developers to sell the electricity they generate at double the market price.
But the extra cost will ultimately be passed onto consumers through higher electricity bills, says energy analyst Tony Lodge. The Renewables Obligation scheme, he says, is “a hidden tax on all electricity consumers” and a “huge hidden subsidy” to renewable energy providers. This subsidy currently amounts to “£1bn a year” and will have “totalled some £32bn” by the end of the scheme. Meanwhile, engineer Jim Oswald told the Energy Tribune that relying on wind power would result in major power failures across the UK and up to 50% increases in electricity bills. Wind power: is it worth it?
Subsidies have certainly been a big success in Texas, where 400ft turbines across the state are delivering electricity at a cost of $0.08 a kilowatt hour. That compares to $0.065 for nuclear and $0.05 for coal. The Texan investment has bred a strong interest in developing wind-generating technology, which will drive the cost closer to that of coal-powered electricity, says The Economist.
But despite advances in “smart turbines” – including rotors developed by aerospace groups, and turbines that flex when the wind blows too strong – the experience of other countries who’ve invested in wind power is not encouraging. A report by the Centre for Policy Studies on Denmark’s experience (see below), found that windmills added no net electricity because back-up power plants had to be kept running for when the wind fails to blow. Germany, Spain and the Netherlands have all cut huge wind power subsidies, having had a few years to examine the benefits. Wind power: will it work for Britain?
The most obvious concern just now is how the plan will be carried out. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard points out in The Daily Telegraph, there are only three major manufacturers in the world able to make the large turbines needed offshore – and one of them, German engineering giant Siemens, has already sold out until 2012. On top of that, the world has only one ship able to place these 200-ton turbines.
But even if we solve the logistical problems, we will still need to build at least 20 new conventional power stations to back up the grid when the wind isn’t blowing. While the wind farms will be spread over a greater land mass in Britain than in Denmark, increasing the chance that the wind will always be blowing in one area or another, the system will still be unreliable.
A Renewable Energy Foundation study of wind speeds in 2005 found that they varied so much that the back-up demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56 GW in a single month. That would mean switching a 1,000 MW coal plant on and off 23 times to make up for the shortfall.
The introduction of a national computerised system (or ‘intelligent’ grid) to manage the power load could improve reliability. But the best hope for Britain may be to eventually hook our grid up to Europe’s network, enabling excess wind in one country to compensate for slumps in another. Until then, Brown’s lofty ambitions may remain a pipe dream. Is wind power as green as it seems?
Demark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.
In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.
Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.
No, not really. Maintenance costs are high. It chews up a lot of real estate, acres and acres for not very much wattage.
Without government subsidies it usually isn’t profitable.
Natgas plants, on the other hand, take up relatively little space per watt, and they don’t require subsidies, they pay for themselves.
The “alternative-energy” folks are just avoiding what is patently obvious. If you want energy independence, the answer is coal or nukes. If you want clean energy, the answer is nukes. Wasting time, tax money, and real estate on solar and wind is just delaying the day you do what we needed to do from the beginning. We should be building about fifty nukes right now.
There is a solar plant near me on the books, 500 megawatt, that is expected to take up 9 square miles. Nine square miles. Fine with me, go for it, but compare that to an average natgas plant that fits into a few city blocks.
Of course not.. even an idiot should be able to see that..
But most women have the mechanical/electrical abilities of chimp OR less..
And most democrats are women..
a blowing in the wind to you too bttt..
In a word:
NO
My only problem with natural gas for electricity generation is that compressed, it is a perfectly good motor fuel. Seems a shame to burn so much of it in power plants. Gas and oil for transportation. Coal and nuclear for electricity.
What you wanna bet that extracting all that power from the wind doesn’t lead to yet more climate change? And this time it could be real.
They are going up all over the panhandle of Texas. Ranching and farming uninterrupted by the process after they are put up which is usually a 30-45 day operation per my personal observations. Small foot print on the land. I am told the problem is that power stations that absorb such energy need too store it in batteries or manage it with computers to maintain a constant 99% such’n such level of output too the populace / users. Wind systems are sporadic producers allegedly and that is why some dislike em. Lots of money spent on these for em too be a folly. I only know what I see and hear yet they are up and running and more being installed on a daily basis here .
Wind is a constant 5-50mph range around here pretty much so maybe it is a viable plan for our area I suppose.
We need an environmental impact statement on the affect of taking this much energy out of the atmosphere.
You can have some wind power but it is expensive. Adding some of this and some of that might take the urgency off oil, but it won’t be cheap.
Its AN option and nothing more. Wind power, if used in conjunction with other options might have a role to play but as others have mentioned here, its not terribly reliable given the variability of weather. Wind, solar, nuclear, fuel cells, hydrogen or something we haven’t even seen yet, all are part of the picture and will help us tell the Saudis and their buddies at OPEC where to stick their lousy oil sooner rather than later. Then we can all sit back and enjoy the collapse of the House of Saud, Hugo Chavez and the like. Hilarity should ensue (figuratively speaking). Lookin’ forward to it.
Wind is a constant 5-50mph range around here pretty much so maybe it is a viable plan for our area I suppose.
I hate to tell you this but 5 to 50 is not constant. LOL They are going up all over the place because they are being subsidized and after the end of this physical year I believe the construction subsidy ends. (it hasn't be renewed). They are not profitable currently because of the sporadic nature of the wind.
LOL.......Key word in my post regarding the wind was “range” and I think I said sporadic nature of the wind ......never hate too tell me anything !
Stay safe and have a great Independence Day !
It is on a sailboat, off the grid. Two solar panels plus a wind generator gives all the power for “first world living,” minus A/C. For climate control...you move the boat.
no.
No.
Next question?
Stupid is too kind a word for them. When the energy crisis gets bad enough, they will be the ones wailing the loudest. Whining is what they do. And ten years from now they will still be blaming Bush for it all.
Wind power: is it an option?
YES
Is it a cost effective option?
NO
Is it a cost effective option?
No.
“A Renewable Energy Foundation study of wind speeds in 2005 found that they varied so much that the back-up demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56 GW in a single month. That would mean switching a 1,000 MW coal plant on and off 23 times to make up for the shortfall. . . .The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.”
The thermal and mechanical stresses on a steam turbine-generator from changing temps that much is vast and must surely increase the O&M on the fossil or nuke generators.
Wind piddle power increases costs all around - what insanity!!
“Liberalism is a mental disorder”-Michael Savage
You have no idea how correct you. Or maybe you do.
Additionally, any plant with a Steam Turbine cannot be started from cold quickly. It takes several hours. They must therefor be kept running at a minimal load, to be ready to ramp up quickly. They are much less efficient at lower loads, thus putting out more pollutants per Mega Watt.
And the grid voltage is controlled by the power produced and the power used. When load is lost, generation must be cut back at the same rate or voltage will increase. Conversely, when generation is lost, like wildly varying wind speed, it must be met with an equal variance of generation somewhere else to maintain voltage. This is extremely difficult to do, and will vastly increase the chanced of grid voltage variance events that could take out large portions of the system.
Wind power is truly a stupid idea for large power grid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.