PDA

View Full Version : Wind power. Not a mistake but a blunder



EternalOptimist
6th August 2012, 14:10
Another report out about the effect of wind power on electricity bills


more than a mistake, it's a blunder (http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-evidence.pdf)

'The necessary investment for this Wind scenario would amount to about £124 billion. The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion'

the current scenario will cost 10 times more in capital costs:eek:




:rolleyes:

SimonMac
6th August 2012, 14:17
Another report out about the effect of wind power on electricity bills


more than a mistake, it's a blunder (http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-evidence.pdf)

'The necessary investment for this Wind scenario would amount to about £124 billion. The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion'

the current scenario will cost 10 times more in capital costs:eek:




:rolleyes:

But what about on going costs? I assume the capital will be higher but with no gas to buy long term it would be a different story.

OwlHoot
6th August 2012, 14:19
Makes one realise just how utterly stupid and deluded the previous Government must have been to pile into wind power when they could have had the same advice then from this guy or anyone similar with a clue.

And it isn't as if the details are long and intricate, full of equations and graphs etc. It's just 25 clearly written text pages.

EternalOptimist
6th August 2012, 14:20
But what about on going costs? I assume the capital will be higher but with no gas to buy long term it would be a different story.

of course, the report covers that.
but bear in mind, these stations will have to be built anyway, and kept ticking over, to provide back up for the wind turbines.




:rolleyes:

SimonMac
6th August 2012, 14:22
of course, the report covers that.
but bear in mind, these stations will have to be built anyway, and kept ticking over, to provide back up for the wind turbines.




:rolleyes:

I thought the idea was to find a lasting alternative, not a cheaper alternative though?

(PS Couldn't get one way or the other about global warming, its happening/its not happening whether or not I switch a lightblub or turn the tv off standby, but as long as energy is expensive I'll keep my shares in Centrica :laugh)

EternalOptimist
6th August 2012, 14:26
I thought the idea was to find a lasting alternative, not a cheaper alternative though?

(PS Couldn't get one way or the other about global warming, its happening/its not happening whether or not I switch a lightblub or turn the tv off standby, but as long as energy is expensive I'll keep my shares in Centrica :laugh)

you are right. this is about cheap energy, not CAGW.
The fear of CO2 was just the method they used to force the debate at that time.

SimonMac
6th August 2012, 14:28
you are right. this is about cheap energy, not CAGW.
The fear of CO2 was just the method they used to force the debate at that time.

Oil and Gas will always be cheaper as the infrastructure is already there, if/when the supply dwindles prices would go up and the cost of renewable will seem less prohibitive, its gonna be a case of take the hit now or later.

Personally I still think Nuclear is the way forward, as for not being safe it too an earth quake and a tsunami to knock Fukushima off line, not really an every day occurance.

BrilloPad
6th August 2012, 14:30
Personally I still think Nuclear is the way forward

+1. I like wind power as I don't like being dependant on other countries for energy. But I am concerned what happens if the wind does not blow.

EternalOptimist
6th August 2012, 14:32
Oil and Gas will always be cheaper as the infrastructure is already there, if/when the supply dwindles prices would go up and the cost of renewable will seem less prohibitive, its gonna be a case of take the hit now or later.

Personally I still think Nuclear is the way forward, as for not being safe it too an earth quake and a tsunami to knock Fukushima off line, not really an every day occurance.

There are new supplies coming on stream all the time. gas prices in the USA are falling fast, and I would expect to see the same here soon ish. The tar sands and frakking have changed the numbers quite dramatically.

Agreed, it will only put off the inevitable, maybe by a few generations, but a few generations ago, the main energy crisis was where to shovel all the horse sh1te in London from all the coal carts.




:rolleyes:

Robinho
6th August 2012, 14:35
Nuclear is still expensive if you factor in decomissioning costs.

Modern coal plants are a lot cleaner than old ones and still the best choice IMO.

BrilloPad
6th August 2012, 14:35
There are new supplies coming on stream all the time. gas prices in the USA are falling fast, and I would expect to see the same here soon ish. The tar sands and frakking have changed the numbers quite dramatically.


The problem with frakking is that Blackpool will be destroyed.

On second thoughts....

Gentile
6th August 2012, 14:58
+1. I like wind power as I don't like being dependant on other countries for energy. But I am concerned what happens if the wind does not blow.

The wind always blows in Scotland - it's one of the best natural resources we've got. But on the odd occasion that it doesn't, you do the same as you do when the coal is late, or there's a massive football match on the telly, or there's a maintenance cycle: you use the power held back in a storage facility. One place I know has a massive dam, where they pump water up during hours of over-production, then they literally sit there with the TV guide working out when there's going to be a surge in demand for some popular televised event, and let the gates open so it can act as a hydro-electric facility at those peak times.

EternalOptimist
6th August 2012, 15:03
The wind always blows in Scotland - it's one of the best natural resources we've got. But on the odd occasion that it doesn't, you do the same as you do when the coal is late, or there's a massive football match on the telly, or there's a maintenance cycle: you use the power held back in a storage facility. One place I know has a massive dam, where they pump water up during hours of over-production, then they literally sit there with the TV guide working out when there's going to be a surge in demand for some popular televised event, and let the gates open so it can act as a hydro-electric facility at those peak times.

just because the wind always blows, that doesn't automatically make it cheaper. How many Loch Awes would you need if the whole of Scotland went to wind ?





:rolleyes:

Robinho
6th August 2012, 15:07
There's a lot of wind in Scotland from all the hot air coming out of Alex Salmond.

Gentile
6th August 2012, 15:11
just because the wind always blows, that doesn't automatically make it cheaper. How many Loch Awes would you need if the whole of Scotland went to wind ?

They'd just need to be more creative. Maybe we could wind a big elastic band around the Scottish Parliament, and let them spin when more power was needed? I'm sure there's a pun in there somewhere.

Gentile
6th August 2012, 15:13
just because the wind always blows, that doesn't automatically make it cheaper. How many Loch Awes would you need if the whole of Scotland went to wind ?

PS: I like how EO1 and the Shift key aware EO2 collaborated for that post.

EternalOptimist
6th August 2012, 15:19
They'd just need to be more creative. Maybe we could wind a big elastic band around the Scottish Parliament, and let them spin when more power was needed? I'm sure there's a pun in there somewhere.

I am pretty sure that the act that demands such a massive investment in order to cut emissions, clinate change act 2008, has an emergency override, such as 'subject to the secretary of states approval', but I just wish they would get on with it


:rolleyes:

IR35FanClub
7th August 2012, 00:00
I treat any article about energy supply with a pinch of salt. I've read more about it than most people I know - and usually a report that comes out saying this is worse than that is usually biased because someone wants to trigger some action or other.

I think in the UK as we have absolutely tulip loads of wind all round the coast we would be foolish to not use it. The alternative is to buy our gas from Quatar via Milford Haven and a bit indirectly from <insert almost acceptable, but slightly dodgy human rights record country of your choice here> and so on. To be honest it doesn't really matter which actual country gets the cash as its a global market. What we don't by from <insert really bad dodgy regime of your choice here> will be bought by some other less fussy country anyways.

This stuff about having gas ticking over - ain't so. The whole point of a CCGT is you can turn it off when not generating. Unlike coal. And even then - a coal plant on spinning standby uses a lot less coal than one on wide open throttle. A coal plant has a faster pedal just like your right foot. This is why I get annoyed when I keep hearing arguments like "well we need to keep all these other sources as a back up". Yes that's true - just like we have emergency backup generators if the grid goes down - they don't use fuel when the grid is up. The point about wind is that WHEN it is windy it CAN generate power and displace coal and gas. I'd prefer to see nukes as the baseload. Better still - I'd like to see mechanical wind turbines pumping sea water to topping up tidal lagoons, and then using the stored water to power the grid in peak periods (using hydro at sea). This would make wind not just economical, but better than CCGT at peak load shaving. Not cheap, but selling into the peak market is better than selling 24x7.

Interestingly the energy co's have just spent billions on increasing ther gas storage so they can make a killing in spot prices during the winter. They were caught with their pants down a few years ago having only 4 days supply storage, where as central europe has closer to a month. I think it was about 2007 when we had a cold snap, russia cut the supply to europe over unpaid bills with Georgia and we were 48 hours away from having to shut down large parts of the gas grid.

I'm not a eco[logical] worrier, more of an eco[nomical] worrier. I want to see the UK make best use of it's own resources rather than depending on global markets and other states. Don't get me started on thorium and alternative nuclear design which would burm our current stockpiles of waste and obsolete warheads - these are too far away - but worth investing in (without the help of EDF).

pjclarke
7th August 2012, 12:16
And it isn't as if the details are long and intricate, full of equations and graphs etc. It's just 25 clearly written text pages.

Yeah - and he didn't muddy the waters by including any tedious checkable sources for his numbers either, apart from:-


Source: Author’s calculations

Excellent! Exactly the kind of report by a scrupulously transparent (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/20/global-warming-policy-foundation-donors) and impartial (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/21/lord-lawson-global-warming-errors) body Nigel Lawson's 'Global Warming Policy Foundation' that we 'sceptics' can accept without question at face value. :grin

In his evidence Hughes estimates an increase in domestic energy bills of


£528 per year at 2010 prices to a range from £730 to £840 in 2020

which contrasts with a figure also given in evidence to the House (http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmenergy/uc517-i/uc51701.htm) by Prof. Robert Gross ...


If we do all the things that we have suggested we need to do over the next decade, it would increase the electricity bills in 2020 for the typical dual-fuel household by £100 relative to today’s level. Within that, about £70 is due to the support for renewables, and within that about £50 is due to supporting wind in particular, rather than biomass-and most of that £50 is offshore rather than onshore wind.

And that's before we consider the 'merit order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merit_order)' effect where cheaper production tends to drive out more expensive and the estimated £100 per household energy efficiency gains to be had; Hughes was giving evidence in the same session and oddly, did nothing to explain the difference in the two estimates. Hmmm.

Domestic energy prices are broadly tied to the wholesale gas price and doubled between 2005 and 2009. I don't recall many howls of anguish at this imposition. In my view the way forward is a balanced mix of nuclear, renewables (plus HVDC interconnectors) with some fossil fuels at the cleaner end of the spectrum.

BlasterBates
7th August 2012, 13:14
We'll see the proof of the failure of wind in ten years time. No need to argue a point like this as wind is so ridiculous as a power source the economics will see it out.

I sometimes go to an eco restaurant where the stench from the toilets (non flushing of course :eyes) is comparable to what Samuel Pepys faced in the 17th century, at which time wind was probably the main industrial energy source.

What eco-warriors will discover is that people don't want to live in the 17th century.

BrilloPad
7th August 2012, 14:37
Twasn't as bad as all that, IIRC.


If I go ill I like to be treated with surgery. Not leeches.

BlasterBates
7th August 2012, 15:22
In those days scientists were predicting that London would end up under 9 foot of horse poo.

The Great Horse-Manure Crisis of 1894 | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty (http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/our-economic-past-the-great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894/)

Ketchup
7th August 2012, 15:55
I want to sit on top of one of the windmills, it looks really cool up there

IR35FanClub
7th August 2012, 20:45
Another report out about the effect of wind power on electricity bills


more than a mistake, it's a blunder (http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-evidence.pdf)

'The necessary investment for this Wind scenario would amount to about £124 billion. The same electricity demand could be met from 21.5 GW of combined cycle gas plants with a capital cost of £13 billion'

the current scenario will cost 10 times more in capital costs:eek:

:rolleyes:

I did say they probably had a point to put across...

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation)

Its a front for the oil and gas companies. A bit like starting a "charity" called "Flufy Bunnies and pretty birds", as a lobby group for hunting. (not that theres anything wrong with shooting wild animals, just not too many or there wont be any left for me to shoot).

I dont have a problem with lobby groups as long as they name themselves properly and state who funds them. My ficticious group should be called Smash Bang and Death to Wildlife. Funded exclusively by people with guns, gun makers and ammunition makers... not the tax payer.

And Global Warming Policy fondation sould be called "Keep buying Oil and Gas or our shareholdings will go down". Funded by Energy companies using money made from profits on the gas and petrol you bought but would just as hapilly bought clean electric as long as your car did 0-60 in under 8secs and 300 miles on a charge. And a bit from the taxpayer?

EternalOptimist
7th August 2012, 20:54
I did say they probably had a point to put across...

Global Warming Policy Foundation - SourceWatch (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation)

Its a front for the oil and gas companies. A bit like starting a "charity" called "Flufy Bunnies and pretty birds", as a lobby group for hunting. (not that theres anything wrong with shooting wild animals, just not too many or there wont be any left for me to shoot).

I dont have a problem with lobby groups as long as they name themselves properly and state who funds them. My ficticious group should be called Smash Bang and Death to Wildlife. Funded exclusively by people with guns, gun makers and ammunition makers... not the tax payer.

And Global Warming Policy fondation sould be called "Keep buying Oil and Gas or our shareholdings will go down". Funded by Energy companies using money made from profits on the gas and petrol you bought but would just as hapilly bought clean electric as long as your car did 0-60 in under 8secs and 300 miles on a charge. And a bit from the taxpayer?

wow well done sherlock.

the gwpf is anti CAGW, as am I. there is also an anti wind argument on economic grounds

there is no hidden agenda. no one is trying to pass ideology off as science.
If there is a counter argument , lets hear it.

lets be clear, I am 100% against wind on the carbon argument
50% against wind on the economic argument



:rolleyes: