text:
On 24 January this year a member of the Danish parliament asked the minister for Research, Innovation and Further Education the following question: "What is the Minister's position on The Strategic Research Council giving a grant of 19.9 million Kroner [total is DKr23.6m] for an investigation onto how to get the neighbours of future wind turbines to change their views to an acceptance of giant wind turbines in their neighbourhood?"
The Minister, Morten Østergaard, answered:
"With regard to the question, I have asked the strategic Research Council for information on the actual project. The council secretary has given the following information:
"The council has in 2013 given a grant of DKr 19.9 million to the project [total: DKr23.6m] 'Wind2050 - Multidisciplinary study on local acceptance and development of wind power projects'. The research will be conducted in the period 2014-2017.
"The following bodies will take part in the project: DTU Management Engineering, DTUWind, Copenhagen University, Department of Food and Resource Economics, KORA, CONCITO, Danish Wind Industry Association, Queens University of Belfast, RPS Group Ireland, University College London, GK Energi Aps, EurowindEnergy, National Association of Councils, The Department for Nature, The Energy Department, Siemens Wind Power, Energinet.dk, Ringkøbing-Skjern Kommune, Sønderbog Kommune, Kalundborg Kommune, Aarhus Kommune, Guldborgsund Kommune, HOFOR, The Danish Wind Association, Project Zero A/S, Svendborg Kommune, Vestas, Vattenfall.
"The project is popularly described as follows: 'In spite of measures aimed at increasing the acceptance of wind turbine projects, both official and private bodies continue to experience a rising tendency for local conflict which is getting in the way of the ambitious target of a fossil-free Danish energy supply by 2050. This situation applies in the whole of Europe where factors which drive the conflicts appear to depend on the economic, political and cultural context. The Wind2050 project is unique in that it draws from international experiences in order thereby to understand the dynamic in local acceptance of both onshore and offshore wind turbine projects in Denmark. These will be compared with projects in Great Britain and Ireland where the focus is both on institutional and regulatory aspects, as well as private project development. The project will use an interactive research framework which involves researchers in jurisprudence, the social sciences, economics and technical sciences. These will work together through continuous exchange of knowledge with each other and with end-users (politicians, authorities, citizens and NGO's). Principally, wind energy is understood as a social-technical sytem, that makes possible the use of different scientific perspectives and methods to analyse the mechanisms which encourage or obstruct the setting up and expansion of wind energy. The analyses will be integrated in strategic scenarios for the year 2050 which offer recommendations to both offical and private bodies with regard to future implementation of wind power and other alternative energy sources."
The illustration above wildly under-represents the numbers of groups across the world with a significant internet presence by focusing on only 323 websites. There are well over 2200 listed organisations against wind with a website; there are many more Facebook pages and individual blogs. The number is growing every day.
The very fact that this research has been instigated is revealing. Even in little Denmark, where the wind industry continually claims that turbines are accepted and popular, there were 197 groups campaigning against wind turbines as of 15 January, 2014. Obviously, the whole basis for this study is the "rising tendency" for opposition.
We could save the Danish taxpayer millions by pointing out that the growing opposition in Denmark is directly related to the replacement of very small (20 to 50 metre) turbines with 125m-plus monsters across the land. As in other countries, people do not take kindly to having their landscape, health, residential amenity and property values damaged by large numbers of monster turbines in valued landscapes and close to communities.
'Wind2050 - Multidisciplinary study on local acceptance and development of wind power projects', Aalborg University, Abstract.
Ministeriet for Forskning, Innovation og Videregående Uddannelser, 2013-14 S 831.
Quixote's Last Stand - 'Links to over 2000 International Anti-wind Groups'.
It is reported that a deal between the Irish and UK governments regarding the import of Irish wind-generated electricity is now unlikely to proceed.
Plans for at least 40 wind farms will now be mothballed. Two companies, Mainstream Renewable Power and Element Power, had planned to erect at least 1,000 wind turbines across five counties in the Irish Midlands.
The news will be welcomed by residents in the areas where large-scale wind farms were due to be developed. Massive popular opposition was threatening government support in some areas.
A memorandum of understanding (MOU) on trade in renewable energy was signed between the countries in January 2013. This was symptomatic of Lib Dem control of the energy portfolio under the coalition agreement, with DECC ministers Chris Huhne and, latterly, Ed Davey aggressively pushing wind power at any price.
As the Conservatives have sought to re-assert control over energy policy in advance of the next general election, the emphasis on wind power has waned and they are increasingly looking to the combination of nuclear power and gas for the delivery of affordable and secure energy supplies.
'Proposals for giant wind farms are shelved', Independent.ie, 7 March, 2014.
Deutsche Welle 28 February, 2014.
'A German panel of experts has called for the abolition of the Renewable Energy Sources Act. They argue that maintaining growth in the renewables sector has led to price hikes, but hasn't promoted climate protection.
'Dietmar Harhoff's verdict on Germany's Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) is crushing. "The EEG doesn't serve climate protection," the member of a government-commissioned committee on research and innovation told reporters in Berlin on Wednesday (26.02.2014).
'In their annual report, Harhoff and his colleagues have called for the abolition of the EEG altogether. They concluded that the promotion of renewable energy makes electricity more expensive, and doesn't even lead to enhanced climate protection or more innovation.
'Harhoff concludes that the EEG has failed as a central instrument in climate protection.
'The share of renewables on the market may have increased, he said, but that has also significantly boosted prices. According to Harhoff, supporting green electricity cost 23 billion euros ($31.45 billion) in 2012. As those costs have mounted, so has the need for justification, he said, adding that green electricity can never be an end in itself.
Herald Scotland, Colin McInnes, 24 February, 2014.
'While the focus of the UK nuclear sector is on the new-build programme, recent results from EDF remind us that existing nuclear capacity is still a major player in the UK energy scene.
'Their nuclear fleet is now delivering more electrical energy than at any time during the past eight years, resulting in a boost for operating profits. And with a 10-year life-extension for Dungeness B due to be finalised later this year, nuclear investments from the 1970s and 80s will still be paying dividends for many years to come.
'Nowhere is the contribution of the UK nuclear fleet more apparent than in Scotland, with two reactors at Hunterson and Torness. Though a little-known fact, through these two compact plants, nuclear is the largest generator of electrical energy in Scotland by some margin, as it has been for many years. Indeed, the output from the single nuclear plant at Torness alone (9 TWh) comfortably exceeds the combined output of every wind, wave and solar generator in Scotland (8.3 TWh). This clearly illustrates the benefit of energy-dense fuels used in compact and efficient thermal plants, which can provide continuous output over a plant life of many decades.
'While Scotland is pitched as the Saudi Arabia of renewable energy, it's steadfastly nuclear-powered.
'In contrast, the arbitrary government target of generating the equivalent of 100% of Scotland's electrical energy consumption from diffuse and intermittent renewable resources by 2020 is perplexing. While climate change targets are mooted as one of the primary motivations, Scotland's electrical energy generation is in fact already 100% low carbon, as measured against the government's own metric.
'In 2012, Scottish electrical energy consumption was 30.8 TWh, while production from our two compact nuclear plants was 17.0 TWh, all wind, wave and solar production was 8.3 TWh, hydro 4.8 TWh and other renewables 1.6 TWh.
'Output from low carbon sources therefore exceeded domestic consumption, a fact that is rarely noted, or indeed celebrated by government and environmental NGOs. To do so would be to acknowledge the reality of the immense contribution of nuclear energy to Scotland's electrical energy production, and indeed its exports to the rest of the UK.
(Colin McInnes is Professor of Engineering Science at the University of Strathclyde).
The extraordinary story of the environmental and climate change policies and politics which many informed sources say have led directly to the severe flooding of the Somerset Levels is beginning to leak out.
Richard North, military historian and anti-EU campaigner, has done some impressive spadework in the murky swamp of EU directives and environmental politics in a series of posts on his EUReferendum.com blog.
Christopher Booker has also taken up the cudgels in his Telegraph column, claiming that the 65 square miles of flooding in the Somerset Levels not only could have been prevented, but were deliberately engineered by the last Labour Government and its agencies, "knowingly regardless of the property and human rights of the thousands of people whose homes and livelihoods would be affected".
Meanwhile, the BBC has stuck steadfastly to its climate change agenda, insisting that it is all caused by anthropogenic global warming/climate change. In this it has managed to even go beyond the views of IPCC 5 and the Met Office who find that: "As yet, there is no definitive answer on the possible contribution of climate change to the recent storminess, rainfall amounts and the consequent flooding. This is in part due to the highly variable nature of UK weather and climate." ('The Recent Storms and Floods in the UK', February 2014. PDF download).
The Telegraph, 23 February, 2014
Energy minister Michael Fallon orders wind farms to cut compensation charges as figures show they are paid millions for turbines to stand still in stormy weather.
'Onshore wind farms are being paid £30 million a year to sit idle during the windiest weather.
'The payments are made because the cables which transmit power from the turbines to the National Grid cannot cope with the amount of electricity they produce during stormy conditions.
'Ministers are launching a fresh crackdown on the compensation charges – which ultimately end up on customers' bills - and are threatening to force power companies to reduce the cost of the payments.
'Michael Fallon, the Energy Minister, has written to renewable power companies warning that he is ready to change the law to force wind farms to lower their prices if they fail to cut the costs voluntarily.
'The scale of the compensation payments, which can be disclosed for the first time, will fuel opposition to wind generators from campaigners who argue that they are inefficient and blight the landscape.
'The payments are made to wind farm owners on top of "green subsidies" that they already receive to encourage renewable power plants to be built.
'These subsidies are set by the government but paid ultimately from customers' household bills.
The scandal of constraint payments was first revealed by Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) in 2011. They have argued from the first that government and the regulator, Ofgem, must intervene to protect the consumer.
REF publishes the only conveniently accessible data set on this important subject.
As a result of publicity the average bid to reduce wind output has fallen very significantly from an average of more than £200 per MWh in 2011 - some operators were asking, and getting, £800-990 per MWh - to £86 per MWh in 2013. However this average remains in excess of what is reasonable given that the subsidy forgone by onshore wind farms is approximately £50 per MWh. Furthermore, the average price demanded masks the fact that there is a wide range of charges with 18 onshore wind farms charging less than £80 per MWh whereas 11 others charge from £81 to £162 per MWh not to generate.
Exposing the wind industry's abuse of market power to public scrutiny has saved the UK consumer many millions of pounds in fact and many more millions prospectively.
NATS, 12 February, 2014.
'Air traffic services company NATS has signed a pioneering deal with two wind turbine developers that could unlock up to 2.2GW of potential new wind energy across the UK.
'The deal, signed between NATS, SSE and Vattenfall, secures the funding to modify two Raytheon-manufactured radar sites – Lowther Hill and Great Dun Fell – to provide a mitigation service in northern England and southern Scotland to the interference caused by wind turbines.
'Under planning rules, NATS must be consulted on all wind turbine applications in the UK. In some two per cent of cases, the proposed turbines would cause interference to the radar signals air traffic controllers use to direct aircraft. The turbine blades can appear as 'clutter' on radar screens and be mistaken for aircraft.
'In these cases NATS often has to object to the development on the grounds of aviation safety, resulting in the application being turned down by the planning authority.
'The agreement signed between NATS and the developers now means that a technical modification, developed in a three-year programme called Project RM, can be made to the radar. This will provide a mitigation service in the vast majority of cases where there is interference, for the length of the planning consent.
'Funding has so far been secured for two radar sites with the option to roll the modification out to others and to investigate further improvements to the mitigation as developer demand requires. Any roll-out of the modification to other radar sites will be delivered on a fair and equitable basis according to requirement.
The Scottish Government have confirmed that additional scope for wind development within the Eskdalemuir sensitivity zone has been identified and an announcement quantifying the Eskdalemuir seismic budget release will be made by mid-April, this year.
The MOD has hitherto set strict set strict limits on numbers and proximity of turbines within a 50km radius of the array, which is part of an international network of stations used to monitor nuclear tests and other seismic events worldwide. The Eskdalemuir seismic station was commissioned in 1962 and is the longest-operating steerable seismic array in the world.
MOD objections have been cited in the refusal and abandonment of many large-scale turbine proposals in the western Borders in recent years.
A working group has been in operation for some years, examining the problem of seismic interference with the array.
The MOD has also registered its concerns at the cumulative impacts of wind development on both RRH Brizlee Wood, near Alnwick, home of long-range surveillance and control radar which is part of the UK Air Surveillance And Control System (ASACS) and on its Electronic Warfare Tactics Range and exercise area at RAF Spadeadam.
Brizlee Wood scans the air approaches over the North Sea, giving ASACS ample warning time to identify and if necessary intercept potential intruders into UK airspace.
The MOD installed a partially industry-funded Lockheed Martin TPS-77 Air Defence Radar at Briszlee Wood in 2012, this is supposed to ameliorate the problem of turbines presenting ghost images and clutter on radar screens which could mask intrusions into UK airspace by hostile aircraft.
The impact of turbines on mobile threat radars is less amenable to fixes. It is known that the MOD are increasingly concerned at the density of wind development in areas of Northumberland and Southern Scotland which abut RAF exercise areas and ranges.
'Update from Scottish Government on progress made by the Eskdalemuir Working Group (EWG)', 20 February. 2014. Download from SC. Govt. Website.
Eskdalemuir and Eskdalemuir Working Group
Brizlee Wood.
RAF Spadeadam.
'Wind turbines in Anglesey burst into flame in the gale force winds that hit North Wales.
'The flaming turbines were described as "giant Catherine wheels" after catching fire between 6pm and 7pm yesterday [11 February, 2014] near Cemaes.
'Emma Shortman, who lives nearby, said: "I was letting the dogs out and saw flickering blue and red sparks coming from the hub of the turbine.
'"Then it lit up like a candle."
'Mrs Shortman said another turbine caught fire on the other side of her house 20 minutes later.
'She said: "I've never seen it happen before. There were sparks coming off the turbines. I was worried they might set the other turbines on fire. After an hour, they seemed to burn themselves out, but were still flickering as if they might start again.
'"The hubs of the turbines are all burnt today, but they're still spinning. If the wind picks up and the blades keep spinning, I'm worried they could come off."
'The fire service said it was called to three wind turbines on fire in the area, but did not take any action at the scene.
The wind industry's increasingly desperate attempts to claim that wind turbine arrays do not affect house prices have received yet another blow.
A study by the London School of Economics (LSE) which covered more than a million homes in close proximity to large wind farms over a 12-year period, finds that property values fell by up to 11 per cent. [1]
The report's author, Professor Steve Gibbons, Director of LSE's Spatial Economics Research Centre, is reported as saying that, "Property prices are going up in places where they're not visible and down in the places where they are." [2]
A feature article on Economic and Social Research Council's website noted that:
If we take these [research] figures seriously as estimates of the mean willingness to pay to avoid wind farms in communities exposed to their development, the implied costs are substantial. Rough calculations based on the estimates suggest that the implied social costs on the local community (within four kilometres) amounts to about £5.6 million per operational wind farm, or about £210 per household per year. There may be some understandable economic justification for the 'nimbyism' of wind farm opposition. [3]
These finding add to the very long list of research findings in other countries which have have supported the everyday experience of people that turbines reduce house values, a finding which has already found support in the quasi-judicial findings of Valuation Office Agency tribunals which have rebanded properties near wind farms on the basis of reduced valuations.
[1] 'Gone with the wind: valuing the local impacts of wind turbines through house prices' (Preliminary Draft), Stephen Gibbons, November 2013 (PDF download).
[2] 'Wind farms proven to cut house prices by 11%, says LSE report', The Telegraph, 27 January, 2014.
[3] 'The cost of being green', Economic and Social Research Council, Features, 4 December, 2013.
The wind industry and government are being forced to confront the fact that offshore wind will massively fail to meet EU targets, despite the UK's huge subsidies.
To reach the EU cumulative target of 43GW it would be necessary to install an average of 5GW a year for the next seven years. The current rate stands at under 2GW a year.
The UK envised 18GW of offshore wind by 2020, of which 3.65GW has been built, much more than any other country in the world. Bloomberg notes that, "The UK market is crucial to the industry because it's the biggest source of new projects and accounts for more than half the global installed capacity."
Reaching the UK target would require the equivalent of building another 23 London Arrays in 7 years. Despite RenewableUK's attempts to put a brave face on things, few in the renewables industry think that possible. This is especially the case after the recent cancellation of the London Array extension by German utility EON, Danish Dong Energy A/S and Masdar Abu Dhabi Future Energy Co. Companies have now cancelled a total of 5,760MW of planned capacity since 26 November, 2013, when German-owned RWE npower dropped the 1,200MW Atlantic Array extension, other Round 3 projects have an equally uncertain future.
The costs of offshore have stubbornly failed to reduce, as predicted by the industry. In fact they have continued to rise.
As Keith Anderson, chief executive officer of spanish-owned Scottish Power Renewables, said in an interview, "There's a bit of realism that unless we can deliver these projects for a lower price, then it's unrealistic to expect to continue to get political and government support."
Though we constantly hear of costs to the industry few mention the cost to the consumer who eventually pays the bill. Professor Dieter Helm, a leading energy economist and advisor to the British government, warned in 2011 that, "There is a real doubt whether energy customers can afford the £100 billion UK offshore wind would add to their bills".
Scottish Renewables has warned that Scotland's offshore wind sector risks being "left in limbo", as investment by major developers more than halved in 2013.
Only 520MW has been installed in German waters and they admit the country has no chance of meeting a 10GW target.
France has yet to commission any offshore capacity.
Other European countries have abandoned offshore ambitions, citing excessive costs, or are threatening to do so (see Danish example, linked below).
'Offshore Wind Industry Slowed by Birds, Bombs, Sharks', Bloomberg, 20 February, 2014.
'Scottish offshore spending "fell 55%"', ReCharge News, 27 january, 2014.
'Keep targets in perspective', Wind Power Offshore, 1 November 2013.
'UK offshore Round Three projects hit choppy waters', Wind Power Offshore, 20 February, 2014.
'Danish minister threatens to drop offshore projects over cost', Wind Power Offshore, 3 March 2014.
A report commissioned by DECC from Frontier Economics finds that, "Support levels in the UK in 2011 were higher than other case study countries, with the exception of Poland."
"In terms of duration of support, the UK sits at the top of the range of 9 to 20 years, with the RO offering 20 years of support."
The report notes that UK support levels are still above average even after the small reduction in RO level introduced in 2013. This is equally true of the proposed Electricity Market Reform (EMR) strike rate for onshore wind.
Comparing all countries, the report notes that:
UK support levels are in the top half of countries and regions examined. The absolute support for onshore wind in the UK in 2011 was around £95/MWh including the value of the wholesale revenues, Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and CCL exemption certificates (LECs). The average support level (giving each country equal weight) was £82/MWh on a PPP basis and £77/MWh on a market exchange rate basis.
In general support levels were lowest in North America while Denmark and Sweden saw the lowest support levels in Europe. Depending on the measure used for comparison the UK has between the 7th and 9th highest support level. In terms of duration of support provided from the main support scheme, the UK sits at the top of the range of 9 to 20 years.
The report does not examine the much higher levels of support for offshore wind,
Frontier economics, 'International support for onshore wind, a report prepared for DECC.', June 2013. (PDF download).
There has been a lot of coverage in the press recently about the spiralling cost of Constraint Payments to windfarms when National Grid asks them to stop producing electricity when there is insufficient capacity in the transmission system. It is clear that there is growing unease about the sums being paid but it is also clear that the potential magnitude of cost has not yet been recognised.
A new paper by Stuart Young on constraint and 'Connect and Manage' Payments to turbine array operators has revealed the huge costs which will be paid by consumers.
Stuart Young is the author of 'Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation, November 2008 to December 2010', a report commissioned by the The John Muir Trust http://www.jmt.org/stuart-young-report.asp. Mr Young has revised and updated a Briefing Note written originally in November 2013, to include payments up to 31st December 201. This includes an explanation of the potentially enormous cost of the Connect and Manage Regime which allows generators to connect to the Grid far in advance of the transmission upgrades necessary to take their output.
It is increasingly clear that:
All generators may be asked to 'constrain' output (i.e. stop producing) in order to assist in grid management. However, the building of large amounts of wind capacity in areas with inadequate transmission network has resulted in increasing costs and has also affected thermal generators, so merely quoting wind constraint figures does not reflect the full truth of the situation.
Wind operators have received vastly excessive payments not to produce, up to £991/MWh when the average wholesale price is around £50. Last autumn the rules were changed, supposedly prevent "excess profit" being made, but even then the average payment on (for example) Sunday 3 October, 2013, was £84/MWh, with the highest being £149/MWh. Conventional generators will often constrain output at no cost or at wholesale price, because they are saving fuel.
Mr Young cites the Whitelee turbine array as an example: " [it ]was connected eight years before the transmission system, which ought to have been in place in aproperly ordered world, was complete." he notes that, "as of 31st. December 2013, whitelee Wind farm has received £8,332,942 in constraint payments."
This is far from the worst example, the new Fallago Rig array in the Borders, connected to the same Grid transmission line as takes output from Torness >Nuclear Power station, has constantly seen its output constrained. This has not prevented other schemes being proposed which would feed into the same transmission system which can't cope with Fallago Rig.
"1.1 Background to Connect & Manage (C&M) Following consultation on models for improving grid access, the Department of Energy and ClimateChange (DECC) introduced the enduring C&M regime in July 2010 with an implementation date of 11 August 2010. Under this access regime, generators are offered connection dates based on the time taken to complete a project's 'enabling works', i.e. ahead of the completion of any wider transmission system reinforcements required under the security standards. Connecting generators ahead of the completion of wider works may result in additional constraints on the National Electricity TransmissionSystem. Under the C&M regime any costs arising from the management of these constraints are socialised." (National Grid, 'Quarterly Report on the Connect and Manage Regime, 01 July 2013 – 30 September 2013').
'Socialised' means that costs are spread across all Grid users. Energy consumers pay, whether domestic or industrial. Industry will pass their share of costs to the consumer.
Year (April-March) | Cost (£) | Output constr. (MWh) | Average Price (£/MWh) |
Pre 01/04/2011 | 174,128 | 975 | 179 |
2011/12 | 14,762,568 | 69,274 | 213 |
2012/13 | 4,055,220 | 35,594 | 114 |
2013 (to 31/12) | 32,640,557 | 379,124 | 94 |
Totals | £51,632,473 | 484,967MWh | £106 (SY calc.) |
The author of the paper notes:
Stuart Young, briefing note: 'Balancing Mechanism and Connect & Manage Constraint Payments to Windfarms' (PDF download).
National Grid, Connect and Manage.
Telegraph, 30 December, 2013.
'Wind farm companies were paid almost £5 million to switch off their turbines while storms lashed the UK over the festive period and tens of thousands of homes were left without power, according to figures published today.
'The 'constraint payments', which ultimately come from household bills, were payable when the National Grid was unable to cope with the extra power produced during the recent bout of stormy weather or usage was low.
'More than £4.8 million has been paid out to wind farm companies since December 15, according to figures compiled from official data, almost as much as was handed over in the whole of 2012.
In recent days it has been announced that RWE npower has sold a 49% interest in its recently completed Middlemoor scheme to Greencoat UK Wind PLC. [1]
Greencoat is an investment fund set up with the help of the government to invest solely in UK wind farms. It has currently invested in ten schemes, with a net generating capacity of 184MW. Since listing in March, it has added four assets to its portfolio.[2]
This has launched at a time when investment in wind by venture capital firms has been drying up. Figures from the American Wind Power Association earlier this year showed that no new installations had been completed in the second quarter of 2013, even worse than the first quarter when only 1.6MW (effectively one GE 1.6MW turbine) was recorded.[3]
Cheap fracked gas and uncertainty on future tax credits are continuing to have a severe impact on the US wind market.
Greencoat says it has identified further acquisitions of over 400MW of operating UK wind farm investments and is 'actively engaged' in due diligence on a number of potential targets.
The Government supported Greencoat's Initial Public Offering and was reported to be taking shares worth about 50 million pounds through the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) using part of the £3 billion pounds of state funds allocated to the U.K. Green Investment Bank.[4]
To the outsider, this appears rather incestuous when the Government is buying into a fund whose performance is predicated on subsidies set by the Government.
Bloomberg reported that, 'The Greencoat IPO is the biggest for the U.K. wind industry after turbine manufacturer Clipper Windpower Ltd. listed on London's Alternative Investment Market in 2005, raising 75 million pounds.' They failed to mention that Clipper Windpower crashed out of the UK when its grandiose, and heavily grant-aided, 'Britannia project' to develop a 10MW offshore turbine at Narec, Blyth, failed.[5]
William Rickett, former Director General of the government's Department of Energy and Climate Change, is on the Greencoat board. It is reported that he left the department before the fund was created.
[1] 'Wind farm company sells shares in Northumberland site for £70m', The Journal, 23 November, 2013.
[2] Greencoat UK Wind PLC, website.
[3] 'US wind installations sink to zero in Q2', Wind Power Monthly, 31 July 2013.
[4] Bloomberg, 'Greencoat Taps $63 Billion Wind Assets in U.K. IPO',14 february, 2013.
[5] See Northumberland page.
Scottish Express, 9 November, 2013.
'ALEX Salmond's wind turbine obsession is set to add an extra £10billion onto Britain's power bills, with consumers locked into paying for renewable energy they will never use.
'Dozens of new Scottish wind farms, many of them foreign-owned, are being completed years before the upgrade of power lines from the Highlands and islands or across the Border. The £10billion estimated cost of this renewables rush – equivalent to almost £2,860 for every household over the next seven years – is based on a report by National Grid, which manages the country's transmission network.
'Under legislation introduced by the Coalition in 2010, energy companies sign what are known as "Connect and Manage" agreements for all new projects.
'This means that if they are operational before National Grid is ready to cope with the power they can generate, they will be paid to switch off their turbines.
'While most of these wind farms are in Scotland, most of the demand is in England – and the necessary north-south improvements to the grid will take up to a decade to complete.
'At the same time, more electricity must be purchased to meet demand in the cities – meaning that householders will be effectively paying for the same power twice.
'In three months from April and July, Connect and Manage cost National Grid at least £17.2million – all of which will be "socialised", or added on to electricity bills.
'Only 13 large wind farms in Scotland with 600MW of generating power are operating under the new arrangements – meaning they cost National Grid £1million for each 35MW of capacity.
'However, a further 112 Scottish wind farms with a colossal 14,653MW of generating power have already signed Connect and Manage deals.
'The average length of time before the network will be ready to cope with all this additional power will be seven years in southern Scotland and five years in the north. Based on the most recent figures, the ultimate cost to customers would be £10billion – although as more wind farms are built and the grid becomes more congested, that could rise still further.
'Also, this figure does not include the millions of pounds in "constraint" payments given to older wind farms to help balance demand on the grid.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem Energy Minister and wind fanatic, recently said on the BBC's Andrew Marr show, that onshore wind turbine operators "only get paid when producing electricity."
Was the Minister lying to the electorate?
Express, 3 November, 2013
'ENERGY firms netted a £1million windfall from the taxpayer as last week's killer storm ripped across the country.
'After 80mph gales swept southern Britain, leaving 500,000 homes without power, much of the electricity generated by the biggest wind farms was deemed surplus to the needs of the National Grid.
'That triggered compensation payments to some of the Big Six energy companies, who are major investors in the on-shore wind industry. The handouts, known as constraint payments, totalled almost £1million over 24 hours.
'That brings the total paid out to wind farm owners for unused electricity this year to £26million.
REF - Constraint payments database.
BBC News, 7 November, 2013.
'A wind turbine that cost the Welsh government £48,000 to buy has been generating an average of just £5 worth of electricity per month.
'The turbine was put its Aberystwyth office, rated excellent for sustainability, in 2009.
'The Welsh government said the turbine had mechanical problems.
'But before it was installed, the turbine makers warned Welsh government contractors it would not be exposed to enough wind where it was positioned.
'The turbine's output has been monitored officially since January last year and figures suggest it could take hundreds of years for it to offset the cost of its purchase and installation.
Independent (Ireland), 30 October, 2013
'A WIND-powered park next to the abandoned Priory Hall apartment complex is incapable of generating enough spark to keep its lights on.
'Built by Dublin City Council at a cost of €20m, Fr Collins Park in Donaghmede, north Dublin, was described as Ireland's first "self-sustaining city park" when it opened in 2009.
'Five wind turbines were designed to provide renewable energy for the park's lights, pumps, fountains and maintenance depot.
'But a report by BioXL Energy Consultants has found that about three-quarters of the parks electricity will have to be imported this year at a cost of €45,000 plus VAT.
'Installation of the turbines cost €1.15m, about double typical commercial costs, according to the report which was issued in January of this year and released under the Freedom of Information Act.
'Prior to the development, a feasibility study estimated that 100pc of the park's energy would be met by wind power at peak times, with about 75pc being met on average.
'But the new report stated that, even at peak performance, the wind turbines were incapable of meeting the park's electricity needs.
'In fact, they produced only €14,000 a year worth of electricity – needing a further €45,000 plus VAT in order to operate – while also devouring about €34,000 a year on maintenance.
'"The performance of the turbines has been disappointing... However, the turbines have a strong demonstration and educational value," claimed the report. [Our emphasis]
The Government's website page announcing the Hinkley C nuclear power station saw the speedy removal of a graphic (above) which illustrated the area of land needed to produce an equivalent amount of power from wind and solar power stations.
Neither version mentions the fact that Hinkley will generate base load power and that an equivalent wind build still needs the same amount of base load capacity for the frequent occasions when wind fails to generate any significant amount of power.
The Government website page: Wednesday.
The Government website page: Thursday.
The entire metered UK wind fleet, onshore and offshore, with a total headline capacity of 7,136MW was producing as little as 69MW on 24 September. RWE npower's website (see below) showed that a number of their turbine arrays were in 'parasitic consumption' mode - taking more power from the grid than they were producing.
As frequently happens, it was also wildly adrift of even the short-term output forecast. These two facts give the lie to the oft repeated windy refrain of, "The wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK", and, "Modern forecasting techniques and software allow wind output to be accurately predicted".
Three days later and the short-term forecast is still wildly adrift.
The Telegraph, 24 August, 2013.
'Some of Britain's biggest wind farms are at times producing only enough electricity to make a few cups of tea, according to official industry figures.
'At one stage last week, three big wind farms even took electricity out of the National Grid - to run basic power supplies on site - rather than actually supplying electricity to households.
'The wind farms' owner said that in still conditions electricity "import" can occur for a few hours until the wind picks up. Such a phenomenon is known in the industry as "parasitic consumption".
'The data reveals just how much electricity is being generated by each wind farm at a given moment.
'It is published by RWE npower renewables.The German-owned energy conglomerate operates 27 wind arrays across England, Scotland and Wales.
Oddly, RWE npower's output figures are expressed in kW rather than MW (1MW equals 1000kW), which is the usual expression of commercial wind turbine power, and, in the form of MWh, the measure used by Ofgem in recording the output figures upon which subsidy is paid. It is especially odd when they, and all other producers, use MW to express a wind farm's headline capacity.
One can only suppose that the output figures for many of their schemes are just too embarassing when expressed in MW!
The official long-term output figures for their and other large wind arrays can be looked up using the 'Large scale renewable generators' page of REF's excellent 'Energy Data' resource. Just use the search facility to find what you want within the listings and then click on the 'RID' to get the full entry.
The above graph, from the Balancing Mechanism Reports website, clearly demonstrates why wind is largely irrelevant to UK power supply: it shows the output from the entire metered UK wind fleet (7,136MW headline capacity) falling to just 156MW on 25 August, 2013. This is less than half the output of a single, small, gas-fuelled power block.
The graph also shows the problem in trying to forecast wind outputs, even in the short-term. This is essential if any allowance is to be made for wind in balancing load and reducing consumption of gas by more reliable generators.
More information on fuel mix and outputs can be accessed from the Electricity Generation links in the menu column on the left of this page.
"Our countryside is one of the most precious things we have in Britain and I am proud to represent a rural constituency. I would never sanction something that might ruin our landscapes and scenery." Prime Minister David Cameron, 'We cannot afford to miss out on shale gas', The Telegraph, 12 August 2013.
Developers are queueing up to finish the job of destroying Northumberland's tourist landscapes begun under the last government. New proposals are still coming forward, such as Belford Burn and Middleton Burn, which would have even worse impacts on the Coastal AONB and the jewels in the crown of the Heritage Coast such as Holy Island.
While local people are up in arms at the damage being done, our Lib-Dem MP and MEP have continued to support the wind industry's predations.
Council leaders in Cumbria, Lincolnshire, Devon and Cornwall have repeatedly spoken out about the damage being done to their counties by wind development. But we heard not a word on the subject from the last Leader of Northumberland County Council, despite the fact that Northumberland has massively more wind capacity, built and consented, than any of those counties.
It comes as no surprise to most of us that the much-vaunted reforms to planning policy on wind development [1] announced by Eric Pickles' Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) have turned out to be something of a damp squib.
The guidance so far produced offers little that did not already exist in PPS 22 and its Companion Guide which it is supposed to replace. Mr Pickles' view of community influence seems largely limited to what is embodied in formal local plans, which are anyway hamstrung by the influence of the Planning Inspectorate and local planning authorities' fear of judicial review.
After repeatedly being told by ministers that, though government wouldn't set separation distances for turbines, local planning authorities could set their own distances, we now see separation distances being totally negated: "Local planning authorities should not rule out otherwise acceptable renewable energy developments through inflexible rules on buffer zones or separation distances."
Nor have the government delivered on promises on local opinion being given real weight in the planning system.
The wind industry itself is bullish in its belief that nothing has changed:
'UK onshore progress despite government community pledge'
UK: 'Two thirds of appeals against onshore wind farm refusals in England have been approved despite a government pledge that communities would have more power to block applications.'
Wind Power Monthly, 13 August 2013
'Data from the Planning Inspectorate — which rules on appeals by developers against local councils refusing projects — show that nine out of 14 wind farms have been given the go ahead since 6 June. Back then, the Conservative minister in charge of permitting, Eric Pickles, said that the need for renewable energy would not "automatically override environmental protections and concerns of local communities". At the time, many in the industry pointed out that the permitting system already takes protection of the countryside and local people's views into account. However, national media reported that the announcement amounted to a veto over wind farms for communities.
'Letters from inspectors ruling on appeals confirm that Pickles' statement did not represent a change in policy. One regarding an application for a 9MW wind farm in Cambridgeshire, south-east England, said: "National policy has not been changed by the recent ministerial statements, and the approach to decision-making continues to require a balance to be struck between harm and benefit. This is addressed throughout the decision."
This is no great surprise. The Lib-Dems were gifted control of the energy portfolio under the coalition agreement and their enthusiasm for wind is undimmed. Ignoring government posturing, the rate of subsidy rewards for wind may actually increase under proposed Contracts for Difference strike rates, while many large wind operators are enjoying even greater windfall returns from Carbon Price Support and constraint payments.
The truth of the matter is revealed in the Government's own figures for wind farm consents and construction:
'In Planning:
Total applications approved: 2783 (31,994 MW)
Application under consideration: 1128 (16,472 MW)
% of applications approved: 81.83%
% of applications refused: 1 18.17%
Approved non-operational projects: 1317 (17,273 MW)
Average time taken for application determination: 10.14 months'
According to RenewableUK (formerly the British Wind Energy Association, the wind industry trade body), we had a total of 6,372MW of operational onshore capacity as of 14 August, 2013.
These figures should be put in context.
Even Lib-Dem Energy Minister Ed Davey has been forced to admit that the UK has more built and consented onshore wind capacity than is needed to meet the 13GW capacity by 2020 in DECC's 2020 'Renewable Energy Roadmap'.
Even though we have problems with providing sufficient base load capacity to meet demand (see the STOR story below), the uncontrolled, developer-led renewables rush is likely to lead to even greater problems in retaining conventional base-load generators in a system with too much renewables capacity (already a problem in Germany) and in deciding how to curtail excess renewables output in low load conditions:
[1] 'Planning practice guidance for renewable and low carbon energy', DCLG, 29 July 2013.
[2] 'Review of the generation costs and deployment potential of renewable electricity technologies in the UK', DECC, June 2011 (PDF download).
[3] 'National Electricity Transmission System Seven Year Statement, May 2011', National Grid (PDF download).
Fleet Street's finest have been scratching their heads at the confident assertions by Michael Fallon and other Ministers recently that, despite warnings from Ofgem about rapidly falling safety margins on base load generating capacity, the lights will not go out on their watch.
The ministers are probably right. Under the radar, a hugely expensive, and not very 'Green', strategy is being implemented which will very probably keep the lights on, but only at huge cost to electricity consumers.
The STOR system was set up in 2007 and, until recently, had been perceived as just another element in the web of measures for balancing electricity load. However it is becoming increasingly apparent that STOR is increasingly being used, at huge expense to the consumer, to compensate for the lack of base load capacity needed to ensure the secure operation of the grid.
Put simply, STOR started as a system of aggregating large numbers of privately- and publicly-owned reserve, mainly diesel, generators in order to provide short-term capacity to buffer load. However, due to the short-fall in base load generating capacity, National Grid is encouraging the construction of large numbers of dedicated diesel power plants, comprising hundreds of diesel generators, through very high contracted payments funded by electricity consumers.
Fulcrum Power Ltd (FPL) one of the companies contracting with the National Grid in the Short Term Operating Reserve (STOR) market say that," National Grid forecast the need for an additional 4000MW of STOR generation over the next decade, which is double the existing market, requiring new capital expenditure of c. £1 billion." (Fulcrum Power website). Others foresee 8GW of capacity by 2020, the equivalent of about five nuclear plants.
Investors see a huge opportunity, in the words of one presentation:
"The need for STOR is expected to experience significant growth over the coming years due to increasing structural issues facing the UK electricity market. Such structural issues include ageing traditional generation assets that are due to come off-line, a clear and persistent delay in embracing new generating assets, particularly new nuclear and increased renewable energy generation which experiences supply fluctuations."
('Information Memorandum In relation to STOR Power PLC', July 2012)
Individual units of 3MW capacity, or over, can sign up or numbers of smaller units are organised through companies who install their management systems to aggregate capacity.
We are seeing increasing numbers of larger, dedicated plants in the 10-30MW range being constructed by specialist contractors such as Fulcrum and Green Frog.
Under STOR contracts with National Grid, owners are paid an 'availability fee' for providing standby generation capacity, and an 'utilisation fee' in the event it is required to generate. "The availability revenues provide a secure, long-term, inflation-linked earnings stream". (InfraRed Capital Partners, 'Green Frog Power - A case study' [website])
The sums involved make wind subsidies look cheap. We are already paying nearly £100/MWh to operators of onshore wind arrays and £150/MWh for offshore, but tender prices submitted by those signed up to the STOR scheme can be as high as £400/MWh, eight times the wholesale price. The average payment in 2011 was £225 per MWh, plus an availability fee of £22,000/MW capacity. It is forecast that the STOR system, which cost £250 million in 2010, will be costing consumers around £1 billion a year by 2020, adding five per cent to our electricity bills.
As we have seen with wind subsidies, very large guaranteed returns have resulted in a feeding frenzy by speculators.
See also:
National Grid - STOR.
Flexitricity brochure (PDF).
Richard North, 'Booker: high prices in STOR', EUReferendum.com, 7 July, 2013.
BBC News, 11 June, 2013.
'Two diesel power stations planned in Plymouth will compensate for fluctuations in supplies from green energy, say developers.
'Green Frog Power got planning permission last year and Fulcrum Power has made an application for a similar power station.
'The Devon-based Regen centre for green energy questioned the use of diesel generators.
'Both firms said their power stations supported renewable energy.
'The application by Fulcrum Power is for a 20 megawatt (MW) Stor (Short Term Operating Reserve) power station on the former Toshiba plant at Ernesettle Lane, which company bosses said would cost "several million pounds".
'Its 52 generators will consume more than 1.1m litres of diesel a year, or about one tanker a week.
Daily Mail, 10 August, 2013
'Chris Huhne has landed a high-profile job with an energy company three months after leaving prison.
'The former Energy Secretary is expected to earn around £100,000 a year despite working only two days a week for an American company.
The Express, 11 August, 2013.
'As Deputy First Minister he helped kickstart Scotland's wind farm revolution, pumping millions of pounds of public money into green energy.
'Later, as leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, he declared renewables firms should be raking in "big profits".
'Now Nicol Stephen, or Baron Stephen of Lower Deeside, appears to have taken his own advice and sits at the head of a rapidly expanding turbine empire worth more than £1.5million.
'The Lib Dem peer is a director of 10 renewable energy companies, seven of them incorporated within the past five months, with four wind farms in the planning stages across Scotland.
'More seriously, some observers believe he is using his powerful position in the House of Lords to lobby for the renewable energy industry.
See 'The great Green gravy train 'below.
For more on Huhne when he was Lib-Dem Energy Minister, see below.
Wind Power Monthly, 31 July 2013.
'UNITED STATES: US wind growth has ground to a halt this year, with no new installations completed in the second quarter of 2013, figures from the American Wind Energy Association show.
'The new figures are even worse than Q1's 1.6MW of new installations, effectively just one GE 1.6MW turbine.
The big energy-supply companies have begun to kick back against the government line, repeated by both Labour and Conservative governments for many years, that rising energy bills are down to rising gas prices and profiteering by energy suppliers. Big-Six energy conglomerate RWE npower has issued a report into energy price rises in the UK which, politely, contradicts the Government line (PDF download).
An informal poll by investment bank Liberum Capital shows an embarassing lack of support for government forecasts:
'The debate over the impact on energy prices of the UK government's drive to decarbonise the power sector has heated up over the past couple of weeks. The government have robustly defended its view that the huge investment program required to hit the 2020 targets (and beyond) will in fact lower domestic fuel bills rather than cause them to increase. In defending their numbers the government has swotted away analysis from ourselves and most recently RWE npower that suggest that bills will indeed need to rise to remunerate the circa £150bn of planned investment to 2020.
'So on Tuesday we decided to carry out a pop quiz asking investors to vote on which of the propositions below seemed the more credible:
- Liberum Capital / RWE: £150bn of investment to 2020 = circa 30% increase in power bills (or 19% duel fuel according to RWE); or
- UK Government / Committee on Climate Change: £150bn of investment to 2020 = 11% reduction in duel fuel energy bills.
'The results are in………………
'We had 55 separate responses. The headline result was follows:
- 100%
- 0%
'The breakdown of the voters was:
'Fund managers / analysts – 41
Government employees – 5
Utility company employees – 6
Other – 3'Now this is clearly not a scientific poll. Nor does it mean that Liberum / RWE forecasts are correct or in any way superior to the government's forecasts. Indeed given the resources the government can deploy it is highly unlikely that our modelling is "better" than theirs. But what this poll does show is that the government is failing to convince a key constituent (the equity market) that its affordability projections are plausible. Nor given RWE's intervention (and feedback on our research we received from the other leading utilities) does it appear that the major utilities find government assertions convincing either. This represents a dramatic failure by the government on what is the central issue on energy policy in the UK. So even if the government's projections are actually correct, their failure to convince anyone outside Whitehall of the fact creates a major credibility problem.'
Bloomberg, 16 July, 2013.
'India's move to stabilize its power grid by asking wind farms to accurately predict their output a day in advance or face fines will deepen the slowdown in Asia's second-biggest wind market, Tata Power Co. (TPWR) said.
'A directive took effect this week ordering wind farms with a capacity of 10 megawatts or more to forecast their generation in 15-minute blocks for the following day. Missing estimates by more than 30 percent will incur penalties.
'"Forecasting at 15-minute intervals is very challenging," and could cost a 100-megawatt farm an estimated 250 million rupees ($4.2 million) a year, Tata Power said in an e-mailed response to questions. "Developers will see this as a further handicap" and penalties will "jeopardize" the industry's growth, the nation's second-biggest developer said.
'India's wind market is already reeling from a 42 percent plunge in turbine installations in the last financial year after the government withdrew subsidies. Some of the biggest developers including Tata Power, CLP Holdings Ltd. (2), and Goldman Sachs Group (GS) Inc.-backed ReNew Wind Power Pvt. have slowed plans for new projects, while turbine sales plunged for Suzlon Energy Ltd. (SUEL) and Gamesa Corp Tecnologica SA. (GAM)
'The order from India's Central Electricity Regulatory Commission took effect yesterday. Wind farms will use seasonal records and weather forecasting tools for their estimates. Fines will be paid to state utilities through a new Renewable Regulatory Fund.
'Volatile generation led to the world's biggest blackout last year after grid collapses on two straight days cut off power to half of the country's 1.2 billion people. The infrastructure can't cope with intermittent wind- and sun-power generation, which has doubled in capacity in five years to almost 20 gigawatts.
The wind industry would be in just as much trouble if this requirement was introduced here, as we see from the Balancing Mechanism's short-term forecast out-turn graph on the day of this article:
By Axel Pihl-Andersen (Journalist, Jyllands-Posten), on Wind Watch, 1 July 2013.
Vestas has just launched a global campaign, which according to the wind turbine-giant itself is a counter-attack on the anti-wind movement, which is to be put in place by the pioneering 'Act on Facts' campaign.
"For too long, the wind industry has allowed itself to be run over by few, but influential anti-wind movements, arguing with half truths and wild myths. Vestas now responds with a fact based global campaign, which aims to turn the passive majority of people into active advocates of wind power." These are among the words in Vestas' press release, which states, that the campaign shall replace "hardlived myths and lies about wind energy with documented facts". But Vestas has large problems with the documented facts themselves, say Denmark's leading acoustics scientists at Aalborg University.
One of the campaign's major topics is noise, and Vestas claims, that the noise 400 meters away from a wind turbine is less than the noise from an average refrigerator. But that is pure nonsense, says acoustics professor Henrik Møller from Aalborg University.
"If you take a sound level meter and measure on your refrigerator, it will register a noiselevel of approx. 30 dB. The sound pressure level for a wind turbine at a distance of 400 meters will be approx. 40-43 dB, and that is a very big difference. If the noise level of a refrigerator were 40 dB, it would be impossible to sell", says Henrik Møller.
He believes that Vestas, in spite of its facts-campaign, has messed seriously around with the acoustic terms. Producers of refrigerators do announce some noise levels of about 40 dB, but according to Henrik Møller, these refer to a technical measure called the sound power level, and this cannot be compared to the sound pressure level.
"I think they have compared the sound power level from the refrigerator with the sound pressure level from wind turbines, and those are two very different measures. Decibel is not just decibel – it depends on what you are measuring", says Henrik Møller.
Press officer and spokesman Jens Velling from Vestas admits that there is some "uncertainty" about this information. "We are aware of it, but I want to point out, that the campaign first launched is designed for Australia, where the required distance between a windturbine and a residence is 800 meters. At this distance, the numbers make sense", says Jens Velling.
But you write 400 meters in your material?
"Yes, that is something we need to rephrase".
It is not a good thing that you present wrong information in a campaign that is supposed to be based on facts, is it?
"No, you are right about that. It is essential, that the information we give is correct. We need to take a look at that phrasing."
Professor Henrik Møller states, that the numbers don't make sense at 800 meters distance either, where you, at a wind speed of 8 meters per second for a 3 MW Vestas wind turbine with a sound power level of approx. 107 dB, will measure a sound pressure level of approx. 37-38 dB. This is still somewhat away from the refrigerator's 30-32 dB.
The National Association for Neighbours of Large Wind Turbines in Denmark also criticizes Vestas' campaign for manipulating with numbers and information. "Vestas' campaign contains much misleading information, but worst is the assertion that the noise of a wind turbine at a distance of 400 meters compares to that of a refrigerator", they write in a press release.
The Government unveiled draft strike prices for renewables under the impending Electricity Market Reform (EMR) package on 27 June, 2013. They offer an initial £155 per MWh for offshore wind and £100/MWh for onshore wind in 2014-15.
The main elements of EMR are Contracts for Difference (CfD) and the Capacity Market (CM).
The proposed CfD strike rate for onshore wind will effectively restore the 10% cut in subsidy that had been agreed under the Renewables Obligation system of subsidies. Wind operators can also expect an additional windfall under the Government's Carbon Price Support scheme, introduced in April this year.
Both will impact on consumer bills.
Full details of the EMR can be downloaded from the Government Website.
The Scotsman recently headlined the fact that £1,146,614 in so-called "constraint payments" was handed out to operators of 13 Scottish wind farms on 29 April in return for them curtailing output for several hours. This figure included £296,457 to Fallago Rig, recently commissioned on land owned by the Duke of Roxburghe.1
Official figures now show that this was far from the rare event portrayed by wind industry spokespersons at the time. For example, on 30 June 22 operators received £1,009,565 in return for not producing 12,834MWh of output.2
From April 13 to May 13 this year, £5.994m was paid out to operators by the National Grid, with all but £2000 going to developments in Scotland.
Curtailment payments had been represented as rare events occasioned by temporary problems on the Grid, but it is becoming increasingly apparent that curtailment is an almost daily occurrence. As in Germany, which also manages a large wind capacity by curtailment, it will become increasingly prevalent (and expensive) for the consumer who eventually meets the bill.
1 '£1m for wind farms to shut turbines for one day', The Scotsman, 5 May, 2013.
2 'Grid pays £6m to turn off wind turbines', Herald Scotland, 16 May 2013.
'Balancing Mechanism Wind Farm Constraint Payments' database, Renewable Energy Foundation (REF).
News24, 4 July 2013.
'Brussels - The Italian mafia is ramping up investment in wind farms to launder money and benefit from EU subsidies, according to a Europol report published on Thursday.
'Europe's policing agency said an analysis of the financial activities of the Italian mafia's four groupings found wind farms to be the most popular target for dirty money within the renewable energy sector, itself a criminal favourite.
'"The Italian mafia is investing more and more in renewable energy, especially in wind farms, to profit from generous European grants paid for by member states which allow them to mix dirty money with legitimate economic activities," the report said.
'Italian police confiscated €350m worth of assets from one of Europe's largest wind farms in Crotone last year, after it was linked to the Calabrian N'drangheta mafia.'
FT [paywalled], 17 April, 2013.
'More than a decade of investment in renewable power generators such as wind farms and solar parks has failed to make the world's supply of energy any cleaner than it was 20 years ago, according to the global energy watchdog. Progress on the types of technologies that could save energy and cut the carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming is "alarmingly slow", says the International Energy Agency, in a new report.
'"The picture is as clear as it is disturbing," said IEA executive director, Maria van der Hoeven. "The carbon intensity of the global energy supply has barely changed in 20 years, despite successful efforts in deploying renewable energy." Carbon intensity refers to the amount of carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas produced by human activities – emitted for each unit of energy supplied.
'In its third assessment of global clean energy technology progress, the Paris-based IEA has produced a carbon intensity index for the energy sector that shows the impact of the billions of dollars spent on renewable energy and other changes since 1970 has been minimal.
'The oil shocks of the 1970s helped spur the energy supply to become 6 per cent cleaner between 1971 and 1990. But since then, the index has remained basically static, changing by less than 1 per cent.
'This has happened despite the raft of low carbon commitments governments have made at big international conferences such as the 1992 Rio earth summit and the 1997 UN climate change talks in Kyoto.
'The continued dominance of coal-fired power plants, especially in fast-growing economies such as China and India, is the main reason why there has been such little change, the IEA says, as well as the relatively slow uptake of lower carbon supply technologies.
'"Coal-fired generation, which rose by an estimated 6 per cent from 2010 to 2012, continues to grow faster than non-fossil energy sources on an absolute basis," according to the IEA report, "Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013".
'"Around half of coal-fired power plants built in 2011 use inefficient technologies. This tendency is offsetting measures to close older, inefficient plants."
'The shale gas boom in the US has helped push down emissions in that country, as lower gas prices encourage more gas to be burnt than coal. Natural gas plants emit far less carbon dioxide than coal power stations and global natural gas-fired power generation is estimated to have increased by more than 5 per cent from 2010 to 2012.
International Energy Agency, 'Tracking Clean Energy Progress 2013', (PDF file).
Reuters, 19 June, 2013.
'British electricity prices may be almost double those in Germany within three years due largely to the impact of a new tax aimed at supporting renewable power generation, a report by bank Credit Suisse showed on Wednesday.
'Rises in retail prices have become a popular bugbear in Britain at a time when wages are falling in real terms. The bank's analysis showed wholesale prices, which form the backbone of energy bills, would top those in Germany by 85 percent in 2016-17 and would be higher in general for the next 7-10 years.
For more information and links, see below.
The entire metered UK wind fleet, onshore and offshore, with a total headline capacity of 7,136MW was producing as little as 24MW on 16 June. The headline capacity of 8 typical onshore turbines.
The collapse of UK wind output often happens when we get settled high pressure systems, which can cover much of Western Europe. This is not so much of a problem during periods of low summer load, however it happens with monotonous regularity during periods of very high winter load. As National Grid note: "Recent history has shown that wind power output at the time of the winter peak can be very low. The winter peak normally occurs when temperatures are low and this often results from anti-cyclonic conditions that also mean very little wind. High pressure normally extends over a large area and this could mean there would be very little wind generation in Western Europe." (National Grid, 'Winter Outlook Report 2009/10'. 'Generation Side Risks', 167, p.54).
The official figures give the lie to wind industry claims that the wind is "always blowing somewhere" in the UK.
The above graph shows just how wildly inaccurate even short-term forecasting of wind speeds and hence turbine outputs can be. We see even worse discrepancies during gales when unforecast gusts cause widespread automatic shutdowns. On 3 January, 2012, there were periods with a gap between the short term forecast and realised output of up to an astonishing 3,300MW, nearly 85% of the then total metered wind capacity in the UK. On 13 December 2011 the gap was over 2,000MW. Less than a week before, on 7 and 8 December, there was a gap between short term forecasts and actual production of up to 2,483MW.
If accurate forecasting is not possible, wind output is largely irrelevant in managing supplies and balancing load.
For extended information on electricity generation by fuel types see the interactive graph by Daniel Curtis of the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford:
One of the major consequences of the emphasis on the wind bubble rather than the construction of new base load power stations in the last 15 years has been the imminent arrival of the long-heralded, perfect storm of a shortfall in base-load generating capacity. The energy industry and various experts have been warning government about this for at least 15 years. The problem is caused by the forced closure of much of our current coal-fired generating capacity under European directives and the imminent retirement of all but one of 1 of the current nuclear fleet.
The failure to build new nuclear, 'clean coal' or sufficient new gas-fired capacity has now resulted in a flood of applications to convert coal-fired power stations for part or total firing with biomass, mostly in the form of imported wood pellets.
This is a no-brainer for the power stations concerned. Firstly, they will escape EU requirements and keep old, polluting power stations running for much longer, rather than having to shut them down or invest in hugely expensive technology for scrubbing SO2 emissions. By converting to biomass, they will also cash in on generous public subsidies under the Renewables Obligation and 'Contracts for Difference'.
So far consent has been granted for six power stations to convert, either partly or completely, to biomass:
(Figures from 'Biofuelwatch').
The situation is seeing what has been described as "open warfare" between DECC, Green NGOs and renewables industry organisations, all of whom have a different take on the scale of the problem and the consequences of large-scale, wood-fuelled power stations.
The situation has even resulted in an unlikely alliance between Green NGOs and the paper, timber and furniture industries.
There is a basic disagreement between DECC and various of these groups as to the scale of wood-pellet supplies and imports. Green NGOs say that, by 2017, the UK will be burning 30 million tonnes of biomass - equivalent to about six times the UK's total 2011 wood harvest. While not all of this will come from wood, they say most of it will. DECC and the biomass industry say the figure is much lower.
There is also a basic objection to biomass in general, and large-scale wood-fuelled biomass in particular, from many of the eco-activist groups (e.g. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth) who also oppose nuclear, coal, gas and large-scale tidal power generation, as well as fracking.
Few sensible people have any objection to small, local biomass/biogas projects which use local agricultural and other waste. Examples include the straw-fuelled Ely power station, the Stevens Croft biomass power station at Lockerbie, which uses mainly locally sourced wood waste, and the many anaerobic digestor plants using agricultural waste. Indeed, few people realise that the UK already has a substantial biomass/biogas capacity and could do much, much more. For example, Denmark, the Windy promised land, actually uses much more renewable power from biomass/biogas than it does from wind:
However, there are increasing concerns regarding 'big biomass' in the UK, which will be largely based on imported wood pellet feedstocks. This raises question of security of supply, the sustainability of the timber used and the un-audited carbon burden of producing, delivering and storing pellet feedstocks.
There are also major health concerns regarding particulate emissions from power stations which have been converted to use biomass.
It is also claimed that the high costs of subsidies for biomass will rebound on consumer bills: Drax, it is claimed, will be receiving "north of half a billion pounds a year in subsidy" when it is converted to 50% biomass firing.
Matt Ridley, 'It's a bio-mess. Burning wood is a disaster', Times website (paywalled).
BIOMASS Energy Centre.
Renewable Energy Association, Back Biomass website.
Government departments DECC and DCLG have announced (6 June, 2013), that they will be introducing regulations to ensure that communities will:
"have earlier and better involvement" in onshore wind proposals;
"have a greater say over the siting of onshore wind farms"
have a "recommended community benefit package in England" of "£5,000/MW/year for the lifetime of the windfarm".
Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, says that, "The Government will deliver these changes in collaboration with industry and communities over the next 12 months". At the current rate, that means many hundreds more turbines will consented before any change is likely.
The report says that they recognise that, "Current planning decisions on onshore wind are not always reflecting a locally-led planning system. New planning guidance supporting the planning framework from DCLG will make clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. It will give greater weight to landscape and visual impact concerns."
While this sounds encouraging, it should be recognised that the present system does not "automatically override environmental protections", the problem has largely been in the interpretation of the NPPF and other guidance by both planning officers and planning inspectors: we have repeatedly seen notional carbon savings or a contribution to targets trumping all adverse impacts in the subjective opinion of certain wind enthusiasts in the Planning Inspectorate.
As ever, the devil is in the detail - we await with interest a detailed exposition of the proposed changes. There is also a danger that the wind industry lobby will crank up the pressure on MPs and that Lib-Dem Windies, who currently have control of the Coalition's energy porfolio, will gang up with Labour Windies to emasculate any measures to give local communities more say. When Ed Miliband was Energy Secretary he was all for steamrolling onshore wind projects through whatever the views of local communities; memorably, he said: "The government needs to be saying, 'It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area – like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing.'"
The proposal to make pre-application consultation with local communities compulsory for the more significant onshore wind applications is already the case in Scotland, in the form of a schedule for pre-application notification (PAN) and consultation (PAC). It is usually just as much of a cynical box-ticking exercise as the present English system. We have yet to hear what constitutes "more significant onshore wind applications".
The announcement makes much of a supposed five-fold increase in suggested annual 'community benefit' payments from the present recommended minimum of £1,000 per MW of installed capacity to £5,000. Of course the £1,000 figure has only been the norm in less progressive authorities such as Northumberland, other LPAs have higher figures and the wind industry itself recorded an average payemt of £1,500/MW as far back as 2006. Scotland has long had much higher rates: Scottish Borders is one of several Scottish LPAs recommending a minimum index-linked annual payment of £5,000/MW.
It is amusing that ReUK, the wind industry trade body has suggested in the press that the new figure will make many developments uneconomic, when, at current figures, a 2MW turbine is receiving over £230,000 a year in subsidies. Community payments of £5K/MW do not seem to have dulled the industry's enthusiasm for developing difficult and expensive sites in remote locations in Highland Scotland.
DECC give the following figures:
In Planning:
- Total applications approved - 2561 (30,622 MW)
- Application under consideration - 1096 (15,646 MW)
- % of applications approved - 81.77%
- % of applications refused [1] - 18.23%
- Approved non-operational projects - 1193 (16,523 MW)
- Average time taken for application determination - 10.44 months
- Operational projects [2] - 1376 (13,698 MW)
- Average time taken from approval to commissioning - 22.12 months
[1] Calculation based on the number of applications
[2] Operational projects are shown for developments that have been through the planning system within the UK. It does not include projects that are not required to go through the planning system. For total installed capacity figures for all renewable developments, please refer to the Progress Datasheet: https://restats.decc.gov.uk/app/reporting/decc/datasheet.
It is a matter of real concern that the press release uses figures which appear to mirror wind industry misrepresentations regarding the levels of planning approvals in England and Wales. It states that:
There is currently approximately 6.3GW (4074 turbines) of onshore wind in operation, 6.7GW (2857 turbines) under construction or awaiting construction and 5.7GW (2995 turbines) in planning system. Given attrition rates to date for planning and construction, this is likely to lead to up to the 13 GW we anticipate needing alongside other renewables to meet the 2020 renewables target. To meet the trajectory set out in the Renewable Energy Roadmap, we expect to need up to 13GW of onshore wind by 2020.
Planning approvals in England have dropped in recent years. In 2008/2009, around 70 per cent of applications were approved and only 35 per cent were approved in 2012/13.
A local business analyst has pointed out the following facts with regard to the claimed attrition rate for applications:
the relevant attrition rate to likely RE targets should be the UK not England;
the relevant rate for the calculation is for on-shore wind not general planning applications;
the relevant figure is not the number of approvals but the quantity (i.e. capacity) of approvals;
the inclusion of the final point and its juxtaposition would appear to mislead the public and Members of Parliament.
From DECC's published figures we see that:
the approval rate, as given by DECC, for the last year is 82% for UK renewable energy applications, 69% for onshore wind;
the total number of UK approvals for RE in the year increased by 710 while the refusals increased by 156;
the numbers for onshore wind in England are: 43 refusals and 54 approvals, an approval rate of 56%.
Of more relevance, in terms of targets, is UK Installed Capacity:
DECC data shows an additional 5,659MW approved in the last 12 months, with 1,686MW refused - an approval rate of 77%;
the approval rate for onshore wind is 66%, offshore is 57%, solar is 86%, while other technologies all exceed 96%;
the approval rate for England is little different: 64% for onshore (310MW approved, 171MW refused) but this has only small significance to the overall UK targets (~10%).
Clearly these figures are very different to the 35% approval rate suggested. The analyst who examined the figures states: "I can find no Renewable Energy data that could suggest such a low figure."
DECC/DCLG press release 13/057, 6 June 2013.
Government's response to the 'Onshore Wind Call for Evidence'.
The Times, 6 June 2013
'The CBI is on a collision course with the Treasury over claims that heavy industry will be put out of business unless it is exempted from the carbon tax.
'The Government introduced the levy in April to top up the price paid by companies under an existing penalty-to-pollute scheme in Europe. The costs are passed on to all electricity users, from heavy industry to households, through higher energy bills.
'But the scheme has landed steel, chemical and other energy-intensive businesses in Britain with spiralling energy bills, while the carbon costs of rivals in Europe have plummeted in recent months.
The competition gap faced by British industry has widened after the carbon prices paid by companies in Europe under the European Union emissions trading scheme collapsed recently. In contrast, the Government's carbon tax will almost double next April to £9.55 per tonne of carbon emitted, pushing electricity prices in the UK up by an estimated 9 per cent. If present carbon prices in Europe remain at rock-bottom levels, the penalties to pollute paid by British companies will be almost four times higher than those on the Continent.
'UK could face carbon floor backlash – energy market sources' ICIS Heren, 3 March, 2013.
'Why Labour is right to oppose Britain's new carbon tax', Tony Lodge, New Statesman, 24 July, 2012.
ICF International (for the Department of Business Innovation & Skills, BIS), 'An International Comparison of Energy and Climate Change Policies Impacting Energy Intensive Industries in Selected Countries' (11 July 2012), Report download (PDF file).
This is Money, Daily Mail, 17 May 2013
Britain's green energy 'folly' will cost every family an extra £600 a year by 2020, a report warned last night.
The cost to consumers of green energy subsidies will exceed £16billion a year within seven years, according to a leading industry analyst.
Dr John Constable, director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, warned that the huge burden on taxpayers could lead to the first long-term decline in living standards since the Industrial Revolution.
He estimates that a third of the £600 annual cost will land on energy bills.
The rest will be borne by businesses who will pass on the costs to consumers by charging higher prices for their goods.
Renewable Energy Foundation - REF website.
Herald Scotland, 16 May 2013
WIND FARM operators in Scotland have been paid nearly £6 million over the past 33 days not to generate electricity, more than was paid out for the whole of last year.
Campaigners claim there has never been a longer period of consecutive payments and are continuing to call for the energy regulator to investigate.
The industry has hit back, highlighting comparable payments made to power stations, but both sides agree the problem is a transmission system unfit to export enough power to England.
From April 13 to May 13 this year, some £5.994m was paid out to operators by the National Grid, with all but £2000 going to developments in Scotland. The total for the whole of 2012 was £5.924m [£24m in 2011, Ed. See REF].
The latest payments bring the total paid since January 1 to £7.8m and this week alone 20 wind farms have shared a total payout of £2.12m.
The Scotsman, 5 May, 2013.
'POWER companies operating wind farms in Scotland were paid more than £1 million to shut down their turbines for a single day last month, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.
'New figures reveal that £1,146,614 was handed out to the operators of 13 Scottish wind farms, including £296,457 to a development built on land owned by the Duke of Roxburghe.
'The cash, which ultimately comes from electricity consumers' bills, was given to companies as part of a controversial scheme which compensates wind farm operators for not producing electricity.
'The so-called "constraint payments" are paid by the National Grid to energy companies when energy supply outstrips demand – turbines are switched off so they stop producing electricity to rebalance the system.
'A snapshot of the scale of the payments was provided by the Renewable Energy Foundation, a charity that publishes information on the energy sector, which compiled constraint payment data for 29 April.
'The largest sum paid out on that date was £348,349, which was to shut off the Crystal Rig II wind farm operated by energy company Fred Olsen in East Lothian.
'The second-biggest beneficiary was the Fallago Rig Wind Farm run by EDF on land it rents from Roxburghe in the Lammermuir Hills.
"British wind farms may be shut down about 38 days per year by 2020 to avoid power transmission overload at times of weak demand and high wind speeds, UK energy network operator National Grid said on Monday. Britain is expected to increase wind power capacity seven-fold by 2020 to 26.8 gigawatts (GW), according to National Grid data, which would put additional strain on the transmission network." (Reuters, 13 June, 2011).
There is an extraordinary difference in the levels of payments to different producers. While many coal- and gas-fuelled power stations will curtail output at little (£20-£50/MWh) or no cost because they are saving fuel, some wind operators have managed to extort huge sums in constraint payments (up to £991/MWh, when wholesale price is around £50/MWh and subsidy level is less).
Check the rates for different wind farms on the REF database. For example: Crystal Rig payments.
It is reported that Torridge District Council, in North Devon, is the latest planning authority to write to the Prime Minister questioning the value of the Government's supposed localism agenda.1
The letter highlights the dilemma planning authorities face in having to follow national wind energy policy, with a presumption in favour of approval, while being urged by the Localism Act 2012 to give significant weight to public opinion.
The situation is underlined by the fact the council has yet to win an appeal against a turbine application.
The letter reads: "I would like to know from one politician to another, how do you explain to local residents who, collectively, vehemently oppose applications for turbines in their parishes that their opinions are secondary to a decision, which was made in parliament in 2011. Do we need to advise the communities that we represent, that their time would be better spent not campaigning against protecting their landscapes, as the national policy will overrule any actions they take?"
Only days before Torridge's cri de coeur, the Spectator published an eloquent lament on the decision of a planning inspector to overrule the unanimous refusal of a prominently sited 284 ft wind turbine at Bodham, in the heart of North Norfolk's unspoiled countryside.2
The author noted that the unanimous refusal followed local planning policy, was supported by local parish councils and was subject to an unprecedented 1,455 objections from local people.
None of this mattered to the planning inspector who told the hearing that, 'This is not a referendum,'.
On 8 April, the local decision was overturned and the turbine was granted planning permission.
These stories are being repeated in every part of England and are leading to a feeling of angry resentment amongst rural communities who feel they are being sold down the river by a government which is more interested in taking money from wind speculators than in protecting our countryside and communities.
1 'Torridge asks Cameron for turbine help', North Devon Journal, 18 April, 2013.
2 'The wind turbine that could ruin Norfolk', The Spectator, 20 April, 2013.
As Britain froze in the coldest March weather since 1962 Lib Dem Energy Minister Ed Davey unveiled a fresh raft of energy-saving wheezes which, it is hoped, will eventually save consumers money. These follow hard on predictions that carbon taxes will drive up consumer bills.
The expected impact of four key green subsidies and taxes – the carbon price, Renewable Obligation Certificates, Feed-in Tariffs and Electricity Market Reform – has risen by a third.
In the last Government estimate, the impact on bills was expected to be £194 by 2030, but this has now risen sharply to £270 by that year.
The Telegraph, 27 March, 2013.
'Households will have to spend thousands of pounds buying new green appliances to benefit from the Government's claims its policies are bringing down energy bills, it emerged last night.
'The Government was accused of an "underhand" attempt to mask the cost of green energy and rising gas prices, after it claimed the net effect of all its policies will be a £166 reduction in bills by 2020.
The UK is part of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) which awards "trading credits" to energy-intensive installations. This sets the upper limit of their carbon emissions. If a high energy user's carbon emissions exceed its credits, it can purchase trading credits from other energy users or countries. Or, if an installation has reduced its carbon emissions, it can sell its remaining credits to other energy users.
At present the EU ETS price for carbon averages about €7.80/tonne of CO2 (£6.30). But the UK is about to significantly ramp up the price high energy users pay for carbon emissions.
In the March 2011 Budget, the Chancellor announced a new, unilateral UK carbon price floor: 'Carbon Price Support'. This will start on 1 April this year and will more than double the price paid from the ETS level of £6.30/tonne to £16/tonne in 2013 – an increase of 156%. This price will then rise to £30/tonne in 2020 and £70/tonne in 2030. The money raised will go the Exchequer which expects revenues to increase from £740 million in 2013/14 to £1.4 billion in 2015/16.
The explicit purpose of this tax is to make the cost of electricity from fossil fuels so uncompetitive compared with renewables that it will, in the Treasury's words, "drive £30-£40 billion" of investment into low carbon generation. There seems to have been less consideration given to the likelihood of costs being absorbed by energy companiesw and passed on to consumers or to the likelihood of energy intensive industries relocating to countries where they are not subject to the same level of Green taxation.
The Coalition's own figures show that the carbon price floor will add between 1% and 2% to electricity bills in 2013, rising to around 6% by 2016. With many people already struggling to pay their energy bills, this will hit those on low incomes hard: a rise of six per cent on household energy costs will add £25 to the average family bill and would push another 30,000 to 60,000 households into fuel poverty from 2013.
By raising wholesale power prices by more than 10 percent by 2015, it will also provide an extra windfall for existing low carbon generation including nuclear power and wind farms.
The carbon price floor will tax the 75% (and growing) of Britain's electricity industry which is fossil fuel based. Relative to current projections for the EU Emissions Trading Scheme price, by 2020 UK electricity generators would be paying nearly twice as much for its carbon emissions as their EU counterparts.
This is particularly significant given the fact the UK looks to be set to embark on another "dash for gas". This will further increase our dependency on fossil fuels in the short to medium term. New nuclear plants are, at best, eight to ten years away.
'UK could face carbon floor backlash – energy market sources' ICIS Heren, 3 March, 2013.
'Why Labour is right to oppose Britain's new carbon tax', Tony Lodge, New Statesman, 24 July, 2012.
'Budget 2013: Businesses line up to criticise carbon floor price "stealth tax"', Business Green, 20 March, 2013.
Telegraph, 18 February, 2013.
'Household bills are likely to rise sharply within five years as Britain will come "dangerously" near to an energy shortage, the chief executive of Ofgem has said.
'Alistair Buchanan, the outgoing head of the regulator, would not say how much bills will rise but pointed out that gas prices are 60 per cent higher in countries such as Japan, which is reliant on the fuel but has no supply of its own.
'He also predicted there will be a "near-crisis" between 2015 and 2018, as Britain has to replace its old coal stations with new forms of electricity supply.
'Speaking to BBC Radio Four's Today programme, he said there would be a "double squeeze" on both prices and availability of energy at around this time. The UK will have to use more foreign gas to keep the lights on, because many coal stations have to close down under EU pollution laws. At the same time, global gas prices are expected to be be high.
This is only the latest of numerous and repeated warnings by the regulator, previous scientific advisors to government and energy economists about the risks and costs of the concentration on wind and the failure to replace outdated base load generators.
See also:
'Millions of households face blackout, warns Ofgem', The Telegraph, 7 October, 2012.
'Energy Bills could rise 60%, customners warned', The Independent, 9 October 2009.
The above graph clearly demonstrates why wind is largely irrelevant in balancing load: it shows the output from the entire metered UK wind fleet, 7,168MW headline capacity, falling to just 28MW on 19 February, 2013. This is a load factor of just 0.39%.
Charles Hendry, who was Minister of State for Energy at the Department for Energy & Climate Change until September 2012 is the latest ex-minister to be cashing in on his time in office:
'Sacked Energy Minister Charles Hendry has not wasted any time cashing in on his expertise; he has just been announced as the chairman of the wind energy giants Forewind. The consortium comprising of four international companies -Scottish and Southern, RWE, Statoil and Statkraft – was awarded the contract in 2010 to build the huge "Dogger Bank" windfarm 125 kilometres off the Yorkshire coast.
'Though Hendry has waited for the appropriate cooling off period of three months since leaving government, a look through his declared meetings while a minister leaves an unfortunate taste in the mouth: between June 2010 and October 2011 Hendry hobnobbed six times with the representatives of the companies that make up Forewind, and now he is their boss.'
(Guido Fawkes, quoted in: 'With Tory MPs like this who needs to vote Labour?', James Delingpole, Telegraph Blogs, 6 February, 2013).
'Huhne gets job as energy advisor on £437 an hour for company that provides advice on cavity wall and loft insulation'
Daily Mail, 10 November 2012
'Former Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has won a new job – as a £437-an-hour energy consultant.
'The ex-Cabinet Minister, who resigned in February after being charged with perverting the course of justice over a 2003 speeding case, which he denies [has since admitted], has joined a firm specialising in home energy efficiency.
'The move is likely to raise eyebrows because three months before leaving the Cabinet, Mr Huhne unveiled the Coalition's 'green deal', which promises a cash incentive to households if they pay to insulate their homes.
'Now Mr Huhne has been signed up by Nationwide Energy Services, which 'provides advice to people wanting loft and cavity wall insulation and solar panels'.
'The Lib Dem has received a £10,000 signing-on fee, plus a retainer of £3,500 a month for eight hours' work – or £437 an hour.
'It is the latest example of the 'revolving door' between senior Whitehall positions and lucrative jobs in the private sector, which critics claim allows former public servants to 'cash in' on privileged information.
Then we have Lord Deben, the former Tory agriculture minister John Selwyn Gummer of BSE/burger fame. Lord Deben is the new chairman of the powerful Committee on Climate Change (CCC), set up, supposedly, to provide government with independent advice on energy policy and climate change.
Lord Deben is also chairman of Forewind and chairs Sancroft, a lobbying and consultancy firm one of whose specialities is advising businesses on how to make money from policies enacted to combat global warming.
Its website states: "Climate change will be the most disruptive influence on business. The risks it poses are immense; the potential rewards are considerable … We show our clients how to … make the most of quickly evolving market opportunities."
Lord Deben was vetted for the Chairmanship of the CCC by the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, chaired by Tory MP Tim Yeo.
Mr Yeo, who is also president of the Renewable Energy Association, has received £139,450 a year from various Green enterprises according to the MPs' register of interests.
The press report that there have been moves to remove him from the chairmanship by other members because of perceived conflicts of interest.
Even the Cabinet has members with family tickets on the wind power gravy train. Soon after the election Miriam González Durántez, wife of the Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, joined leading wind-farm developers Acciona.
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister's father-in-law, Sir Reginald Sheffield, is coining it from turbines on his 3,000 acre Normanby Hall estate, near Scunthorpe.
It is claimed that he earns in the region of £1,000 per day from an existing array 8 turbines. A second wind farm at Flixborough Grange was recently consented at appeal. It had been refused permission twice by North Lincolnshire Council over concerns about noise, health and the impact on the landscape and also by a Government planning inspector following a public inquiry in 2010.
'Surplus wind power could cost Ontario ratepayers millions and compromise power system, says electricity system operator. It says renewable energy market rules must change
Toronto Star, 27 February, 2013.
'Coping with surplus wind power will cost Ontario electricity ratepayers up to $200 million a year if market rules don't change, says the power system operator.
'Moreover, it says, if it can't control the flow of wind and solar power onto the Ontario grid, then "reliable and economic operation of the power system is, at best, highly compromised and likely not feasible."
'The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO) makes the statements in a filing with the Ontario Energy Board.
'It is responding to complaints from big wind power companies that the IESO's proposals to impose new market rules on wind and solar power will cost them millions in lost revenue.
'The dispute comes as more and more renewable power is about to flow onto the province's power grid.
'About 2,700 megawatts of wind and solar power are currently feeding electricity into Ontario's system, three-quarters of it wind. That amount is set to more than triple by January, 2016.
'Solar power generally flows into the system when it's most needed, when demand for power is high.
'But wind often blows at the wrong time — overnight when demand, or "load" on the system is low — and dies when demand is high.
'"It is not unusual for the wind to fall off in the morning at the same time as the morning load picks up," says the IESO.
'At present, the IESO can't control the flow of wind and solar onto the system in the same way it can control the output of other generators. It all flows onto the grid, and is paid a fixed price.
'When there's more power than the system can handle, the IESO sells it to neighbouring provinces and states — sometimes at a loss, and sometimes actually paying them to take it.
'Those losses are absorbed by ratepayers, and added to the electricity bill as the "global adjustment," which now often exceeds the price of energy by a wide margin.
'So far this month [February, 2013], for example, the market price for power has averaged 2.96 cents a kilowatt hour. The global adjustment has been 5.73 cents a kwh. Consumers pay delivery and debt.
A study of wind turbine performance in Ontario back in 2006 discovered that it had failed to meet industry forecasts:
Capacity factor so far is 22.3% (not including results from a wind farm apparently experiencing start-up problems);
Periods of very low or no production were particularly common during high-demand periods;
High but highly variable wind production during low demand periods was common;
The hourly production pattern in most months demonstrated a declining average output during the 4 a.m. to 8 a.m. period – a period when consumer power usage consistently increases.
Power Engineering International, 6 February, 2013.
'A senior boss at German power company Siemens (NYSE: SI) today conceded that his home country's Energiewende – or energy transition – from nuclear to renewables had been a "disaster" and was "not thought through".
'But Lothar Balling, executive vice-president of gas turbine solutions, said he remained convinced that Germany would achieve its target of delivering 80 per cent of its energy from renewables by 2050.
'Balling was speaking at a renewables conference at POWER-GEN Middle East in Qatar and told the audience that the decision to ditch nuclear power in favour of renewables was both a "role model and a disaster".
'"It was a very public decision and it was not thought through," he said. He explained that since the decision in 2011 in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan, the country had suffered several energy challenges, many caused by the inability of the grid to cope with power from wind farms. He said in 2009 there were 285 forced shutdowns of wind turbines – by the end of 2011 this had rocketed to more than 1000.
Herr Bulling fails to mention the large numbers of coal- and lignite-fired power stations which are being built to replace nuclear capacity and to try and stabilise the German system.
Despite the closure of 7 nuclear power stations Germany is still generating more power from nuclear (16%) than from wind and solar combined. Germany has a massive onshore wind fleet (some 23,000 turbines) and a huge amount of solar. Both are heavily subsidised and are being blamed for a rise in subsidy costs that was double that forecast. There is now discussion, even in Government, of slashing subsidies to improve industrial competitiveness and reduce domestic consumer bills.
See also:
Mark Lynas, 'Germany's "Energiewende" – the story so far', Mark Lynas website.
'The German Renewables Crisis'
'Grid instability has industry scrambling for solutions', below.
The Independent, 13 January 2013.
'Families could face higher electricity bills as a result of "shocking" blunders in awarding new contracts for offshore wind farms, a group of MPs has warned.
'Private Finance Initiative (PFI) deals worth £17bn, agreed with companies for transmitting wind power to the mainland, showed that the Government had failed to learn from earlier poor PFI contracts and the costs would eventually be passed on to consumers, the Public Accounts Committee said.
'A report published today looks at the "elaborate" new system that licences companies to bring power onshore. Companies are guaranteed an income linked to RPI inflation for 20 years, regardless of how much the infrastructure is actually used, and the study says estimated returns of 10-11 per cent "look extremely generous given the limited risks".
For balance, it should be noted that the strident criticism by Margaret Hodge and other Labour members of this committee glosses over the inconvenient truth that these PFI deals, like the rest of the wind policy, originated with the last government and that Ed Miliband was Energy Minister when they were being rolled out.
The Renewable Energy Foundation has published a new study, 'The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark', showing that the economic life of onshore wind turbines is between 10 and 15 years, not the 20 to 25 years projected by the wind industry and used for government projections.
The work has been conducted by one of the UK's leading energy & environmental economists, Professor Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh, and has been anonymously peer-reviewed.
This groundbreaking study applies rigorous statistical analysis to years of actual wind farm performance data from wind farms in both the UK and in Denmark.
The results show that after allowing for variations in wind speed and site characteristics the average load factor of wind farms declines substantially as they get older, probably due to wear and tear. By 10 years of age the contribution of an average UK wind farm to meeting electricity demand has declined by a third.
This decline in performance means that it is rarely economic to operate wind farms for more than 12 to 15 years. After this period they must be replaced with new machines, a finding that has profound consequences for investors and government alike.
The REF study can be downloaded in full, with the data that informs the analysis, from the REF website.
The Express, 1 December, 2012.
'The Government's green energy policy has been blamed for pushing up energy bills and covering the country with ugly wind turbines. But government statistics released quietly on Thursday, when the world's eyes were on the Leveson report, suggest that it is doing something far worse too: killing the elderly.
'Every year the Office for National Statistics publishes what it drily calls figures for "excess winter mortality".
'It is well known that more people die during the winter than the summer, the result of low temperatures, damp and seasonal diseases such as colds and flu.
'Yet that is no excuse for the shocking number of deaths that have occurred in England and Wales over the past three winters.
'Last year an extra 24,000 people were killed off by the cold. The majority of them – 19,500 – were over 75.
'Disgracefully that means the rate of winter deaths is far higher in England and Wales than it is in icy Scandinavia.
In just two months we have seen two of the wind industry's central claims about the effects of industrial turbine arrays exposed as false.
They continue to state:
1. "Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
Fact: There is no evidence to suggest this." (RenewableUK/BWEA, 'Top myths about wind energy', No. 11).2. "Myth: Wind farms harm property prices
Fact: There is currently no evidence in the UK showing that wind farms impact house prices." (RenewableUK/BWEA, 'Top myths about wind energy', No. 12).
The John Muir Trust (JMT) has today, 4 November, 2012, released the results of a YouGov poll which clearly contradicts wind industry claims on tourism.
The JMT poll shows that:
43 per cent of people in Britain who visit scenic areas in the UK for their natural heritage and beauty would be 'less likely to visit a scenic area with a large concentration of wind farms'
Just 2 per cent say they would be 'more likely to visit a scenic area with a large concentration of wind farms'.
In Scotland, the respective figures are 36 per cent who would be less likely to visit and 2 per cent who would be more likely to visit.
This is the first national poll to measure the level of public support for large scale wind farms in our valuable natural landscapes. It is also the first poll to gauge the potential impact on tourism in areas like the Scottish Highlands, where large scale wind projects have been built or are in the pipeline. Previous polls have sought only to measure general support for wind power. The Trust believes that it's possible to support wind power while opposing the building of turbines on important areas of wild land.
The John Muir Trust took advice from YouGov on the wording of the questions to avoid any suggestion that they were loaded or biased.
"Scotland's tourist chiefs have admitted for the first time that wind farms could have a detrimental effect on tourism" ('VisitScotland admits wind farms could harm tourism', The Herald, 21 October, 2012).
Even before the JMT poll it was common knowledge, as well as common sense and recorded fact, that some tourists will avoid areas of countryside which have been industrialised with turbines and that turbines affect tourism investment in local economies. Now even VisitScotland, 'an executive non-departmental public body of the Scottish Government', feels forced to defy wind industry propaganda.
There has long been plenty of evidence, from RICS reports (which the BWEA misrepresent), in-depth academic studies in the USA to the findings of English Valuation Tribunals which have lowered the banding of properties due to the adverse affects of turbine parks that wind industry claims are untrue.
Belatedly, the Advertising Standards Authority has also recognised that their myth claim is "misleading" and asked a developer to remove a leaflet quoting the BWEA claim from circulation, see: 'Developer drops claim wind turbines do not hit house prices', The Telegraph, 1 November, 2012.
The ongoing saga of Germany's huge, and hugely expensive, wind and solar experiment should have lessons for us all:
Bloomberg, 26 October, 2012.
'Germany is dumping electricity on its unwilling neighbors and by wintertime the feud should come to a head.
'Central and Eastern European countries are moving to disconnect their power lines from Germany's during the windiest days. That's when they get flooded with energy, echoing struggles seen from China to Texas over accommodating the world's 200,000 windmills.
'Renewable energy around the world is causing problems because unlike oil it can't be stored, so when generated it must be consumed or risk causing a grid collapse. At times, the glut can be so great that utilities pay consumers to take the power and get rid of it.
'"Germany is aware of the problem, but there is not enough political will to solve the problem because it's very costly," Pavel Solc, Czech deputy minister of industry and trade, said in an interview. "So we're forced to make one-sided defensive steps to prevent accidents and destruction."
'The power grids in the former communist countries are "stretched to their limits" and face potential blackouts when output surges from wind turbines in northern Germany or on the Baltic Sea, according to Czech grid operator CEPS. The Czechs plan to install security switches near borders by year-end to disconnect from Europe's biggest economy to avoid critical overload.
Die Welt, 20 October, 2012 (Translation by Philipp Mueller, GWPF 25/10/2012).
'When Germany's power grid operator announced the exact amount of next year's green energy levy on Monday, it came as a shock to the country. The cost burden for consumers and industry have reached a "barely tolerable level that threatens the de-industrialization of Germany", outraged business organisations said.
'Since then politicians, business representatives and green energy supporters have been arguing about who is to blame for the "electricity price hammer". After all, did not Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) promise that green energy subsidies would not be more than 3.6 cents per kilowatt hour?
'Now, however, the cost burden is rising by 50 percent – to 5.3 cents per kilowatt hour. German citizens have to support renewable energy by more than EUR 20 billion [per year] – instead of 14 billion Euros. How could Merkel be so wrong?
'Finding an answer to this question is crucial for the progress and success of the green energy transition. Only then the Federal Government would ever get a grip on its most important mega-project.
'A review of the green energy transition's planning data is revealing. It turns out that almost all predictions about the expected additional expansion of wind turbines and solar panels were dramatically wrong, at least by a factor of two, sometimes by a factor of five.
'However, if there was one thing which was even less accurate than the prediction of the tempo of expansion it was the estimates of the associated costs of this expansion.
See also:
'Grid instability has industry scrambling for solutions', Der Spiegel, 16 August 2012.
'Rising energy prices endanger German industry', Der Spiegel, Business, 24 February, 2012.
The Telegraph, 7 October, 2012.
'Millions of households are at risk of power black-outs within three years because coal stations are being replaced with wind farms, the energy watchdog has said.
'In its strongest ever warning, Ofgem said there may have to be "controlled disconnections" of homes and businesses in the middle of this decade because Britain has not done enough to make sure it has enough electricity.
'The regulator's new analysis reveals the risk of power-cuts is almost 50 per cent in 2015 if a very cold winter causes high demand for electricity.
'It predicts Britain will face power shortages because old coal and oil plants are being forced to shut down under the European Union's environmental regulations. This will partly be replaced by wind farms, but they are less reliable and can only generate electricity in the right weather conditions.
'Ofgem believes the lack of spare power generation "could lead to higher bills", which are already at record high of £1,300 per year.
'The report will be a blow to Ed Davey, the new Energy Secretary as sweeping reforms in the new Energy Bill will come too late to avoid the squeeze in 2015 – the year of the next election.
Ruth Lea, Mail Online, 5 September 2012 9
'There has been much speculation this week's Cabinet reshuffle will sharpen up the government's policies for growth. Well, maybe or maybe not. We can only wait and see. But there is one area which needs a radical change of direction in policy. And that is energy policy or, more specifically, in electricity generation.
'The government's "green policies" are undoubtedly adding to everybody's electricity bills, whether domestic bills (particularly disadvantaging the lower paid and pensioners) or business bills. Concerning business, it is the "energy intensive users" in manufacturing such as steel, cement and chemicals which are especially vulnerable to high energy costs, not with-standing some Treasury support. The government talks about "rebalancing" the economy from financial services to manufacturing and from domestic demand to exports (where manufactured goods are still very significant). But its energy policies hinder this perfectly sensible strategy. If you want manufacturing businesses to thrive, it is bizarre and contrary to pursue policies that undermine their competitiveness and threaten their viability.
'A report recently submitted to the Department for Business (BIS) compared the impact of energy and climate change policies on electricity prices for energy intensive industries for a selection of major economies including the UK, China, Japan, Russia, the US, France and Germany. The main findings were quite shocking. "Green policies" had already added more to Britain's electricity prices than in any other country putting our industries at a major cost disadvantage. Moreover, the cost disadvantage was projected to worsen by 2020. This really is a matter of shooting industry in the foot. One can only hope that the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) reads, and heeds, reports commissioned by BIS.
'Britain's "green policies" are so uniquely disadvantageous because of the government's commitment to a lethal combination of climate change and renewables targets which drives energy policy. By the Climate Change Act (2008) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions (principally CO2) are to be cut by 34% by 2018-22 and by 80% by 2050, compared with the 1990 level. These draconian cuts are even tougher than the EU's! Whether this masochistic zeal is worth the huge costs involved doubtless partly depends on your views on the reality of manmade global warming. But note that Britain's CO2 emissions are about 1½% of the world total and even the EU27's share is only 12%. Meanwhile China's emissions, at nearly 24% of the global total, are rising quickly. Where we lead others, including China and India, appear to have no intention of following. Why indeed should they?
'The EU's Renewables Directive commits Britain to sourcing 15% of final energy consumption from renewables, from a very low base, by 2020. No other major EU country faces Britain's huge challenge. And note that compliance with the Renewables Directive does not in itself tighten the CO2 targets; it merely dictates how they are partly to be met. In the battle against global warming the renewables target is totally irrelevant. Britain's renewable technology of choice is wind-power for generating electricity, nuclear power does not count. And wind-power is costly, very costly.
'AMSTERDAM, Sept 5 (Reuters) - The Netherlands has been famous for its windmills for centuries but now one of its most populous provinces has said it wants to ban their modern-day incarnations - wind turbines - on the grounds that they are ugly and noisy.
'The government of North Holland, home to the Netherlands' largest city, Amsterdam, has authorised a giant wind power project in the north of the province and had been considering applications to construct 20 similar projects.
'But on Wednesday it said it would not give any other wind power projects the go-ahead after the existing project - which will allow the province to fulfill its wind energy target - is complete.
'"Wind turbines had a maximum height of 25 metres or so, 30 years ago," said Frans Nederstigt, a spokesman for the provincial government.
"Now they are modern machines of up to 120 metres, with rotors up to 75 metres across - meaning a total height of 180 metres is not exceptional."
'Turbines caused noise pollution, he added, saying that sunlight flickering through turbine blades could also be a distracting hazard for drivers.
Holland, like most other European countries, is experiencing a backlash against modern onshore wind turbines.1
Increasing numbers of provincial authorities are banning land based turbines. The province of Noord Holland has made it part of the negotiations for a new provincial government that no more onshore turbines are built. Friesland, which used to be at the forefront of wind development, is now relegating them to the borders of the province and may ban them altogether if funds can be found to compensate farmers who are willing to pull them down.
It was reported in february, 2011, that the Netherlands is reducing its targets for renewable energy and slashing the subsidies for offshore wind and solar power. It has also given the green light for the country's first new nuclear power plants for almost 40 years.2
The reasons for the change are the escalating costs of subsidies, especially for huge offshore schemes, and the growing popular backlash against massive onshore turbines.
Holland is the first country to abandon the EU-wide 20:20 target, a remarkable turnaround for a state that took the Kyoto Agreement seriously and supported EU renewable energy strategies. The €4bn annual subsidy will be slashed to €1.5bn, and future subsidy payments will be channelled away from wind development.
1 'Wind turbines unpopular thanks to environmentalists', DutchNews.nl, 21 April, 2011.
2 'Holland's Radical U-Turn On Climate and Energy Policy', Translation of article by Michael Gassmann, Financial Times Deutschland, 9 February, 2011.
There is growing evidence, in the form of increasing numbers of 'curtailment episodes', of the inability of the grid to cope with the existing wind build in some areas of Scotland, and in the the Borders in particular. Turbine array operators in Scotland have been paid up to twenty times their normal earnings to shut down, even when they might anyway have been forced to shut down by high wind speeds (see below).
This, before a further huge amount of consented capacity is actually built, or the likely capacity of further Section 36 applications for mega-arrays considered. These are submitted to the Electricity Consents Unit of the Scottish Government (the hint is in the name!).
Notwithstanding, the Scottish Government has announced its intention to investigate ways of further undermining local democracy by making it even easier for the wind speculators to override local planning restrictions:
Scottish onshore 'task force' formed
Windpower Monthly, 21 August 2012
SCOTLAND: A task force has been formed to improve the planning consent process for onshore wind farms in Scotland.
The group was announced as the Scottish Government published new guidance giving advice for developers and communities on the smooth handling of onshore wind farm planning applications.
Scottish energy minister Fergus Ewing said the task force would look at ways of improving the planning consent process for onshore wind projects by bringing together key players from the Scottish Government, developers and statutory consultees such as Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to "critically examine current procedures".
Meanwhile, on the other side of the border, where ministers have responsibility as well as power, they are criticising energy companies for manipulating the system to milk consumers of excessive curtailment payments:
Energy companies "overcharge customers by £600m"
Energy companies have overcharged households and businesses up to £600 million by manipulating the electricity market, ministers have said.
The Telegraph, 21 August, 2012.
The Government believes companies have been "profiting unfairly at the expense of [the] consumer" by overloading the national grid with electricity.
They are then able to claim "unduly high" compensation payments to switch their wind farms and power plants off when the system becomes too full.
Official estimates suggest that some companies have been over-claiming for up to five years at a cost of up to £125 million per year – the equivalent of £25 for every household in Britain.
Two of Britain's biggest energy companies — Scottish Power and SSE, which supply energy to six million homes — have been investigated for alleged abuses by Ofgem, the regulator.
Even before we consider curtailment payments, the excessive rewards to wind operators due to the structure of the Renewables Obligation system of subsidies has been repeatedly criticised by Ofgem, the industry regulator, the Audit Office and parliamentary committees over the years. The proposed 10% cut for onshore wind does little to address this.
By setting subsidies at a level which encourages wind development in low wind resource areas, the system hugely over-rewards operators in areas with a better wind resource.
Official output figures show that consumer subsidies paid for a single typical onshore 2 MW wind turbine in the United Kingdom range from £130,000 to £470,000 per annum.1
No wonder that research for another government department shows that UK industries are paying double the amount in subsidies and 'Green taxes' than industries in other countries have to face.2
1 Ofgem's recorded output figures are available as a seachable database on the REF website.
2 See below.
Der Spiegel, 16 August 2012.
'Sudden fluctuations in Germany's power grid are causing major damage to a number of industrial companies. While many of them have responded by getting their own power generators and regulators to help minimize the risks, they warn that companies might be forced to leave if the government doesn't deal with the issues fast.
'It was 3 a.m. on a Wednesday when the machines suddenly ground to a halt at Hydro Aluminium in Hamburg. The rolling mill's highly sensitive monitor stopped production so abruptly that the aluminum belts snagged. They hit the machines and destroyed a piece of the mill. The reason: The voltage off the electricity grid weakened for just a millisecond.
'Workers had to free half-finished aluminum rolls from the machines, and several hours passed before they could be restarted. The damage to the machines cost some €10,000 ($12,300).
'In the following three weeks, the voltage weakened at the Hamburg factory two more times, each time for a fraction of second. Since the machines were on a production break both times, there was no damage. Still, the company invested €150,000 to set up its own emergency power supply, using batteries, to protect itself from future damages.
'"It could have affected us again in the middle of production and even led to a fire," said plant manager Axel Brand. "That would have been really expensive."
'At other industrial companies, executives at the highest levels are also thinking about freeing themselves from Germany's electricity grid to cushion the consequences of the country's transition to renewable energy.
'Likewise, as more and more companies with sensitive control systems are securing production through batteries and generators, the companies that manufacture them are benefiting. "You can hardly find a company that isn't worrying about its power supply," said Joachim Pfeiffer, a parliamentarian and economic policy spokesman for the governing center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU).
'Behind this worry stands the transition to renewable energy laid out by Chancellor Angela Merkel last year in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Though the transition has been sluggish so far, Merkel set the ambitious goals of boosting renewable energy to 35 percent of total power consumption by 2020 and 80 percent by 2050 while phasing out all of Germany's nuclear power reactors by 2022.
'The problem is that wind and solar farms just don't deliver the same amount of continuous electricity compared with nuclear and gas-fired power plants. To match traditional energy sources, grid operators must be able to exactly predict how strong the wind will blow or the sun will shine.
'But such an exact prediction is difficult. Even when grid operators are off by just a few percentage points, voltage in the grid slackens. That has no affect on normal household appliances, such as vacuum cleaners and coffee machines. But for high-performance computers, for example, outages lasting even just a millisecond can quickly trigger system failures.
Reuters reports that, "Germany may have to slow down its planned transformation to green energy, Environment Minister Peter Altmaier said on Tuesday in an effort to assuage worries that consumers will bear the brunt of the immense costs of the switch from nuclear." ('German minister mulls slower green revolution', Reuters, 28 August, 2012).
They cancelled the Olympic sailing races on Thursday, 9 August, due to lack of wind.
Electricity consumption is not so easily cancelled when wind power generation suffers one of its frequent failures. According to the Balancing Mechanism website all the metered turbines in the UK were producing as little as 14MW at 9.30am on Thursday morning.
This is less than the headline capacity of 4 standard offshore turbines (Siemens 3.6MW).
EEF, the manufacturers' organisation, 13 July 2012.
'We've suspected it for a long time: Many UK manufacturers are paying more in energy taxation and for climate change policy than our competitors. In fact green policies are costing Britain's steelmakers and other energy intensive manufacturing sectors at least double what some of their main European rivals pay. The picture quickly becomes worse when looking at competitors in Asia, Russia and the US.
'The source of this new evidence is a report commission by the government.* It looks at the impact of government policy on energy prices on energy-intensive industries – steel, cement and some chemical industry processes. It compared the UK experience to that in China, India, Japan, Russia, Turkey and the US. In the EU, a comparison was made with Germany, France, Italy and Denmark.
'The report supports the case we've been putting to government for a long time – that the country's high energy taxes along with the costs of climate change policy is eroding the competitiveness of UK manufacturing in some key sectors. Worryingly, it indicates that it is likely to get a lot worse by 2020 with costs likely to be double for high energy industries compared to 2011.
* ICF International (for the Department of Business Innovation & Skills, BIS), 'An International Comparison of Energy and Climate Change Policies Impacting Energy Intensive Industries in Selected Countries' (11 July 2012).
Do watch this Australian report on people in South Australia who are being turned into "wind farm refugees" by low frequency noise from turbines.
There are widespread problems with wind turbine noise in Australia, as there are in this country and every other country with industrial turbine parks which are sited close to communities.
The difference is that their TV stations are willing to cover the story.
The second part of the news report discusses the question of legal liability for these problems.
Here, we still see the wind industry/government desperately claiming that the outdated ETSU-R-97 noise standard, specially devised to allow turbines to exceed normal industrial noise standards, is adequate in spite of criticism from acousticians and clinicians.
There are growing numbers of cases - Achany, Askam, Deeping St Nicholas, Hadyard Hill, Fullabrook, Kessingland, Lissett, Skelmonae, Wharrels Hills and many others - where proposals which have been consented on the basis of ETSU-R-97 guidelines are causing serious noise problems. In several examples Environmental Health Officers have, eventually, served enforcement notices or required tubines to be be shut down.
Last year we saw the wind industry settling a case in the High Court brought by the Davis family in Lincolnshire who had been driven from their home, situated 930m from the Deeping St Nicholas turbine array.
The settlement was reached the day before technical evidence on noise was due to be heard.
See the Noise page for more information.
There are indications that the backlash to the wind delusion is starting to gain traction. Too late to save landscapes that will be scarred with turbine follies for generations.
A decision by a High Court judge has, hopefully, set a marker for certain Planning Inspectors who follow the political line that a contribution to meeting EU renewables targets, however insignificant, trumps damage to communities, impacts on landscapes and the setting of ancient monuments and listed buildings or overwhelming local opposition.
The judge ruled out plans to build 105m (344ft) turbines at Hemsby, near Great Yarmouth, finding that government renewable energy targets do not outweigh the value of the beauty of the countryside.
The proposal from SLP had already been rejected by the local planning authority and at appeal when a planning inspector found that, 'The development would result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area because of its scale and location and the cumulative impacts of other similar developments.'
In what will be seen as a landmark ruling, the judge agreed with the findings of the Inspector, saying that lower carbon emissions did not have 'primacy'.
Lincolnshire County Council has voted to advise local planning authorities in its area to restrict further wind development.
The authority's leader, Martin Hill, says that the county has 75 operating turbines and hundreds more in the planning pipeline and that he does not want to see the county covered by a "forest" of wind turbines.
The council is to issue a position statement saying that new wind farms should not be built within six miles of villages comprising more than 10 homes.
The County Council does not control planning, which is handled by the district councils, but Mr Hill says that he expects district councils and other authorities, including the government, to "take into account" the view of the elected county councillors.
The above diagram shows the 4,686MW total metered wind capacity in the UK producing as little as 8MW, less than the headline capacity of 3 Vestas V90 turbines.
This doesn't much matter on low demand days in the summer when, typically, peak load is around 30,000MW and we still have adequate baseload power stations to meet demand.
It is a different matter when we have peak demand loads of 60,000MW plus at winter peak and wind is failing to produce any significant contribution.
This has happened repeatedly in recent years. The entire wind fleet managing an average load factor of only 7% at peak load in the 4 winters prior to 2010. The winter of 2010/11 was substantially worse (see above).
See below for what happens when there is too much wind.
The Telegraph, 18 May, 2012.
'A council that spent £100,000 installing two wind turbines on a civic building six years ago have admitted they didn't work because the site was not windy enough.
'Kirklees Council placed the turbines on the roof of the Civic Centre in Huddersfield, West Yorks in July 2006 to generate energy and to raise awareness of renewable energy among the thousands of motorists who drive past them every day.
'But the six-kilowatt turbines proved to be a costly advertisement and at one point in 2008 were generating a mere £2,078 a year despite the council forking out £6,431 to maintain and repair them over the same period.
A new report by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) highlights the dramatic proliferation of onshore wind turbines. In many cases these are damaging valued landscapes and intruding into some of the most tranquil areas of England. The CPRE states that we must find a way of reconciling climate change mitigation and landscape protection - otherwise we will sacrifice the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved landscapes. As we know all too well, there has been an exponential growth in wind turbine planning applications, leaving local communities increasingly powerless in the face of speculative applications from big, well-funded developers. CPRE is calling for, "a locally accountable and strategically planned approach to onshore wind development". |
DECC's figures for renewables (predominantly wind) applications and decisions clearly show the exponential growth of the wind rush, and reflect our experience in North East England.
(Of course the situation is even worse in Southern Scotland, which falls outside CPRE's mandate).
The Government Roadmap sets out an aim to have 13GW of installed on-shore wind capacity, plus 18GW of off-shore by 2020.
There is also a stated target to have 30% of electricity consumption from Renewable Energy.That amounts to 10GW.
Recently Government Ministers and the Prime Minister have confirmed that we are on target to achieve these aims well before 2020:
"Chris Heaton-Harris: Can the Secretary of State confirm that if we add the number of existing turbines to those going through the planning system, we have enough in place to hit his Department's 2020 targets? If that is the case, does that not suggest that the level of subsidy for these things is too high?
Mr Davey: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He and I may disagree about the significance of onshore wind, but I appreciate the measured way in which he has engaged with me and the Prime Minister on this issue. I can tell him that 5 GW of onshore wind power generation has already been built, that there is planning consent for a further 6 GW and that planning permission is being sought for 7 GW-worth of projects, only some of which will be approved. Given that the ambition was for 13 GW, most of the development that the country needs is indeed already on the table. As for subsidy, the subsidy levels go down as costs go down, and we are proposing a 10% reduction in subsidies for onshore wind."
(Parliamentary questions, 8th March, 2012).
DECC's RESTATS planning database confirms their statements; indeed they show that the targets will be easily achieved without any more projects entering the planning system and with very few, if any, further approvals being required from the existing applications submitted. This is critical when considering the planning balance between Benefit and Harm. There has been a need to place great weight upon the benefit of carbon emission reduction resulting from wind farms but serious consideration of the progress to date, demands that this be re-assessed.
The database gives details of existing Renewable Energy (RE) planning applications and their individual progress. The following charts show the current position with the prior two years of entries. The latter allows an easy estimation of future progress towards the 30% target (10GW) and on-shore (13GW) installed capacity target. They also allow proper judgement of progress and conversion from application to approval to construction and operational status.
They also allow proper judgement of the likelihood that generation will exceed the capacity to consume and thus capacity (and investment) would be wasted. As discussed below we can only consume 0-40GW of RE depending upon time and season. With low growth, perhaps under 33GW.
The database charts show that we have already approved & recorded over 24GW of RE capacity.
15GW is either operational or under construction. The "under construction" time is typically less than 6 months so 15GW will be operational before the end of 2012: exceeding, and well in advance of, the target. With the 9GW extra approved and awaiting construction, the further 12.5GW of applications already made show a potential for a serious excess of generation over consumption.
Such excess creates wasteful carbon emissions and excess costs to consumers. These costs necessarily increase fuel poverty, with their attendant illness and excess winter deaths. According to official figures, the latter are already in excess of 27,000 per year. This is a very serious harm that must be weighed in the planning balance.
The above is an edited extract from a paper by business analyst J. William Short. This is available as a Word document download.
'Gains in the sector don't necessarily lead to wider employment. The wind industry, for example, has shed 10,000 jobs since 2009 even as the energy capacity of wind farms has nearly doubled, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Meanwhile, the oil and gas industry has added 75,000 jobs since Obama took office, according to Labor Department statistics.'
Chicago Tribune, 13 April, 2012.
Read the full article.
Bloomberg Businessweek, 5 March, 2012.
'The climate is getting worse for wind-power companies, which are finding it increasingly difficult to attract venture backers.
Investment in US turbine farms and wind-energy businesses tumbled 38 percent last year to $9.7 billion, according to data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Venture capitalists have practically left the sector altogether. They invested only $177.6 million in wind startups last year, down 71 percent from the year before, BNEF found.
Wind power is bucking a broader trend for clean energy, which is experiencing a surge of investment. [our emphasis].
The Guardian, 3 April, 2012.
Leo Hickman, features journalist and editor at the Guardian, made an FOI request which returned a fascinating list of the the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's climate change project spending worldwide. The document gives, " [a] full list of the FCO's projects in six countries, excluding some details on Russia and China which it withheld on the grounds it would be prejudicial to international relations". (Document - Guardian website).
The Sunday Times, 4 March, 2012.
'Britain could meet its climate change targets in 2020 for £45 billion less if it abandoned wind power in favour of cheaper gas-fired power plants and nuclear reactors, an independent report has found.
'The saving would rise to £150 billion by 2050 because of the huge costs associated with running the proposed 32,000 wind turbines.
'The study was supposed to be published last year but was killed by its sponsor, KPMG, one of the government's closest advisors on energy policy, after some of the findings leaked, provoking an outcry from the wind farm industry.
'AF Consult, the firm KPMG commissioned to do the work, will tomorrow publish the analysis in the interests of presenting an "independent" perspective in a debate "led by groups with vested interests".
'It says that Britain could hit its 2020 pollution reduction targets set by the European Union without building a single additional wind farm. A Combination of new nuclear plants and gas-fired power stations, which emit far less carbon dioxide than the coal-fired plants they would replace, would deliver the required cut to pollution, it claims.
'This would cost £24 billion, or £45 billion less than the £69 billion price tag envisaged under government plans that also include a big increase in renewable power. The difference balloons to £150 billion by 2050 because it avoids the high cost of building renewables and the subsidies required to pay back developers.
'Clare Spottiswoode, who was head of the gas regulator Ofgas in the 1990s and has close ties to the nuclear and oil industries, endorsed the findings: "If we are concerned abgout cost, then renewables have no part to play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% before 2050".
'The findings will fuel the debate about government policies that put wind power - the most expensive form of power generation - at the heart of a programme to remake Britain's ageing energy infrastructure. George Osborne warned last year that he would not support policies to "save the planet by putting our country out of business."
'The pressure on David Cameron to row back on subsidies for the sector, which are among the most generous in the world, has increased as austerity bites. Last year the number of "fuel poor" households, those where more than 10% of income goes on energy bills, was revealed to have hit 5.5m in 2009. The increase came after the average annual household bill hit £1,345 caused by high gas prices and green subsidies.
'The corrections and clarifications column editor on... [UNCORRECTED] significant errors', Guardian, 4 March, 2012.
'• Wind energy: scrutinising RenewableUK claim that record set
'A short news agency story [Wind industry press release?] in early January – 'Gales raise wind record power', 7 January, page 31 – said that "wind farms produced 12.2% of the UK's energy demand on 28 December". Readers rightly pointed out that we'd failed to spot that a bit of this line was nonsensical. As one put it, "RenewableUK, the source [of the story], claimed only that wind farms met 12.2% of electricity consumption that day." But aside from that, he went on, "Electricity consumed represents, on an annual basis, about 15% of the country's primary energy supply. So it seems likelier that wind farms produced less than 2% of the nation's energy demand on that day." Another suspected the "record" was not quite what it appeared, either: "The record is expressed as a percentage of the total demand. The Wednesday after Christmas, demand might be quite low. We really need to know the MWh produced as compared with the previous record. To put this performance in context it would also help to know the minimum power produced. The article has the feel of RenewableUK cherrypicking data to spin their case. Why pick 1 December to 5 January as the time interval to report average output over? I think more questions should have been asked before printing the article."
Matt Ridley, The Spectator, 3 March, 2012. 'The government has finally seen through the wind-farm scam – but why did it take them so long? 'To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world's energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide. [...] |
Farmers Weekly, 25 February, 2012
'Countryfile presenter Matt Baker has waded into the debate over wind farms by questioning their effectiveness.
'The 2011 Farmers Weekly Awards host, 34, was asked to name the greatest threat to the countryside and he criticised the increasing number of wind turbines appearing across the UK.
Even readers of Farmers Weekly overwhelmingly believe that wind turbines are a threat to the British countryside.
Der Spiegel, Business, 24 February, 2012.
'Last spring, Chancellor Angela Merkel set Germany on course to eliminate nuclear power in favor of renewable energy sources. Now, though, several industries are suffering as electricity prices rapidly rise. Many companies are having to close factories or move abroad. 'The red signs are still hanging in front of the gate to the steel mill on Oberschlesienstrasse. "Hands off!" they read, or "The Krefeld steel mill must stay!" |
'But now it's all over. Despite the signs, protests and pickets, ThyssenKrupp, Germany's largest steelmaker, sold its Krefeld stainless steel mill to Finnish competitor Outukumpu two weeks ago. The new owner plans to shut down production by the end of next year, leaving more than 400 workers without a job. The economic loss to this stricken city on the lower Rhine will be significant.
'Other companies could suffer a similar fate. Berlin's energy policy affects all classic industrial sectors, from the steel and aluminum industry to paper and cement manufacturers, as well as the chemical industry. The metal industry, long an important sector in Germany, is already migrating to countries with cheaper electricity.
'The Düsseldorf-based conglomerate GEA closed its zinc plant in nearby Datteln. Aurubis, the Hamburg-based company that is Europe's largest copper producer, is critical of higher energy costs and has announced plans to invest abroad, especially in Asia and South America. According to a recent survey by the DIHK, almost one in five industrial companies plans to shift capacities abroad -- or has already done so. The study also finds that almost 60 percent fear power outages or voltage fluctuations in the power grid, because wind and solar power are still too unreliable.
'"The promotion of renewable energy has led to substantial displacement effects on employment in the conventional energy production sectors, as well as in downstream industries that are particularly energy-intensive," concludes the report on a conference held at the Federal Ministry of Education and Research last year. The political opposition has also recognized the importance of the issue. Some believe that the green economy is everything, warns Sigmar Gabriel, chairman of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). "But they forget that they can't make a wind turbine without steel, plastic, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering."
'It is equally important to stabilize the power grid as quickly as possible to prevent blackouts from occurring. Until now, the reliability of the German electricity supply was seen as a significant advantage for doing business in the country. But the loss of several nuclear power plants, coupled with the unpredictability of electricity from wind and solar sources, has changed the situation.
'Excessive German wind power output strains neighbours' grids', Reuters, 17 January 2012.
'RWE stops windfarm projects amid energy policy dispute', Deutsche Welle, 16 February, 2012.
See also:
'New: the EU budget - it has never been so green', European Energy Review, 27 February, 2012. ("the European Commission wants to devote fully 20% of the 1 trillion Euro budget, which runs from 2014 to 2020, to climate-related actions").
deingenieur.nl, 5 april 2012.
[Blackout threatened Germany in February — During the very cold period in early February, a blackout was just escaped. Only one power plant outage would have disrupted the power supply in parts of the country. Germany developed large offshore wind farms that only produce electricity when the wind blows. And most wind turbines are in the north, while large consumers in the south. By the closure of eight nuclear reactors, mostly in the south, the country has virtually no surplus capacity, which makes it difficult to respond. The new situation has increased the stress on the transmission grid. Operator Tennet had to intervene 1,024 times last year to prevent an imbalance in the net. That is nearly four times as often as in 2010.]
Even before the political decision to close 8 nuclear power stations, the German state energy agency was pointing to the problems associated with over-reliance on wind power generation:
ESSEN, Germany, Feb 10 (Reuters story on Yahoo).
'Demand increases and supply volatility arising from a growing share of erratic production from renewable sources still make new coal and gas-fired power stations necessary, Dena Managing Director Stephan Kohler said during a trade fair.'
Kohler illustrated problems with wind energy, saying 23,000 MW were nominally installed, but high pressure fronts in January curbed wind speeds. On one day, only 113 MW capacity [0.5%!] was active.
'"This is nothing against renewables, we will just run into problems if we have 45,000 MW of weak load in the system (2020), we'd have to store power (which is technically not yet possible) or look abroad in the European market environment," he said.'
'But imports from neighbouring Europe could not solve the problems as it faced wider supply shortfall scenarios itself.'
'Also, more trade would necessitate more spending on cross-border transmission lines, which faced uncertainty, Kohler said.'
(See full article on Yahoo, Finance).
German power companies are currently building 11 new coal-burning plants, including the world's largest lignite or brown coal plant, a 2.1GW giant at Neura.
Six more are in planning.
Despite some 23GW of wind capacity, and a very large solar sector, Germany continues to have the worst CO2 emissions in Europe, according to EIA figures.
Power Engineering International, 13 June, 2012.
'Germany's grid network is going to face a bill for €20bn to build the extra 4000 km of new network lines that will be needed to accommodate the renewable power it wants to bring online to replace nuclear.
'That was the estimate of Christian Nabe, head of power systems and markets at energy consultancy Ecofys, when he spoke at a security of supply conference at POWER-GEN Europe yesterday.
'Yet he added that this was small change compared to the €13bn that Germany pays annually in support to wind and solar - the very industries driving the need for the network upgrade.
The Financial, 31 March, 2012.
'The Financial - The Italian government will cut subsidies to the country's fast-growing renewable-energy sector, Industry Minister Corrado Passera said Saturday.
'Publicly funded incentives for renewable energy have produced "excessive" investment in solar and wind power, distorting prices, Passera said.
Windpower Monthly, 17 February, 2012.
'FRANCE: A French government committee has warned on the consequences of "intermittence" caused by renewable energy.
'The commission was asked to analyse four energy policy scenarios to 2050. It said "intermittence" could cause problems "which should not be underestimated". These ranged from prolonging the life of France's current nuclear fleet to abandoning nuclear power completely.
'The Energy 2050 report notes found increased deployment of wind and solar will require electricity storage on a "massive" scale alongside demand management.
'The commission regards pumped storage as "useful but limited" and believes that even a Europe-wide grid does not exclude the possibility of several days without wind. In the absence of other competitive solutions, gas plants will provide the backup, it asserts.
'While the country should continue to develop renewable energies, the commission recommends that "the optimal path" for France is to extend the life of its nuclear plants, as long as the Nuclear Safety Authority permits, and continue working on the next generation reactors.
Bloomberg, 30 March, 2012.
'France's highest administrative court has been advised by an independent magistrate to cancel preferential tariffs for wind-generated electricity, Les Echos reported, citing industry officials.
'The newspaper quoted Nicolas Wolff, director general of wind turbine maker Vestas France SAS, as saying that one-third of wind-power operators in France could go out of business if the recommendation is accepted by the court, or State Council.
'The magistrate said France had failed to notify the European Commission when it set a guaranteed tariff of 82 euros ($111) per megawatt hour for wind power in 2008, Les Echos said.
'Up to 37,000 jobs, many in Illinois, could be lost as projects are halted or abandoned
Chicago Tribune, 17 February, 2012
'The wind power industry is predicting massive layoffs and stalled or abandoned projects after a deal to renew a tax credit failed Thursday in Washington.
The Financial Times reports that Iberdrola, the world's leading onshore wind operator, has applauded the Spanish government's renewable subsidies freeze. They say that it is a sensible move for a country that has been paying too much for electricity it does not need. 1
The chairman of Iberdrola, which is also Spain's biggest power utility, is quoted as saying: "What we were doing was irrational".
José Manuel Soria, Minister of Industry, Energy and Tourism, has announced a freeze on subsidies for all new renewable power plants in order to ameliorate Spain's €24bn "tariff deficit" (the difference between what consumers pay and the real cost of subsidised
Increasing numbers of experts, and the millions of consumers in fuel poverty (see below), are asking when our government is going to adopt a rational energy policy and stop subsidising an unnecessary, uneconomic and unsustainable wind rush.
1 'Iberdrola backs subsidies freeze on renewables', Financial Times, 12 February, 2012.
2 'Spain halts renewable subsidies to curb 31 billion of debts', Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 January, 2012.
Windpower Monthly Magazine, 25 May 2012.
'PORTUGAL: The Portuguese government has dealt the wind sector another blow by announcing cuts in tariffs for existing wind farms totalling EUR100-200 million up to 2020.
'Growth in capacity has already practically ground to a halt since January following a moratorium on feed-in tariffs (FITs) for new projects.
Bloomberg Businessweek, 27 January, 2012.
'Jan. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Spain halted subsidies for renewable energy projects to help curb its budget deficit and rein in power-system borrowings backed by the state that reached 24 billion euros ($31 billion) at the end of 2011.
'"What is today an energy problem could become a financial problem," Industry Minister José Manuel Soria said in Madrid. The government passed a decree today stopping subsidies for new wind, solar, co-generation or waste incineration plants.
'The system's debts were racked up as revenue from state-controlled prices failed to cover the cost of delivering power. Costs have swollen in the past five years because of an increase in regulated payments for the power grid, support for Spanish coal mines and subsidies for renewable energy plants.
'"It's clear they have to make major cuts," said Francisco Salvador, a strategist at FGA/MG Valores in Madrid. "The government has already ruled out a significant increase in prices, so the cuts will fall in many places and the spotlight is on renewables, but not just on renewables."
There has been a considerable backlash against the wind industry in Spain, due to indiscriminate development, large scale fraud and corruption in development permissions, massive bird kills and the escalating costs to the consumer, industry and government.
Two regions of Spain have introduced a 'landscape impact levy' or 'visual impact tax' on turbines.
Spain's autonomous region of Castile-La Mancha, currently with over 3.7GW online, voted in March 2011 to force a visual impact levy on all wind plants above 5MW.*
The levy is set at 1.6% of plant generation income for existing and new capacity. The levy is expected to net €15 million annually and is scheduled to start this year (2012).
'Spanish region imposes visual impact tax on turbines', Windpower Monthly, 23 March 2011.
Berlingske, 28 November 2011. [1]
'Investing billions in wind turbines and biomass is useless if the intention is to reduce CO2 emissions. In the worst case, paradoxically, it may well damage the environment, the Economics Council - the wise men - explains in an analysis for Berlingske Politics. The EU's quota system for CO2 emissions is to blame for the complicated relationship. [2]
'Electricity generators are a part of the EU's quota system and if Denmark produces more electricity from fossil-free energy that means that Danish electricity plants require less quota. This reduces the price of quota and makes it cheaper, for example, for German industry to buy quota. Meanwhile, the aggregate quota and the aggregate emissions of CO2 are unchanged, the wise men write.
'In that way the effect is that Denmark helps to reduce the costs of, for example, German industry and therefore contributes to improving German competitiveness, while the emissions of greenhouse gases in the EU are unaffected. [Our translation].
[1] 'Vismænd: Danske vindmøller kan være skadelige for klimaet'.
[2] The Economics Council consists of the Economics Council and the Environmental Economics Council, with representatives from an assortment of industry and employment organisations, the National Bank, Government and independent academic and environmental economists. The Council advises government and operates under the aegis of Ministry of Economics and Business Affairs. It is led by the 'Wise Men' a panel of four leading academic economists.
See also, article from Der Spiegel: 'Wind turbines do nothing for emissions-reduction goals'.
Holland, the home of the old-fashioned windmill, is experiencing a backlash against modern onshore wind turbines.1
Increasing numbers of provincial authorities are banning land based turbines. The province of Noord Holland has made it part of the negotiations for a new provincial government that no more onshore turbines are built. Friesland, which used to be at the forefront of wind development, is now relegating them to the borders of the province and may ban them altogether if funds can be found to compensate farmers who are willing to pull them down.
It was reported in february, 2011, that the Netherlands is reducing its targets for renewable energy and slashing the subsidies for offshore wind and solar power. It has also given the green light for the country's first new nuclear power plants for almost 40 years.2
The reasons for the change are the escalating costs of subsidies, especially for huge offshore schemes, and the growing popular backlash against massive onshore turbines.
Holland is the first country to abandon the EU-wide 20:20 target, a remarkable turnaround for a state that took the Kyoto Agreement seriously and supported EU renewable energy strategies. The €4bn annual subsidy will be slashed to €1.5bn, and future subsidy payments will be channelled away from wind development.
1 'Wind turbines unpopular thanks to environmentalists', DutchNews.nl, 21 April, 2011.
2 'Holland's Radical U-Turn On Climate and Energy Policy', Translation of article by Michael Gassmann, Financial Times Deutschland, 9 February, 2011.
Tony Lodge, Tuesday 3 January by the Centre for Policy Studies.
'Nuclear generating capacity is forecast to fall by 75% in the next few years. Another 12,000MW of diverse generating capacity (out of a total of 90,000MW) will close by 2016 due to EU rules. Any further delays in approving new nuclear plant will mean this plant will not make a net contribution to UK electricity supply before 2025, at the earliest. Last winter, coal plants shouldered nearly 50% of electricity demand. The Government risks filling the nuclear delay 'gap' with yet more gas-fired plant. The UK could be dependent on gas for over 80% of electricity generation by 2025.
'There is an alternative. The Coalition must now move to approve a fair and balanced nuclear power delivery strategy which rewards all new atomic power investors. It should approve and encourage more baseload energy diversification, including early delivery of new efficient and cleaner coal plants.
'The National Trust is now "deeply sceptical" of wind power, its chairman said as he launched an outspoken attack on the "public menace" of turbines destroying the countryside.'
The Telegraph, 12 February, 2012.
'For years the conservation charity has been a supporter of renewable energy, including wind, to reduce carbon emissions and help fight global warming.
'But in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Sir Simon Jenkins warned that wind was the "least efficient" form of green power, and risked blighting the British landscape.
Some five years ago National Trust ran 'A call for the wild' campaign, where they stated that: "the modest benefits of wind turbines must be carefully measured against their environmental and social costs."
Then, in a dramatic U-turn, all criticism of wind power generation disappeared when, like the RSPB, they sold the use of their name to RWE npower in advertising for a so-called a 'green' electricity tariff.
Under this scheme NT was paid for every customer signed up. It was sold on the basis of NPower's very limited involvement in offshore wind and hydro, no mention of NPower's many onshore wind projects, some of which actually threatened the setting of properties and landscapes held in trust by NT!
National Trust's change of track, if it is really happening (they are already distancing themselves from their Chairman), is to be warmly welcomed.
Meanwhile, we are still waiting for the RSPB, who had a lucrative financial connection with Scottish and Southern Energy PLC through 'RSPB Energy', to recognise the scale of the damage that is being done by wind development to birds and habitats. They stubbornly continue to insist that the damage is worth it for the insignificant contribution made by 'bird mincers' to reducing carbon emissions.
Meanwhile, they have seen their reputation damaged and have lost many members over their enthusiastic ('UK can have wind power and wildlife') and often uncritical support for wind developers (see 'RSPB Ducks Out', on our Birds page).
With soaring demand during the first serious cold snap of the winter we have, yet again, seen thousands of wind turbines failing to deliver.
With 4,006MW of metered capacity, wind was delivering only 36MW at peak load on 6 February, the headline capacity of 12 Vestas V90 turbines.
Even as peak demand slackens wind fails to perform as European high pressure systems dominate our winter weather.
Offshore wind now constitutes a major part of metered output, undermining previous wind industry claims that offshore wind would even out erratic perormance.
Similarly, there is a growing body of evidence that winter wind failure is experienced over wide areas of Western Europe. Claims that a hugely expensive 'super grid' would solve the wind problem are now looking increasingly specious. National Grid notes:
Recent history has shown that wind power output at the time of the winter peak can be very low. The winter peak normally occurs when temperatures are low and this often results from anti-cyclonic conditions that also mean very little wind. High pressure normally extends over a large area and this could mean there would be very little wind generation in Western Europe.
(National Grid, 'Winter Outlook Report 2009/10'. 'Generation Side Risks', 167, p.54).
Wind power was also demonstrating its propensity for erratic and unpredictable behaviour when gales swept across the UK earlier this winter. Gale force winds caused onshore and offshore turbine parks to trip out of production across the country.
On 3 January, there were periods with a gap between the short term forecast and realised output of up to an astonishing 3,300MW, nearly 85% of total metered wind capacity in the UK.
On 13 December the gap was over 2,000MW.
Less than a week before, on 7 and 8 December there was a gap between short term forecasts and actual production of up to 2,483MW.
Even at medium wind speeds the margin of error in forecasting output is very significant, the power curve diagram above shows why.
All of this explains why wind power production substitutes for very little production from thermal power stations. Indeed, there is a growing body of evidence that building very inefficient open cycle gas-fuelled power stations to follow large wind load is not only inefficient and damaging to plant but can actually negate any theoretical carbon savings. 1
Wind industry propagandists have frequently pointed to the 'success' of the very large Spanish wind capacity in occasionally producing very large surges of electricity (normally, as here, when least required). They have not been doing so of late.
The new Spanish government has pulled the plug on wind subsidies, having accumulated a "tariff deficit" of 24 billion euros in subsidising renewables. This deficit is the difference between what electricity has cost to produce in recent years, and what has been charged to consumers. This has added to Spain's sovereign debt and poor credit rating. 2
In interviews on 18 and 19 January, José Manuel Soria, Minister of Industry, Energy and Tourism said on TVE Canal 24h that Spain has as much as 100,000 MW of generating capacity, while its peak demand is less than half that figure. This is why his Ministry is wondering if Spain must keep on adding new subsidised capacity.
The wind industry is bemoaning the fact that government action has stranded 11,080MW of new wind projects (more than twice the UKs installed wind capacity) which are unlikely to be built without subsidies. As here, the wind industry is unwilling to accept any restrictions on the consumer-funded gravy train. 3
The Minister also insisted that Spain must remain competitive in the global market. Its electricity, he said, costs on average more than that of France, one of Spain's principal competitors, and this is hurting the Spanish economy.
The UK intends, like Germany, to manage a very large wind capacity by 'curtailment': paying operators not to produce during periods when excessive amounts of prioritised wind power are not required by the system. In Germany some 15-20% of wind output is dumped on this basis and we are already seeing problems, and very large costs, in this country (see below).
1 For example: C. le Pair & K. de Groot, 'The impact of wind generated electricity on fossil fuel consumption', (website) and Bentek (PDF download).
2 'Spain Halts Renewable Subsidies to Curb $31 Billion of Debts', Bloomberg, 30 January, 2012.
3 'Spanish Law Blocks 11,080 Megawatts of Wind Parks, Cinco Says', Bloomberg, 6 February, 2012.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the National Trust have both warned of the likely effects of the Government's reform the planning system to benefit business interests.
CPRE say: "The planning system is under attack from the Government's planning reforms and the protection of precious countryside is going to be seriously weakened."
The National Trust is equally concerned:
All of us who care about the countryside - as well as the vitality of our towns and cities - need to stand up for what we value. Unless we act now, there will be uproar across the country as local communities discover in the months and years to come that the planning system and its ability to protect the countryside have been undermined by these reforms currently being pushed through.
For decades our planning system has protected much loved places from harmful development. The Government's reforms turn this on its head, using it as a tool primarily to promote economic growth instead.
We believe in growth – but not at all costs. Planning for people combines long-term growth with other important things like local character and space to breathe, tranquillity and beauty. We need a system that serves all our interests, from commerce to communities.
CPRE website.
National Trust campaign.
There are already examples of developers being allowed to build in previously protected areas, even before the Draft National Planning Policy Framework has been enacted.
There is very considerable concern that planning authorities such as Northumberland County Council, which has a history of leaning over backwards to accommodate wind development, will interprete this as carte blanche to nod through yet more inappropriate wind proposals in what remains of our tourist landscapes.
Just recently we have seen Northumberland planners enthusiastically arguing that wind development should be allowed in the Green Belt, near Ponteland, and that 200 houses should be built outside the development envelope established in the Morpeth Local Plan.
The papers being prepared for the proposed Local Development Framework show the sort of bias that has been repeatedly expressed by officers whose main source of information is planning seminars organised and run by the wind industry trade body, RenewableUK (formerly the British Wind Energy Association).
Planners frequently reveal this in their statements. At a recent planning meeting NCC's Head of Development Control advised Councillors that if they were to reject the particular turbine application they could not use the argument that wind development might damage the local tourist economy. She stated, "There is no significant evidence that wind turbines have any effect on tourism". This of course is the wind industry mantra. It is not supported by the facts.
It remains one of the unexamined scandals of recent years that regional and sub-regional renewables strategic planning policy, just like national policy, has largely been formulated and monitored by consultancies working for the wind industry or people with a financial interest in, or directly employed by, the wind industry.
The Swedish manufacturer of the 30.2m turbine that was collapsed for safety reasons at Bogan Farm, near Coldingham, after only two weeks in operation had itself collapsed into bankruptcy in October, 2011. 1
Simon Maden, of Maden Design, who erected the faulty turbine, stated in the local press that, "It looks like the turbine's break [sic] mechanisms failed. All parties decided a controlled collapse was the way to go. If we ever found ourselves in the same situation again I wouldn't do anything differently.
"Things were made more difficult by the fact the turbine manufacturers are no longer in business. We were only alerted to this recently and it meant we couldn't go to them for any advice. I am satisfied the turbine was installed correctly and properly tested." 2
According to a letter from Maden Design to an SBC officer regarding an application for a replacement turbine, the client, "has suffered a total loss as a result of the manufacturer ceasing trading" (letter to SBC Officer, 6 March 2012).
The Hannevind insolvency follows on the failure of Scottish turbine manufacturer Proven Energy, which went into receivership in September 2011 after serious faults occurred in its flagship P35-2 model, forcing the company to suspend sales and warn customers to stop using the 12kW turbine.
Hundreds of customers, such as Defra at Alnwick, have had their turbines shut down for months. Proven has now been sold to the Irish construction group Kingspan who are not assuming any responsibility for previously sold turbines.
As well as problems with the rotor heads there now seems to be a question mark over the towers that the P35-2 turbines are built on. A machine at Snarness, on Shetland, suffered a catastrophic failure of its tower in December last year.
It was reported in October that Scottish wind turbine installer Icon Energy had gone into receivership "as a direct result" of Proven ceasing to trade. 3
A number of commentators within the wind industry think that the business model for many companies in the small wind sector is not sustainable and that further bankruptcies will occur.
A recent article in Recharge News reported that many smaller turbines have inherent design issues, are not living up to expectations and that, "... action by disappointed small turbine turbine owners may ultimately push many local installers into bankruptcy". 4
According to Ben Cosh, managing director of the installation specialist TGC Renewables, "Fundamentally, wind at low height is quite complex and turbulent, and these turbines need to be based on much more complicated [simulations] than the design engineers are currently using.
'"They design a turbine in their computer system which looks lovely, then they put it in the real world and it breaks."
This view is supported by many examples of turbine failure reported in the wind industry press. Recently, 3 Evoco turbines on farms in the Huddersfield area of Yorkshire suffered catastrophic blade failure in one day. 5
A 32.4m (112.2 ft) Endurance E-3120 turbine is reported as suffering a catastrophic collapse near Shrewsbury, Shropshire on 19 January, 2012. 6
Lately, the Northern Ireland Health and Safety Executive and Trading Standards in Orkney have neem the latest bodies to warn of problems with French Eoltec machines. Blade assemblies have fallen off numbers of machines.
The company have been reported to safety authorities in France and the UK after they failed to respond to angry customers.7
1 'Hannevind Vindkraft AB', Bloomberg Businessweek.
2 'Turbine brought down due to mechanical failure', Berwick Advertiser, 18 December, 2011.
3 'Turbine installer Icon Energy hit by Proven collapse', BBC News, 14 October 2011.
4 'Scots bid to keep Proven local as small wind faces sceptics', Recharge News, 21 September, 2011.
5 'Wind turbines ripped apart by gale force winds in Hudddersfield', Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 6 January, 2012.
6 'More trouble with wind turbines', Shropshire Star, 20 January, 2012.
7 'Design snag causes wind turbine shutdown', BBC News, 6 June 2012.
Wind power has repeatedly been demonstrating its propensity for erratic and unpredictable production as gales have swept across the UK this winter. Unlike previous winters when we have seen a failure to produce any significant amounts of power during periods of peak demand due to lack of wind, we have seen gale force winds causing onshore and offshore turbine parks to trip out of production across the country.
On 3 January, there were periods with a gap between the short term forecast and realised output of up to an astonishing 3,300MW, nearly 85% of total metered wind capacity in the UK.
On 13 December the gap was over 2,000MW.
Less than a week before, on 7 and 8 December there was a gap between short term forecasts and actual production of up to 2,483MW.
As turbine output crashed, reports were starting to filter in of various turbine failures across the country.
In December, these varied from a major fire at a wind park near Ardrossan, the collapse of a 30m turbine with brake failure near Coldingham, in the Borders, and numerous reports of blade damage to farm turbines all over Scotland.
Other failures have been reported in the latest blow, with, for example, 3 Evoco turbines losing blades near Huddersfield.
In previous high wind episodes, major turbine operators in Scotland have been paid up to twenty times their normal earnings to shut down, even when they might anyway have been forced to shut down by high wind speeds (see below).
The head of the Government's Fuel Poverty Advisory Group says the Coalition is underestimating the scale of the problem. Derek Lickorish said: "The situation is dire and the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group is extremely concerned.
"We're looking at 6.6m households in the UK in fuel poverty by the end of this year compared to 2m in 2004.1
Meanwhile the government budget to fight fuel poverty has been slashed from around £300m to £110m. The Advisory Group has called for the funding to be reinstated.
Many experts have been warning government for years about the impacts of green taxes and sky-high renewables subsidies, in particular the Renewables Obligation, on fuel poverty.
Professor Sir David King, former arch-Windy and Government Chief Scientific Advisor, 2002-2007, told BBC Radio 4's The Investigation in 2008 that the government was placing too much emphasis on wind power to reach targets and that this would mean more people suffering from fuel poverty.
"These are difficult numbers to estimate but numbers around half a million are not at all unrealistic," he said.
Maria McCaffery, then Chief Executive of British Wind Energy Association, the wind industry trade body, responded with exactly the same argument that we now hear from Energy Secretary Chris Huhne: "The expectation is that it [wind power generation] will in time drive down the basic cost of energy and actually help the fuel poverty situation, that certainly is our expectation." 3
How this is supposed to happen with a 100% production subsidy on onshore wind power generation (200% on offshore), huge backup and curtailment costs and a minimum of £200 billion in grid engineering costs associated with handling large-scale intermittent generators is not explained by the wind industry or Mr Huhne.
This is not an evidenced argument, it would be better described as blind hope or an article of Green faith.
According to figures from the Office for National Statistics There are 27,000 extra deaths in the UK each winter compared to other times of year. Most of these deaths can be ascribed to cold.4
The UK figure is one of the highest in Europe, worse than France and Germany, and worse than Norway, Sweden and Finland which have much worse winter weather.
Nearly £2 billion a year is now being spent on Renewables Obligation subsidies.
This money could drastically reduce fuel poverty and CO2 emissions, as well as kick-starting the economy, if it was spent directly on improving the fuel efficiency of homes and enforcing higher building standards for home insulation and heating.
All experts agree that this is the most cost-effective way of reducing CO2 emissions.
But, it seems that government would rather stand by and see this money, paid from our electricity bills, going into the pockets of multinational energy companies or private wind speculators.
1 'Government fuel poverty targets likely to be missed', Channel 4 News, 12 august 2011.
2 'Poverty fears over wind power', BBC News , 4 September 2008.
3 Ibid.
4 Professor John Hills, 'Independent review of fuel poverty'. Professor Hills' interim report was published on 19 October, 2011 and is available from the DECC website.
See also: 'Energy Policy and Consumer Hardship', Renewable Energy Foundation, 2011 (Available as a PDF download from the REF website).
Using DECC's Mott McDonald analysis, Ruth Lea, Economic Adviser to Arbuthnot Banking Group and former Chief Economist at the Institute of Directors, argues that wind power is an expensive "folly".
We quote from the conclusions of her paper:
Mott MacDonald analysis: conclusions
To sum up, these were Mott MacDonald's main findings, allowing for carbon costs:
• Gas fired CCGT was expected to be least cost main technology option in the near-term.
• Nuclear power was projected to be least cost option in the longer term, assuming DECC's central fuel and carbon prices assumptions.
• Excluding carbon costs, coal is the cheapest technology in the near-term and the medium-term, assuming DECC's central fuel and carbon prices assumptions.
Other things being equal this would suggest that investment should be concentrated in gas and nuclear technologies. (A mix of technologies is preferable for operational reasons.) Both onshore and, especially, offshore wind fared relatively badly in this analysis, even though Mott MacDonald's analysis for DECC excluded the costs of stand-by generation and transmission reinforcement. There is no economic case for expensive wind-power. It only adds to consumers' energy bills – both domestically and business.
Even if one accepts the need to cut carbon emissions, not a universal sentiment by any means, it is clear that the dash for wind-power can only be "justified" by Britain's misguided commitment to the 15% renewables target by 2020 under the EU's Renewables Directive. It is proving, and will continue to prove, a very costly commitment indeed.
'Britain's high energy prices: the folly of wind power.' In 'Perspectives by Ruth Lea', (PDF download), Arbuthnot Banking Group.
Mott MacDonald, 'UK electricity generation costs update, June 2010' (PDF download, from DECC website).
BBC News video, 15 August, 2011.
Science correspondent David Shukman talks to economist Professor Dieter Helm, Professor at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of New College, Oxford.
Professor Helm is a special Advisor to the European Commissioner for Energy and a member of the Economics Advisory Group to the UK Secretary of State for Energy & Climate Change.
UK Press Association on Google News, 11 October, 2011.
'Wind farms operators have been paid nearly £7 million this year to switch off turbines, the Government has said.
'Seventeen wind farms across the UK were told to shut down on a total of 37 days, with the farms' owners compensated for not generating power.
'So-called "constraint payments" are made when too much electricity floods the Grid, with the network unable to absorb the power generated.
See below for more on curtailment.
Reuters, 13 June, 2011.
'(Reuters) - British wind farms may be shut down about 38 days per year by 2020 to avoid power transmission overload at times of weak demand and high wind speeds, UK energy network operator National Grid said on Monday. Britain is expected to increase wind power capacity seven-fold by 2020 to 26.8 gigawatts (GW), according to National Grid data, which would put additional strain on the transmission network.
A poll in The Journal, referencing comments by Chris Huhne (see below), echoed an exit poll of visitors to the Middleton Burn exhibition in Belford, Northumberland.
According to The Journal, "Some 79 people agreed with Mr Huhne that they [wind turbines] are indeed elegant. But those backing him were somewhat outweighed by the 767 who voted to say they considered turbines to be a blight on the landscape." 1
The Middleton Burn exit poll showed that 250 of 267 visitors were against the scheme, only 10 were in favour, while 7 were undecided. 2
1 'Wind farms poll shows nine in ten reject minister's backing', The Journal, 8 October, 2011.
2 See '93.6% SAY NO!', Middleton Burn Action Group (MBAG).
The Journal, 1 October, 2011.
'ENERGY secretary Chris Huhne has told the North East to learn to love "beautiful" wind turbines and called for hundreds more to be given the go ahead.
'In comments which will divide opinion Mr Huhne set out his full support for onshore wind turbines during a visit to Newcastle.
'To an audience of green energy firms and fellow Liberal Democrats [enough said!] he said opponents of wind turbines had to be challenged when claiming wind farms ruin landscapes such as Northumberland's.
Mr Huhne's views of what is beautiful are at odds with what landscape architects and even the wind industry say. Any wind turbine planning application is largely devoted to a Visual Impact Assessment (VIA) which considers the "visual impacts" of turbines on people and places.
I have yet to hear anyone claim with a straight face that visual impact tables in planning applications demonstrate anything other than the scale of adverse impacts.
According to official figures produced by DECC, Chris Huhne's own department, his Eastleigh constituency does not have any large, industrial turbines. In fact, there are none recorded in the whole of Hampshire.
In view of the fact that the North East has already met renewables targets for 2060 (see below) in terms of consented capacity, perhaps Chris Huhne should be lecturing the people of Hampshire on the need for hundreds of 'beautiful' 410 ft turbines on the Hampshire Downs.
The suspicion is that his slender majority does not allow for any discussion of the beauty of turbines in Hampshire!
Mr Huhne has been parroting this rather silly comparison with traditional windmills for some time. For entertainment, listen to him making a complete fool of himself on Any Questions, in April, this year: BBC i-Player (question is at approx. 39:30). As is apparent from the audience reaction, the Tories are in danger of losing ground to UKIP on this issue.
Mr Huhne is right about one thing, wind turbines are just like their historic ancestors in producing small amounts of erratic and intermittent power. Which is precisely why they were abandoned in favour of water mills and, subsequently, steam power.
There is an old saying which he should bear in mind: "No one has ever built a windmill if he could build a watermill." Not unless they were being payed a massive production subsidy for wind power!
This is not the first delusional and damaging policy that Chris Huhne has wholeheartedly pursued. Some of us remember his role in trying to get the UK into the Euro. When wiser heads were urging caution, Mr Huhne was writing that, "The euro is living up to the highest expectations of the economists who advocated it, and Britain is missing out" (Chris Huhne, 'It's official: the euro is a success', The Guardian, 6 June 2002).
He would be well advised to take time out from his endless round of self-promotion in the press and actually study the issues. Very few who have done so share his unbridled enthusiasm for wind turbines as the answer to anything other than as a mechanism for making the rich wealthier at the expense of the poor.
As Professor Sir David King, Government Chief Scientific Advisor from 2002 to 2007, the period when current wind power policy was conceived and rolled out, now says: [Talking of EU targets and fuel poverty] "This is an issue which needs to be revisited and I say this as somebody who feels that we really have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions very substantially but in my view it is an expensive, and not a very clever route to go for 35 to 40% on wind turbines." ('Poverty fears over wind power', BBC News, 4 September 2008).
"File on 4 has discovered that some companies are so badly damaged by soaring energy prices that they say they may move out of Britain."
"The latest wave of price rises is expected to mean 6.6 million households wll go into winter officially in fuel poverty."
BBC File on 4, 10 October, 2011. (Listen again on BBC iPlayer).
Industry and many energy experts are increasingly concerned that Britain's over-ambitious, unilateral renewables targets and Green taxes will damage British industry and lead to rapidly growing levels of fuel poverty. 1
Even the BBC has picked up on this. This programme devotes much of its time to examining whether the 'big 6' mainly foreign-owned energy conglomerates are guilty of "tacit collusion" in maintaining very high profits and running a market that is opaque even to the regulator.
It does, however, briefly challenge Energy Minister Chris Huhne on his faith position that the UK's very high green taxes will not damage British industry and lead to the export of jobs. 2
Huhne's views are strongly disputed by industry. The programme notes that, "In ceramics, a survey of companies found that half expected the impact of one tax alone to exceed their current profits."
We hear the usual conference soundbites from the Energy Minister, that he is, "...determined to get tough with the big 6 companies". But he is forced to admit that it is the big 6 who are required to shell out the minimum of £200 billion that is required to invest in new generating capacity (no mention of the equally large sums needed to restructure the grid to deal with wind).
The reality is that however much Chris Huhne talks the talk, the big 6 have government over a barrel when it comes to delivering policy.
We are already seeing this as energy companies threaten to withdraw from vital new nuclear and CCS, and Centrica holds the government to ransome over the vital new gas build. 3
Whatever Chris Huhne's righteous Green beliefs, it is not wind power that is going to keep the lights on or the elderly and disabled warm this or any other winter.
1 There are numerous articles on this page which show this, for example: 'British jobs gone with the wind', below.
2 programme segment begins at 28:10.
3 See 'Energy companies want billions for back-up to wind farms', below.
'PM's senior policy adviser on energy said DECC claims that rise would be offset by lower consumption was "unconvincing"
Guardian Environment Network, 5 Sep 2011.
'Downing Street advisers have warned that green energy policies could add £300 to annual household fuel bills, putting them on a collision course with the energy secretary, Chris Huhne.
'Ben Moxham, David Cameron's senior policy adviser on energy and environment and a former BP employee, said claims by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that a 30 per cent rise in fuel bills by 2020 would be offset by lower energy consumption through energy efficiency were "unconvincing".
It is reported that Fred Olsen Renewables,the Norwegian-owned company who own the Crystal Rig turbine array in the Lammermuirs, will receive a £1.2 million payment for turning off their turbines for just 12 hours during the recent high winds.1
They agreed to cease production for eight hours on Saturday 10 September, 30 minutes on Sunday 11 and four hours on Monday 12.
Turbines are anyway forced to shut down when wind speeds exceed around 60 mph in order to prevent damage.
It has been revealed that not one turbine in Scotland produced any electricity on two separate days – August 30 and September 15 – within the past month.2
National Grid is to pay £2.9m in compensation to the 13 windfarms that were out of operation, costs that will be paid by electricity consumers in their bills. The most recent curtailment incident, between Saturday and Tuesday, accounts for more than half the £4.3m paid out during the 12 months up to June.3
The Crystal Rig operators demanded some of the highest curtailment prices yet seen in the industry.
National Grid operates a balancing mechanism to balance the network. "Constraint payments" are made to those who agree to stop feeding energy into the grid. Operators are asked to submit bids for how much power they can pull out of the system and at what price. Often, conventional power stations agree to curtail output for little or no cost.4
Fred Olsen offered £999 per MWh for shutting down Crystal Rig II. By contrast, Scottish Power has a standard bid price of £180 per MWh, with Scottish and Southern Electric's standard bid price thought to be £150 per MWh. Generators would normally receive a wholesale price of £40-50 per MWh plus Renewables Obligation subsidy certificates that were worth £45.37 per MWh at the last auction on 31 August.5
1 'Turbines owner to get £1m windfall', The Herald, 16 September, 2011.
2 Renewable Energy Foundation research - REF website.
3 Ibid.
4 Balancing Mechanism website.
5 e-ROC Online Auction Services.
See also:
'Cashback as storms knock wind out of turbine sails', Evening Times, 14 September, 2011.
'High winds lead UK to halt turbines for 3rd night', Reuters, 13 September, 2011
Windbyte article below for previous examples of costly wind curtailment this year.
Monday 12 September: wind producers in Scotland being paid premium prices to shut down due to the amount of unstable power in the system. Thursday 15 September: all the 3,696MW of metered wind capacity in the UK is producing as little as 24MW, the headline capacity of 8 ordinary 3MW turbines.
Note also the spike at period 23 on 14 September when over 700MW dropped out of the system and then back in within little over an hour, probably caused wind arrays automatically tripping out due to wind speeds exceeding safe operating limits (usually c. 25m/s or 56mph).
This illustrates why National Grid say that we need a huge new build of nuclear and gas-fuelled power stations to provide the power that keeps our lights on.1
The problem is: gas operators do not want to build gas-fired power stations that will be run inefficiently and damagingly - and with higher CO2 emissions - just to cover a huge capacity of prioritised wind power.2
The consumer is going to end up paying twice over: massive subsidies and exorbitant 'curtailment' payments to wind operators and capital grants and subsidies to gas operators in order to track wind load.
1 National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements' and 'Winter Outlook reports' on the NG website.
2 'Energy companies want billions for back up to wind farms', This is Money, 26 June 2011.
REcharge News, 21 September, 2011.
'As potential buyers begin circling Proven Energy – the newly-bankrupt Scottish maker of small wind turbines – wider questions are being raised about the long-term durability of such machines, and whether installers could face a wave of lawsuits.
'Whatever the outcome, some fear the defects uncovered in Proven's machines could jump-start a rash of bankruptcies and lawsuits within the UK's small-wind sector, which was given a boost last year by the introduction of a feed-in tariff.
'It is becoming clear that many turbines rated less than 50kW have inherent design issues and are not living up to expectations, according to Ben Cosh, managing director of the installation specialist TGC Renewables.
'Proven is "by far" the largest supplier of turbines to that market segment within the UK, Cosh says.
'"Fundamentally, wind at low height is quite complex and turbulent, and these turbines need to be based on much more complicated [simulations] than the design engineers are currently using," he says.
'"They design a turbine in their computer system which looks lovely, then they put it in the real world and it breaks."
'Sensing future problems, TGC has shifted its business into PV and mid-sized wind installations requiring turbines in the 50kW-100kW class – a segment dominated by non-UK suppliers like Vermont, US's Northern Power Systems and British Columbia's Endurance.
'Cosh says that action by disappointed small turbine turbine owners may ultimately push many local installers into bankruptcy.
'"It is extremely challenging to get anything sub-50kW to work as a business model," he says. "I would be amazed if there are long-term business futures for people operating in that sector."'
'Wind turbine firm closes as blade hazard is found', Herald, Scotland, 17 September 2011.
Agents and turbine salesmen are making utterly ludicrous and unsubstantiated claims for the output of small turbines. Unsurprisingly, this is leading to some very disappointed customers.
There are a number of examples of planning applications in areas of Northumberland with a low or average wind resource where turbine load factors of over 37% are being forecast. This is, frankly, ludicrous.
Smaller turbines are not as efficient as their large-scale commercial brothers, yet agents are claiming that they will achieve a higher load factor (averaged percentage of headline capacity) than 125m turbines at Aikengall, the highest and windiest turbine site in the Lammermuir
No wonder that stories are now getting out of smaller turbines that are producing massively less than promised.
There are also examples in our area (not including 'Proven' turbines) of smaller turbines suffering prolonged and repeated electro-mechanical failures, to the great irritation of their owners.
* The highest LF in North East England and South East Scotland is recorded by Ofgem as 35.4%, at Aikengall, in 2009/10; Aikengall has a rolling LF of 32.9%. Recorded output figures and load factors are available from REF's 'Renewables Obligation Generators' database.
The Telegraph, 5 October 2011.
'An eco-friendly school has been left £55,000 out of pocket after its wind turbine broke – with governors admitting that it was based on "completely unproven technology".
'The company that installed the turbine has gone bust leaving the school with a pile of scrap.
'The Gorran School in Cornwall revealed its 15 metre turbine in 2008 which was designed to provide it with free electricity - and sell any surplus power to the National Grid.
'The system was seen as a green blueprint for clean, sustainable energy for schools nationwide and received grants from various bodies including the EDF power firm.
'But soon after being installed the wind turbine became faulty and after a few months seized up - showering the school's playing field with debris.
'Since then the school has been locked in a battle with suppliers Proven Energy which has now gone into administration leaving the school with little hope of any money being returned - and a pile of scrap in their field.
'It is clear that the people of Cambridgeshire do not want wind farms, and we should be listening to those views.'
Wisbech Standard, 6 September, 2011
'County councillors today abandoned a £700,000 a year pay day by dropping proposals for wind turbines on any of their 35 farms.
'Opposition to the plan to build wind farms on county council owned farms was led by Councillor Steve Count of March, the Cabinet member for resources and performance.
'"We are putting people before profit," said Cllr Count after a Cabinet meeting which, technically, deferred a decision but in reality ditched proposals for using council owned land for wind turbines.
News & Star, 30 June 2011
'Cumbria has 90 commercial windfarms, with at least another 49 on the way – and the leader of the county council says enough is enough.
'Councillor Eddie Martin has written to the minister for decentralisation to complain about government plans to allow windfarm applications to be pushed through regardless of local opposition.
'As well as the 139 windfarms which have already been granted planning permission, there are a further 46 applications awaiting a decision, he said.
'On behalf of the county council, Mr Martin is calling for the coalition to urgently reconsider its position.
'In an open letter to Greg Clark MP, he said: "I would not wish, of course, to question the expertise, integrity or professionalism of the planning inspectorate but it remains difficult, nonetheless, to convince local communities and indeed local politicians that public inquiries of windfarm applications are no more than cosmetic exercises, that the government (of any persuasion) is obsessed with EU imposed targets, and that the concept of local democracy appears to be quite meaningless.
'"In short, and despite the palliative rhetoric and occasional panaceas, central government is simply not listening. And that is profoundly depressing. And fundamentally undemocratic."
'Mr Martin points out the "invariably futile" public inquiries are also expensive as the local planning authority has to foot the £60,000 bill.
'The county council is calling for an end to "over-reliance" on windfarms and a reduction in wind-related targets.
'It wants investment in other low carbon energy generation to be increased.
West Lothian Herald & Post, 8 September 2011.
'Lothian MSP Neil Findlay is to call on the Scottish Government to produce a national, co-ordinated, plan for wind farm developments across the country.
' During a meeting with Energy Minister Fergus Ewing, the MSP will voice concerns about the current situation in West Lothian, which is seeing a rush of applications from various development companies.
'The new applications, if approved, are major projects and will see turbines running along the entire southern boundary of West Lothian from Kirknewton through to Shotts.
Northern Echo, 9 August, 2011.
'An MP will today launch a campaign aimed at stopping any further wind farms from being built in the region.
'Sedgefield MP Phil Wilson is taking action after E.ON announced plans that could see England's biggest wind farm built in his constituency.
'The energy firm will launch a formal consultation on August 31, with three proposals to be considered – for either 29, 30 or 45 turbines – on a site east of Newton Aycliffe.
There are rumblings on all sides: Scottish Borders Council planners have said, in the most direct language yet seen from planners, that enough is enough:
...there are major concerns from various sources confimed during the consultation period of the draft SPG that the potential number of approvals in the Scottish Borders is disproportionate to the capacity of the landscape to absorb such developments and if all these proposals were to materialise they would have an adverse cumulative impact on the Borders landscape and its tourism value. 1
In Northumberland, where planners have been eager to recommend acceptance of wind proposals which clearly contravene planning guidance, damage residential amenity and have glaringly obvious defects, county councillors are beginning to ask questions about the scale of the wind rush and the way their planners are behaving.
After the 'Moorsyde' fiasco, many people think that questions should have been asked about the extent to which local authority planners are in bed with the wind industry.2
1 Adopted policy: SBC, 'Supplementary Planning Guidance, Wind Farms', May, 2011 (3.5, p. 10). SBC website.
2 See, 'The Moorsyde Experience' and following columns on the Visuals Page.
Reuters, 2 September, 2011.
'LONDON, Sept 2 (Reuters) - The cost of investing in renewable energy in Britain is £105 billion ($170 billion) higher than building the same capacity using gas-fired power plants, an economics professor said in a report published on Friday.
'The extra investment cost of building power plants such as offshore wind farms is equivalent to nearly 10 percent of overall British business investment in the next 10 years, Gordon Hughes of the University of Edinburgh said in his study 'The Myth of Green Jobs'.
'"It is clear that the public and its political representatives have never signed up to the proposition that the UK should sacrifice a minimum of 4-5 percent of GDP annually in order to meet climate change targets," Hughes said.
The report is available as a PDF file download (1.3Mb).
See also:
Verso Economics, 'Worth The Candle? The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK', March 2011. Full report costs £36, the executive summary can be downloaded from the Verso Website.
CEPOS, 'The case for Denmark', September 2009. (PDF file download).
reNews, 19 August, 2011.
'The troubled Clipper 10MW offshore turbine project Britannia has been kicked into the long grass by US parent company UTC. The decision has forced the Crown Estate to abandon plans to erect a prototype of the machine in the UK [at Blyth].
'Crown officials confirmed this week that the Britannia deal was off the table and that UTC had repaid the £1.6m plus VAT invested by the estate in the turbine project.
'A spokesperson said the "aims and objectives of the (Clipper) investment had been achieved" because the offshore turbine market had been "stimulated" as a result.
'reNews reported doubts about the future of the turbine's development as long ago as October 2010, when UTC grabbed 100% of Clipper. Company sources reacted angrily at the time to reports of a "crisis meeting".
'A second reNews story, in May 2011, revealed that millions of pounds in UK government grant funding for development of the machine had been withdrawn due to Clipper's failure to meet financial and technical milestones.
'Companies linked to the Clipper 10MW project included David Brown Gear Systems and Narec. It is unclear how they will be impacted by the decision to ice Britannia.
'The Crown Estate has been reluctant to provide any information about its tie-up with Clipper, despite a schedule that originally envisioned an operational demonstrator in 2010.
'It said as recently as May that it was continuing to work with the turbine outfit on an updated programme for the project.
'Support for Clipper included £5m from One North East to build a blade manufacturing facility at the Neptune Yard on Tyneside. That is expected to be mothballed.*
'Clipper was also named as a finalist by the UK government in the upcoming NER 300 funding round. The proposal, to deploy a 10MW machine off Blyth in Northumberland, is expected to be withdrawn.
'Clipper announced its Britannia project in October 2007. At the time established turbine manufacturers questioned the logic of putting so much government backing behind an untried offshore technology.'
* See: One NorthEast press release (PDF file).
The regional press has, at last, published a sanitised version of the story, see: 'Wind turbine firm Clipper halts North East investment', The Journal, 24 August, 2011.
Crippling new taxes proposed by Chris Huhne to subsidise green energy could force key employers out of business.
Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph, 17 July, 2011.
'The Lynemouth plant is profitable. It is fairly modern, only 35 years old. It is almost at full production. It is the biggest private employer left in the entire county of Northumberland, contributing £100 million to the local economy.
'Yet it is now at serious risk of closure, the first of dozens of potential victims of what one business spokesman calls Britain's industrial "suicide". [Our emphases].
'Last week, the Energy Secretary, Chris Huhne, announced further massive subsidies for wind farms, nuclear and other forms of low-carbon electricity – all part of Chancellor George Osborne's ambition to make this the "greenest" country in Europe.
'There was already going to be a "carbon floor price", effectively a tax on CO2 emissions, to subsidise wind and other renewables. Now Mr Huhne's further subsidies will be funded by consumers, through much higher electricity bills.
'Lynemouth's problem is that it is probably the UK's single largest user of electricity. Producing just one ton of aluminium uses more power than the average family does in 15 years.
'The new wind farm taxes will cost Lynemouth £40 million a year, a third of its entire operating costs, effectively wiping out its annual profits. Last month, John McCabe, a spokesman for the company, said it was examining "how we cope with the huge cost implications of incoming legislation. A number of options are being discussed, one of which is the closure of the plant."
'Lynemouth's 650 workers, and the hundreds of others it supports indirectly, are only the most exposed of the vast number at risk. Britain is still home to huge amounts of energy-intensive heavy industry, employing millions.
'But Stan Higgins, chief executive of the North East Process Industry Cluster, which represents the region's chemical and pharmaceutical companies, says current government energy policies are "suicidal" and could end up destroying entire sectors of manufacturing.
'"Four or five years ago [in pharmaceuticals], energy was the twelfth most expensive element of manufacturing a tablet," he says. "Now it is second or third.
'"We are trying to be the first country in Europe to introduce [a carbon floor price], but it's crazy to do this independently. Our energy costs are six to seven per cent higher than the European average and that's not sustainable.
'"Most of our big companies are not UK-owned – they have no allegiance to the UK whatever. They will go where they get the best deal. We can compete with the world, but we just need a level playing field."
'Aluminium isn't even the most energy-intensive manufacture. For the chlorine industry, electricity is up to 70 per cent of its costs. And if British chlorine-making collapses, it takes with it thousands of jobs in other sectors that are wholly dependent on chlorine production. Some people have started talking of a "domino effect".
'Jeremy Nicholson, of the Energy Intensive Users Group, says: "Employment in the sectors that are most directly affected by rising green taxes is 225,000.
'And if you look at the Government's projections, their CO2 proposals will hit even firms that are less electro-intensive – paper, glass, ceramics – with a further 600,000 jobs. Factories may not close immediately, but investment won't come here.
'"The issue for us is the cost of electricity here compared with the rest of the world. Britain has the most ambitious targets for renewable energy growth in Europe and is introducing several measures which will only affect UK users."
'The new green taxes will fund several forms of low-carbon electricity, including nuclear. But it is ministers' attachment to wind farms, increasingly offshore, that is causing industry the greatest pain.
'"We don't take issue with the need to decarbonise energy," says Mr Nicholson. "But, for goodness' sake, let's do it cost-effectively. Offshore wind is one of the most expensive ways of reducing our carbon emissions, and one of the least cost-effective ways of generating electricity."
'Last week, Mr Huhne scoffed at such claims. But, as is now widely known, wind farms' biggest problem is that for about three-quarters of the time, the wind does not blow at the right speed to turn the turbines.
'Electricity cannot be stored – you have to generate it at the moment you need it – and the wind might not oblige when 10 million viewers want to switch the kettle on at the end of Coronation Street. So, at the same time as building new wind farms, you must build new conventional power stations as backup.
'The Government does not include the costs of building these backup stations in its figures for wind. Nor does it include the cost of the thousands of miles of extra powerlines needed to collect electricity from wind farms, much more widely scattered than conventional power plants.
'The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) and The Sunday Telegraph asked Colin Gibson, former power network director at the National Grid, for an estimate that takes into account these production costs.
'His figures suggest that across its whole life, onshore wind will cost as much as £178 per megawatt hour of electricity generated, three times nuclear (£60). Offshore wind, with its much higher construction cost, is more than four times dearer, at £254 per megawatt hour.
'Mr Gibson stresses that, though most of his calculations are based on official data, some have to be based on his best judgment, and aren't definitive. But the broad picture is clear. "If you take the costs of a mixture of on and offshore wind, it is very roughly £140 per megawatt hour higher than a mixture of nuclear and gas turbines," he says.
'"Multiply that by the number of megawatt hours we use, and you get a figure in the order of maybe £11 billion a year, which is about £550 per customer per annum [extra] for wind power. That is quite frightening."
'Until now, the main controversy about electricity prices has been to do with consumers. Last week, new figures showed that rising bills have driven another 700,000 people into "fuel poverty". But the impact on manufacturing could deliver a double whammy: not only costing you money, but also costing you your job.
'John Constable, director of the REF, says: "The emphasis on expensive and uncontrollable renewables such as wind, when there are better and cheaper alternatives that could do the same job, is discrediting the green agenda. We are loading very heavy burdens onto viable industries in order to subsidise immature and costly energy technologies."
'"This is a major threat to the UK," warns Nicholson. "I sometimes think that the Department for Climate Change doesn't care if we de-industrialise Britain, so long as we meet our climate targets."'
See the Telegraph website for the full article.
Hugh Sharman, DimWatt.eu, 6 July, 2011.
'It is said that an alcoholic cannot begin to address his illness before he himself recognizes his addiction and is prepared to take treatment, however difficult and painful.
The challenges described in this paper cannot be fixed as long as they remain unrecognized by the people that we in Europe elect to write and abolish legislation.
Elaborate roadmaps to 2050 and lofty-sounding calls for emission targets in the mid-2020s will be as pointless and useless to future generations as any such "road map" for the nation would have been if written in (say) 1910 or 1934.
Among the chief dangers that the UK faces in 2011 is the critical obsolescence of its electricity infrastructure, its essential bankruptcy and the absolutely unrealistic aspirations of almost all its political class, although not its population, for a new, low-carbon, high-growth, job-creating, tax-paying economy.
The imminent closure of 16 GW of coal, oil and nuclear power plants and the realization that these simply cannot be replaced by the equivalent - or even much greater - wind power capacity, (even if it could be built, which is doubtful) is widely recognized in most senior echelons of the UK's financial, manufacturing and engineering companies. How soon this general recognition will seep through to those who make decisions but continue to evade this truth, is very much up to the population at large.'
(DimWatt, 'Can an energy-meltdown be avoided in the United Kingdom?', Conclusions).
"DimWatt is a campaigning web site dedicated to keeping the lights on affordably, maintaining mobility and the UK's position as a manufacturing power in a fast-changing world. We hope to bring together utility management personnel, academics, politicians, civil servants, professionals and concerned citizens who are committed to rational discussion and debate on the challenges facing UK's energy infrastructure today."
Windpower Monthly, 29 June 2011.
'UK: Doubt has been cast upon the economic value and affordability of offshore wind in the UK, by top economist and advisor to the British government Professor Dieter Helm.
'Helm, who is also a professor of New College Oxford, has questioned whether UK consumers will be able to foot the bill for offshore wind energy.
'He suggested gas generation could be a more affordable low carbon alternative.
'Helm holds a number of UK and EU roles including special advisor to the European Commissioner for Energy and a member of the Economics Advisory Group to the UK minister for Energy & Climate Change.
'Speaking at the Economist Energy Summit in London, Helm said: "There is a real doubt whether energy customers can afford the £100 billion UK offshore wind would add to their bills.
'Wind farms: The question is, who will pay?', BBC News video of interview with Professor Dieter Helm.
See previous warnings, below.
This is Money, 26 June 2011.
'Britain's richest energy companies want homeowners to subsidise billions of pounds worth of gas-powered stations that will stand idle for most of the time.
'Talks have taken place between the Government, Centrica, owner of British Gas, and other energy companies on incentives to build the power stations needed as back-ups for the wind farms now being built around the country.
'It is understood 17 gas-fired plants worth about £10 billion will be needed by 2020.
'The Energy Department has been warned that without this massive back-up for the new generation of heavily subsidised giant wind farms, the lights could go out when the wind dies down.
See also:
'Public must foot bill for carbon cuts, warns Centrica Chief', The Times, 23 June, 2011.
Sunday Times, 12 June 2011.
'Wind farm operators were paid £2.6m to keep their turbines idle last month in the latest stealth charge on household power bills.
'Scottish Power, which last week announced price rises averaging 10% for electricity and 19% for gas, was one of the firms paid to switch off turbines. It received approximately £720,000.
'National Grid, which operates Britain's main power and gas transmission networks, admitted it made the payments, which are paid for by the consumer.
'It blamed lulls in demand during May, an unusually warm month, which meant there were times when energy generated by wind farms was not needed. It said efforts to update the power network had not kept pace with the construction of wind farms.
'When The Sunday Times first revealed last month that wind farms were being paid to turn off their turbines[1], the National Grid claimed the £900,000 payments were exceptional. Charles Hendry, the energy minister, also described them as an "anomaly".
'Now research carried out by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) reveals four energy companies were paid to switch off turbines on 16 occasions in May.[2]
1 See: 'Turbine parks paid £900,000 to switch off for one night', below.
2 Renewable Energy Foundation website.
Ironically, on the morning that this article was published the 3,042MW of metered wind capacity in the UK was, according to official records,1 producing as little as 36MW, only 1.05% of headline capacity.
This mirrors the sort of outputs we were seeing at periods of very high national demand last winter.2
1 Balancing Mechanism website.
2 See 'Failing to deliver, again' on the Windpower page.
Reuters, 13 June 2011.
'British wind farms may be shut down about 38 days per year by 2020 to avoid power transmission overload at times of weak demand and high wind speeds, UK energy network operator National Grid said on Monday.[*]
* National Grid, 'Operating the Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020', June 2011 (PDF download).
Northern Times, 9 June, 2011.
'The local authority has forced Scottish and Southern Electricity to shut down a Sutherland wind farm after the company breached planning controls by failing to deal with excessive noise from the development.
'People living close to the Achany wind farm near Rosehall are claiming their lives are being made a misery by the constant noise, and are angry that their complaints are being ignored.
'In an unprecedented move, Highland Council issued a temporary stop notice on the 23-turbine wind farm at 3pm on Monday.
Yet another example of how ETSU-R-97, the noise protocol invented by wind industry acousticians because turbines could not meet the normal industrial noise regulations, fails to protect communities from turbine noise nuisance.
Why haven't other turbine parks with a history of causing noise problems been closed down?
See the Noise page for examples of the problems and the scandalous story of how our government has ducked and dived in order to allow the wind industry to continue building turbines that will cause noise nuisance.
Recently, local councillors in Northumberland were "inundated by calls from local people" when two 125m turbines went up at the MSD Pharmaceuticals site near Cramlington in Northumberland.1 There have also been widespread complaints at the visibility of the new 121m turbines at Lynemouth.
It seems that many people still have as little idea of the size of modern turbines as the lady from Wooler who berated critics of turbine proposals in North Northumberland in the press, saying that she was well aware of the size of modern turbines because she had been in Wansbeck hospital and seen their turbine. The Wansbeck turbine, since closed with blade failure, was 33m high!
The first of 7 new 130m REpower turbines at Blyth Harbour stands in stark contrast to the derelict 42.5m turbine left from the old array.
Many small first generation turbines, such as the old Blyth Harbour turbines, are being replaced ('repowered') with very much larger models. The current generation of turbines are commonly 125-145m high.2
Enercon's E-126 onshore turbine, which has already been deployed at several sites in Germany and Belgium (where it is already causing problems with noise, see video on EPAW website), has a height of 198m (649.6 ft). 3
For comparison, the Chatton TV mast in Northumberland is 152.9m high. The BT tower is 188m and the 40 storey Swiss Re building, 'the Gherkin', is 180m.
German turbine manufacturers Enercon and REpower are both planning the next generation of turbines which it is thought will be up to 250m in height (820 ft).
Vestas have launched their new 187m V164 turbine, aimed, in the first instance, at offshore use.
According to Ditlev Engel, CEO of Vestas, "Its turbine is longer than the Swiss Re building, located in London (180m), and the rotating area of its blade (21,124㎡) is three times as large as Wembley Stadium". 4
It has been announced that, "A UK government-backed consortium of companies, including BP and Rolls-Royce, has launched a project to develop a 90-metre [295 ft] blade." 5
General Electric has unveiled plans for onshore turbines with hub heights of at least 130 metres to allow developers to exploit areas with difficult wind conditions. Their 2.75-103 model has a tip height of over 180m.
Spanish wind turbine manufacturer Gamesa has launched the new G128-4.5 MW turbine which will have a tip height of 188m.
These models will join Vestas' V112 3MW turbine, which is 175m high (130m tower). It has been specifically designed for low wind, onshore sites, 17 are being built on a site in Germany in 2012.
1 Morpeth Herald, 8 October, 2010.
2 125m Aikengall turbine image, Borders page.
3 E-126 construction video.
4 'Wind Power Turbine as Large as the Size of Three Soccer Fields', etnews, 6 April, 2011.
5 'UK to develop 90 metre blade for 10MW turbines', Windpower Monthly, 17 May 2011.
Scottish Natural Heritage's footprint mapping, above, shows the huge spatial footprint of wind turbine arrays in Scotland as of July 2011. Note: these are just the site areas not the 'visual footprint' of turbine schemes (i.e. the area upon which they have a visual impact), which is massively larger.
As Sir Martin Holdgate, retired chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, put it: "The trouble with wind farms is that they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity."
In the 'Moorsyde' case, we had a 300 acre site for seven 360 ft. turbines that might, erratically and intermittently, produce as little as 18-24% of a headline capacity of 14MW.
By comparison, a small, modern combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station has a capacity of 500-600MW and a 50-60% load factor in producing reliable, base load power when it is needed.
The Teesport biomass power station, due to open in 2012, is a compact industrial plant with a single 70-90 metre chimney, and occupies a brownfield, industrial site that is only 11.5% of the area of the 'Moorsyde' site. It will operate for some 8,000 hours per annum producing 2,400,000MWh of predictable, base load power. The project scoping report notes:
'As the project will run 24 hours per day, 365 days per annum, it will generate as much renewable electricity as a 1,000MWe offshore wind farm (equivalent to that generated by the London Array wind farm which is one of the largest renewable energy projects in the world)'
The company claims that this plant will save, " approximately 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions." The 'Moorsyde' developers claimed, using an extravagantly optimistic load factor and making no allowance for reduced output due to noise restrictions or the backup required from conventional power stations, that their project would save 14,650 tonnes. 1
The wind industry and its apologists repeatedly suggest that wind turbines are the only "mature" and "proven" technology available. This is not true. Denmark, often cited as the shining example of wind power, actually produces much more energy - and much more reliable energy - from biomass:
"In Denmark, biomass accounts for approximately 70% of renewable-energy consumption, mostly in the form of straw, wood and renewable wastes, while biogas accounts for less. Consumption of biomass for energy production in Denmark more than quadrupled between 1980 and 2005.." (Danish Energy Authority).
The EU and our government are belatedly waking up to the relative advantages of biomass energy generation and other renewable technologies as the weaknesses of wind power generation gradually become clearer to the politicians.
1 MGT Power. 'Biomass Power Station, Teesport: Final Scoping Report', April 2008.
2 Danish Energy Authority Energy Statistics, 2011 (PDF download).
The wind industry frequently argues that wind turbines are only a temporary blot on the landscape and that they will be removed after "only 25 years".
Like much else they come out with, this is demonstrably untrue.
Delabole was the first commercial wind farm built in the UK, it opened in 1991. The ten 30m (100ft) turbines installed in 1991 were supposed to have a lifespan of 20 years, after which time local people were told they would be removed and the land returned to its original state.
However, after just 16 years they were replaced with fewer 110m turbines. For "only [another] 25 years".
This is being seen all over the country, as the planners nod through repowering applications. After all, if the site is already a power station, there is only the question of its size.
In North East England, we have seen the same process at Blyth Harbour: opened in 1993 with nine 42.5m turbines. Planning permission nodded through in 2008 to replace them with six 125m (410 ft) and one 163m (534 ft) turbines.
The only other first generation wind power station in the North East, at Great Eppleton, in County Durham, has also been repowered. Commissioned in 1997, this array of four 72m twin-bladed turbines was shut down in 2005 after only eight years in operation and has now been replaced by four 115m turbines.
The Planning Inspector at the Boxworth appeal poured cold water on the appellant's argument that the scheme was "temporary":
The appellant has made much of the reversibility of the project, but to my mind the extent to which this argument is deployed rather undermines its efficacy. If the development was compatible with its landscape setting, there would be no need to protest that the scheme is of a temporary nature. Indeed, Para 109 of DOE Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions states that the reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that the time-limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on the amenities of the area. If it is not possible to overcome the adverse effect on amenity, and if the damage cannot be accepted, then the only course open is to refuse permission. I understand from the appellant however that the reason for the proposed temporary period is the unpredictability of changes to the structure and mix of the power supply industry - circumstances may be entirely different in 25 years time. However, in my view this argument is not compatible with the long-term targets in the Energy Review - for example, to cut emissions by 60% by about 2050. In my opinion the development proposed is substantial in nature, and the appellant acknowledges that the period envisaged is equivalent in human terms to a generation. Although I recognise the 25 year period is the appellant's suggestion, I nevertheless understand that some of the earlier turbines on established wind farms have been replaced by more recent models. And, in the event of the appeal succeeding, I consider that this would be a more likely future than the closure of the site at the end of the period. (Appeal Decision APP/W0530/A/05/1190473, Para. 26, P.7 )
The Telegraph, 9 May, 2011.
'Nuclear power should be favoured over plans to build thousands of offshore wind turbines, the Government's climate advisers have indicated.
'The Committee on Climate Change said nuclear would be the most cost–effective way of providing low–carbon electricity into the 2020s, and called for about 14 new plants by the end of the next decade.
'It would mean extending plans to build 12 reactors on seven sites by 2025.
'The committee also said the "very aggressive pace" of government plans to build offshore wind turbines over the next nine years should be "moderated" because of its expense.
Committee on Climate Change, 'Renewable Energy Review', May 2011. Full report and Executive summary available on the CCC website.
See more views on offshore costs from the renewables press, below.
Windpower Monthly, 16 May, 2011.
'The Spanish government plans to slash Spain's projected 2020 offshore wind capacity to 750MW, a cut of 85 percent on the 5GW targeted five years ago.
A report from the influential Policy Exchange think tank has strongly criticised the efficacy of renewables targets and subsidy mechanisms in decarbonising the UK.
We quote from the Executive Summary:
'The huge cost of the renewable energy is its biggest problem. It costs far too much to achieve far too little decarbonisation, diverting resources which could be better used elsewhere. The target also damages and distorts the ability of market processes to discover the best approaches to decarbonisation.
'The government's 2008 Impact Assessment estimated the costs of the UK's overall Renewable Energy Strategy for meeting the 2020 target at approximately £66 billion NPV [net present value]. A parliamentary written answer from January 2011 provided the following forecast of spending between 2011 and 2020 on the policies responding to the RET. "The spending is estimated at £32 billion from 2011 to 2020 under the Renewables Obligation; £3.6 billion under small-scale feed-in tariffs; £9.8 billion under the Renewable Heat Incentive; and £8.9 billion under the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation." Pöyry Consulting found that the UK bears by far the highest cost burden of all EU countries of the target – around a quarter of the cost across the whole EU. The electricity sector takes the majority of the strain of meeting the RET, with £35.6 billion of the cost between 2011 and 2020 in that sector.
'However, these enormous costs achieve little. Previous work by Policy Exchange highlighted the cost of the Renewables Obligation at £130 per tonne of CO2 saved, (and the Feed-InTariffs for small-scale renewable generation at £460) compared with a marginal cost of carbon reduction of only around £14 per tonne of CO2 saved under the technology-neutral EU Emissions Trading Scheme.'
(pp.7-8, Executive Summary).
Simon Moore, Edited by Simon Less, '2020 Hindsight: Does the renewable energy target help the UK decarbonise?', Policy Exchange, 2011.
'U.K. Urged to Abolish Renewable Goals, Spend Less to Cut CO2', Bloomberg, 5 May, 2011.
'Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010'
A Report by Stuart Young, supported by the John Muir Trust.
in respect of analysis of electricity generation from all the U.K. windfarms which are metered by National Grid, November 2008 to December 2010.The following five statements are common assertions made by both the wind industry and Government representatives and agencies. This Report examines those assertions.
"Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year."
"The wind is always blowing somewhere."
"Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent."
"The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight."
"Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods."
This analysis uses publicly available data for a 26 month period between November 2008 and December 2010 and the facts in respect of the above assertions are:
Average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.
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.
At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.
The full report is available from the John Muir Trust website.
The Renewable Energy Foundation has revealed that substantial 'constraint' payments were made to a number of Scottish producers in the first week of April.1 A constraint occurs when the grid system or a section of the system is unable to absorb all the electricity being generated, and some generators that are contracted to generate are asked to stand down.
The April event occurred because the Scottish grid network could not absorb all the energy being generated, and chose to constrain wind power off the system, paying very high prices to compensate wind generators for the lost income, in some cases as high as 20 times the value of the electricity which would otherwise have been generated. In total approximately £890,000 pounds was paid over a few hours to six operators. These costs will be passed on to the consumer.
The National Grid report which informs REF's note demonstrates that when there was an excess of power there was a limited range of power stations capable of reducing output on request in early April, and that the costs of paying these generators to reduce their output covered a substantial range. The most economical plant was coal‐fired, which offered to pay the grid £28 per MWh not to run. Some coal‐fired, gas‐fired and hydro generators were willing to reduce output at no cost, but some of these relatively economical offers could not be taken up by NG because the electricity system must always have access sufficient controllable and flexible electricity generation sources to ramp up and down in order to maintain system frequency.
Due to these limited options National Grid was obliged to pay wind farms to reduce output.
The offer prices which the various Scottish operators set for such a reduction ranged from £150 per MWh to £1,000 MWh (wholesale prices are £40-50 per MWh). Fossil‐fuelled power stations routinely pay into the system when asked to reduce output because they still receive their contracted payments, but also make savings on the fuel they have not had to burn.
Conversely, wind farms, when asked to reduce output, forego subsidies worth approximately £50‐£55 per MWh, from the Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) and Levy Exemption Certificates (LECs), so require payment so as not to be out of pocket. However, as seen from the National Grid report and other data in the public domain, wind farm operators that were paid to reduce output on the 5‐6th April set prices significantly in excess of this level.
For example, Farr wind park was paid £800 per MWh to reduce output, nearly 16 times the value of the subsidy foregone.
The following list shows the wind arrays compensated for not generating in the first part of April 2011:
Critics of the uncontrolled wind build, including Ofgem and National Grid, have long argued that managing a large wind capacity will lead to these sorts of problems.3
While critics have focused on back up requirements and low average load factors, less attention has been paid to the widespread tendency of wind power generation to deliver maximum output during periods of low demand and its frequently demonstrated failure to deliver during periods of peak demand. At the four highest peak load periods of 2010 wind output delivered 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity.2
1 REF, 'High Rewards for Wind Farms Discarding Electricity 5‐6th April 2011', REF, 1 May 2011.
2 Stuart Young Consulting, 'Analysis of UK Wind Generation', 6th April, 2011. Available on the JMT website.
3 Earlier reporting on curtailment - see below.
Press reports:
'Wind farms paid £900,000 to switch off for one night', The Telegraph, 1 May 2011.
'Wind farms paid £900,000 to switch off', Sunday Times, 1 May, 2011 (Paywall protected article).
Reuters, 13 June 2011.
'British wind farms may be shut down about 38 days per year by 2020 to avoid power transmission overload at times of weak demand and high wind speeds, UK energy network operator National Grid said on Monday.
BBC News, 28 February 2011
'Government support for the renewable sector in Scotland is costing more jobs than it creates, a report has claimed. *
'A study by consultants Verso Economics found there was a negative impact from the policy to promote the industry.
'It said 3.7 jobs were lost for every one created in the UK as a whole and that political leaders needed to engage in "honest debate" about the issue.
* Verso Economics, 'Worth The Candle? The Economic Impact of Renewable Energy Policy in Scotland and the UK', March 2011. Full report costs £36, the executive summary can be downloaded from the Verso Website.
One year's estimated Renewables Obligation subsidy for a selection of turbine arrays in S E Scotland and N E England:
Aikengall 1 (East Lothian) |
16 x 3MW (48MW) |
35.4% | 125m | 148,643 MWh/ROC's |
£6.76 million |
Black Hill (Scottish Borders) |
22 x 1.3MW (28.6MW) |
27.8% | 78m | 69,571 MWh/ROC's |
£3.16 million |
Blyth Harbour (Northumberland) |
9 x 0.3MW (2.7MW) |
4.9% | 42.5m | 1,169 MWh/ROC's |
£53,177 |
Bowbeat (Scottish Borders) |
24 x 1.3MW (31.2MW) |
24.4% | 76m | 64,079 MWh/ROC's |
£2.91 million |
Crystal Rig 1 (Scottish Borders) |
20 x 2.5MW (50MW) |
28.4% | 100m | 124,310 MWh/ROC's |
£5.65 million |
Tow Law (Co Durham) |
3 x 0.8MW (2.4MW) |
23.8% | 71m | 4,809 MWh/ROC's |
£218,761 |
Trimdon Grange (Co Durham) |
4 x 1.3MW (5.2MW) |
18.4% | 76m | 8,367 MWh/ROC's |
£380,614 |
West Durham (Co Durham) |
12 x 2MW (24MW) |
25.8% | 100m | 54,157 MWh/ROC's |
£2.46 million |
(Production figures from Ofgem [in REF's 'UK Renewable Energy Data, 2002-2010']. ROC price used is the average of £45.49 from the 28 September 2010 auction ['e.ROC' website]. Red LF figures are those below claimed industry average [30%] and assumed regional LF [29%]. The North East continues to have the worst regional load factors in the UK, see DECC tables on the Windpower page).
All RO subsidies are paid from consumer electricity bills. Renewables subsidies already cost well over £1 billion per year and will escalate steeply in the coming years.
Torness Nuclear Power station (East Lothian) |
2 x 682MW (1,364MW) |
79% | N/A | 9,550,000MWh 0 ROC's |
£0 |
These figures show the extremes of wind production: the most unproductive turbines in the UK, at Blyth Harbour, were rewarded with over £53,000 for producing an insignificant trickle of electricity. The massive 125m turbines at Aikengall on the top of the Lammermuirs were the only machines to achieve what the British Wind Energy Association used to claim was an "average load factor" for modern turbines.
The one consistant factor is the large subsidies paid from consumer tariffs for small amounts of intermittent and unpredictable power from what the wind industry keeps telling us is an "economically competitive", "mature" and "proven" technology.
By comparison, Torness produced 9,550,000 MWh of cheap, base-load electricity in 2009/10 which was comparable with wind in the carbon burden of its production.
Nuclear production is not subsidised. Torness, with over 500 well paid jobs, also made a major contribution to the local economy. Had it been treated in the same way as onshore wind production, it would have been eligible for £434.42 million in subsidies in 2009/10.
Offshore wind parks get twice the RO subsidy that onshore receives. It is calculated that the Swedish owners of the 100 turbine Thanet array off the Kent coast will receive in the region of £1.2 billion in subsidies during the (optimistic) life of the project. It has been pointed out that the same sum, invested now in a single nuclear power station, could yield a staggering 13 times more electricity, and this would be reliable, base-load output rather than intermittent power that requires fossil-fuelled backup (see below).
As Peter Atherton, head utilities analyst at Citi Investment Research, said to the FT: "It's a bonanza. Anyone who can get their nose in the trough is trying to."
NY Times, April 25, 2011.
'The growth of U.S. wind power has begun to create operating challenges for nuclear and coal plants that must be ramped up and down as wind speeds vary, panelists at a Massachusetts Institute of Technology energy conference reported last week.
'Onshore wind farms tend to produce less energy in winter when the demand is highest because freezing conditions mean low wind'.
The Times, 1 April, 2011.
'The average output from Britain's 275 onshore wind farms fell last year to the lowest level on record, according to official figures that call into question the Government's decision to rely heavily on turbines for future energy.
'The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said that the amount of electricity generated from 3,000 land-based turbines fell by 7.7 per cent in 2010. However, the decline per turbine was much greater because the overall capacity of onshore wind farms grew by 14 per cent last year. *
'In its annual Energy Statistics, published yesterday, DECC said: "Ten months of 2010 saw lower wind speeds than the ten-year average."
'Wind farms operated at only 21.4 per cent of their maximum potential capacity, compared with 27.4 per cent in 2009. Southern Electric and Scottish Hydro, the leading renewable energy company, recently reported a 20 per cent decline in output from its turbines. The Government is offering generous subsidies to wind energy companies as part of a strategy to produce a quarter of Britain's electricity by 2020.
'Opponents of wind farms say that this could lead to power cuts during prolonged periods of low wind. The problem is compounded in winter, when freezing conditions are usually accompanied by low wind but demand for electricity is high.
'The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), which lobbies against overreliance on wind energy, said that turbines had a tendency to produce the least energy when they were needed most. It said this had happened last year during the coldest December on record.
The full article is available on The Times website (subscription needed).
* DECC, Energy Trends, March 2011.
See also: 'Britain is becoming less windy', below, and 'Failing to deliver', below.
This graph shows the erratic nature of wind power generation and how difficult it is to forecast output.
Short term wind output forecasts can be highly inaccurate, as was seen for a long period in March and as exampled in period 1 on this graph. During period 6 on Monday, 28 March, total UK metered production fell as low as 9MW, the headline capacity of 3 Vestas V90 turbines. This 9MW was all that was being produced from some 1,550 turbines, including over 400 offshore turbines.
As it happens, it is of little moment whether UK wind capacity manages to produce anything when demand is relatively low (peak demand was forecast at 45,749MW for 28 March) and we have reliable fossil-fuelled capacity available. It was a different matter in December 2010 when wind power repeatedly failed to deliver on days when demand was peaking at 60,000MW and National Grid was scrambling to bring hydro, pumped storage, the French interconnector and even seldom used oil-fired capacity online to meet very high demand.
However, this does demonstrate the fact that we cannot rely on wind power to contribute anything and that we will increasingly need a very large thermal capacity (mostly fuelled with imported gas) available in short order for periods when wind fails to deliver or fails to deliver according to the short term forecast. This fossil-fuelled capacity has to be paid for and its operators will have to be compensated if very large wind capacity is prioritised when the wind happens to be blowing or they are forced to inefficiently (and damagingly) 'cycle' their plant to cover wind production, raising CO2 emissions in the process.
See below for more on the December 2010 story.
While the Government takes the axe to everything from defence to education, it is comforting to know that Cris Huhne, at DECC, is creating jobs:
'In May 2010 they [DECC] employed 1036 people (full time equivalents). Since May 53 people have left. They now employ 1154 (fte).
'That means they have employed an extra 118 staff, and replaced the 52 (fte) that have left, making a grand total of 170 extra hirings.
'I am pleased to report that at Business totals are down by 449, with 500 leaving over the period. At DEFRA totals are down by 539, with leavers amounting to 678. (all fte). The natural wastage rate is running at over 7% per annum at DEFRA and much higher at Business, if all the leavers were voluntary. It shows that there are substantial savings to be had from natural wastage.'
('Staff numbers and controlling costs', John Redwood's blog, 2 March, 2011).
Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy, announced on 16 February that REUK (the trade lobby for the UK wind industry) has agreed on a minimum standard protocol for wind farm community benefits of £1,000 per MW of installed capacity per year.
In response, the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) has drawn attention to the fact that the "financial benefits" proposed reflect only around 0.5% of the total annual income of the average wind farm.1 It is also a fact that these proposed 'benefits' are substantially below the current going rate advertised by many wind developers.2
An average 2.3 MW turbine receives an income of about £500,000 a year, half of which (around £250,000) is subsidy in the form of the Renewables Obligation drawn from consumer bills.3 (The Renewables Obligation subsidy currently costs UK consumers over £1.4bn).
So, for a typical turbine described above, the community benefit of £2,300 a year will be paid out from an income of about £500,000, or roughly 0.5%.
REF believes that other more generous and less divisive forms of community reparation would be preferable, including direct compensation to affected neighbours (as in Denmark), and reduced council tax to reflect lost amenity.
Dr John Constable, Director of Policy & Research said: "The proposed community benefit is just half of one percent of the large subsidy enhanced income derived from our electricity bills; the wind farm industry is taking our money with one hand and expecting us to be grateful for the small change offered with the other. Many will perceive community benefit of this kind and scale as adding insult to injury, and the plan seems unlikely to be persuasive."
1 REF website
2 "In consultation with its members, BWEA [ReUK's previous name] has assumed that the average, annual community fund payment in 2006 equates to £1,500 per MW installed per year." (British Wind Energy Association, 'Onshore Wind: Powering Ahead', March 2006. p.23).
Payments in Scotland have generally been much higher. Highlands Council has Guidelines produced for developers which were adopted by the Council in April 2003:
Powys County Council decided in 2006 that communities that would be seriously affected by wind farm development should receive payments from developers of £5,000.
3 Assumes an average load factor of 25%, a ROC price of £50/MWh and a wholesale electricity price of £50/MWh.
Daily Mail, 29 January 2011
'This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem.'
Read the full article on the Daily Mail website.'According to Britain's politicians, covering the landscape with wind farms is still the future. Last month Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, promised a "seismic shift" to wind and other non-carbon forms of generating electricity.
Andrew Gilligan, The Telegraph, 15 January, 2011.
'In November, Scotland's first minister, Alex Salmond, spoke of wind's "massive economic rewards" in a "renewables revolution". In May, the wind industry trade body, RenewableUK, called the North Sea "the Saudi Arabia of wind".
'Yet it can be revealed that as the rhetoric has climbed ever further up the Beaufort scale, the wind itself has moved in precisely the opposite direction. New figures published by The Sunday Telegraph show that 2010 was, by one authoritative measure, the least windy year since 1824.
'According to other figures from official sources, exclusively compiled for this newspaper, Britain's wind farms turned less in 2010 than in any previous year since detailed records were kept.
'The failure of the country's massive wind industry to generate almost any electricity whatever at the time when it was most needed – during last month's extreme cold snap – has been widely reported. But that, we can reveal, was just the tip of the turbine-blade in a decades-long trend of declining wind. It is a trend causing an increasing crisis for the industry among those, principally investors, who are more aware of events than British politicians.
'"For those who staked their future on assumptions made based off of recent weather patterns, there may be some significant flaws in the business plan," says Todd Crawford, a forecaster at Weather Services International, a consultancy operated by the US's Weather Channel. Moody's, the international credit rating agency, warned that "unusually low levels of wind volumes" were becoming "a key driver of credit risk to investors."
'According to figures compiled by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) for The Sunday Telegraph, UK wind farms generated electricity to just 23.6 per cent of their full capacity between October 2009 and September 2010, based on official data from the electricity regulator, Ofgem. That is lower than in any year since 2002-3, the first year when the figures were collected.
'Provisional January-to-December data, incorporating the cold snap, also shows that 2010 was the least windy year in Britain since the records began. The data has been compiled using Ofgem figures and statistics for wind power provided to the National Grid, Britain's electricity transmission network.
Reuters, 27 August, 2010
'The deals are being launched as it has become clear 2010 has been a bad year for UK wind speeds, perhaps the worse since 1821. Wind speeds clearly have a direct impact on energy MW yields from wind.
'A recent report from wind consultancy Garrad Hassan said UK wind yields have dropped this year to perhaps a 1 in 15 year event due to stable high pressure. Energy levels from wind dropped 27.8% in the first quarter compared with the average and 18.3% in the second quarter - compared with a 5% drop in the last quarter of 2009 and a 15.7% increase in the third quarter of 2009. The North Atlantic Oscillation index has been measured since 1821 and this correlates with the Garrad Hassan wind index which itself been in existence for 15 years. The NAO index numbers for the 4 months from December 2009 to March 2010 were the most negative since 1821.
'Lower than expected wind speeds can be a global phenomenon in the renewables market. In a recent note on FPL Energy American Wind's US$250m of bond debt, rating agency Moody's referred to the recent "very low wind years" in the US.
Even before 2010, European countries were reporting declining year-on-year wind figures: "Generation from Danish wind turbines dropped from 7.0 TWh in 2008 to 6.7 TWh in 2009. This was due to 2009 being a poorer wind year than 2008." (Energinet, Environmental Report 2010).
Daily Mail, 9 January 2011.
'The failure of Britain's wind farms to produce electricity in the extreme cold will cost billions of pounds, create an economic crisis and lead to blackouts, leading industrialists have warned.
'To cover up the ineffectiveness of wind farms the Government will be forced to build emergency back-up power plants, the cost of which will be paid by industry and consumers.
'Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents major companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers in the steel, glass, pottery, paper and chemical industries, said the failure of wind power had profound implications.
'And the cost of the standby generation will be paid for by industry and households through higher bills – which could double by 2020.
'Industry regulator Ofgem has already calculated that the cost of achieving sustainable energy targets – set by Brussels but backed by the British Government – will amount to £200 billion, which will mean that annual household fuel bills will double to about £2,400 on average within the next ten years.
The Times, 2 February 2011
'Britain's leading renewable energy company has reported a 20 per cent fall in the amount of electricity produced by its wind turbines.
'The news came as official figures revealed that on December 30, an exceptionally still day, Britain's 3,000 operational wind turbines produced only 0.04 per cent of the country's power.
'The Energy Minister Charles Hendry told The Times that the figures proved the urgency with which other forms of low-carbon generation needed to be developed.
Reporting their results for the 6 months to 31 December, 2010, Renewable Energy Generation Group (REG), which operates 10 wind power sites, has cited, "Abnormally low wind speeds across the UK" for over £1m of lost EBITDA [Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization].
Dutch News, 28 February, 2011.
'The production of wind energy in the Netherlands fell by 13% last year despite the increase in the number of turbines, the national statistics office CBS said on Monday.
During the coldest December for 120 years, the UK hit a winter peak load (so far) of nearly 60,000MW. Wind power, yet again, failed to deliver.
The fuel types graph shows the scramble to bring hydro, pumped storage, the French interconnector and even seldom used oil-fired capacity online to meet demand. Wind is not even visible on the graph, providing a mere 61MW at peak from a total UK metered capacity of 2,430MW, only 2.5% of its theoretical capacity.
The forecast out-turn graph shows wind output falling as low as 20MW, less than 0.1% of headline capacity.
This underlines National Grid's observations on wind power generation during peak demand for the three winters previous to 2010-11:
In terms of generation availability we saw a small contribution from wind generation at the time of the demand peak, underlining the need to discount the technical availability of intermittent generation types.1
1 National Grid, 'Winter Outlook, 2010-11', 17. See below.
Downloadable PDF file, see National Grid website.
Winter Review 2009/10
17. In terms of generation availability we saw a small contribution from wind generation at the time of the demand peak, underlining the need to discount the technical availability of intermittent generation types.
2009/10 Electricity Generation Capacity
140. A more detailed view of the amount of electricity generated by wind is shown in Figure A.30. This data is based on the wind farms that are currently visible to National Grid through operational metering [all in Scotland, the windiest part of the UK]. These wind farms have a total capacity of approximately 1586 MW. The output varied between 3 MW and 1586 MW with an average of 435 MW. This gives an average load factor of 27% over the period. From a security of energy supply perspective the key issue is the uncertainty and variability of output and the average load factor is of limited use. What can be observed from the data below is two periods of low wind output over several days in early November 2009 and early January 2010. Both of these periods were relatively cold for the time of year and coincided with relatively high electricity demands.
141. Figure A.31 highlights that at the times of peak electricity demand over the last three successive winters wind power output has been relatively low compared with average load factors.
142. Table A.9 gives a summary of wind power generation volumes as operationally metered by National Grid for the last four winters. The volume of wind power generation itself is not particularly a key metric for us from a system operation perspective itself, but here it is a useful indicator of the growth in the impact of wind power with its inherent uncertainty and volatility.
145. [...] Wind generation output was only 7% at the time of the winter peak. [...]
146. Note that for wind and hydro generation in table A.10 that the basis of assumed availability is different to that for other fuel types as it is actual load factor at the time of the demand peak and not technical declared availability as in both cases availability of input energy to the generation is a more limiting factor. In turbine availability terms we expect that wind turbine technical availability was in the high ninety percentage level range, but this has very little significance if the wind is not at a speed where they can generate at full output.
Generation Side Risks
254. Recent history has shown that during peak demand, the demand contribution from wind power could be low. If wind power output is discounted to zero over the winter demand peak, available generation reduces by 200 MW (10% of 1.9 GW capacity). Hence in the current environment the impact of no wind is of low materiality for this winter.
The wind industry's trade body includes the following in its list of 'Top Myths About Wind Energy':
11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy 1
Meanwhile, in the real world ...
Wind Prospect Developments recently won planning permission for eighteen 110m turbines at Green Rigg, near Sweethope Lough in Tynedale, Northumberland. They have once more objected to plans for a tourist development nearby.
Sherod Walker had plans for the eco-friendly Waterfalls holiday park and equestrian centre refused by Northumberland County Council earlier this year, his appeal is due to be heard in February.
The project was expected to create 106 temporary jobs and 67 full-time posts. It would have put £2m a year into the local economy and was backed by local organisations, the naturalist David Bellamy and 330 individual supporters.
The county council turned down the plans on the basis of visual impact – the issue upon which Mr Walker is taking the case to appeal.
He has now submitted a second application for a smaller development of three holiday cottages and two stables on land next to his house on the Waterfalls estate.2
Once again he is facing objections from Wind Prospect, whose turbines are only 450 metres from the Waterfalls park boundary.
Again they say that noise from the wind farm, which is not yet fully operational, must be taken into account in considering the new development.
In a letter from their solicitors regarding the first proposal Wind Prospect stated that:
... this is a proposed holiday centre, where patrons would reasonably expect to sit outside to enjoy the relative peace and quiet of the countryside. [...] Noise from the permitted wind energy development will be very likely to provoke complaints, and this will place both the [NCC] Environmental Health Department and the wind farm operator in an impossible position: a complaint about noise could be found to be justified, and construed as a noise nuisance, even though the wind farm was operating lawfully within the constraints of its planning conditions. 3
So, it appears that a wind development company is admitting that:
wind turbine developments can seriously affect the peace and quiet of the countryside;
wind turbine developments can cause a noise nuisance within the grounds of a nearby property where noise has been monitored;
wind turbine developments can harm or restrict tourism;
complaints about turbine noise may be justified even though the turbine scheme is, "operating lawfully within the constraints of its planning conditions".
1 Renewable UK (formerly known as the British Wind Energy Association) 'Top Myths About Wind Energy'.
2 'Boss takes on wind farm in new battle', The Journal, 20 November, 2010.
3 Letter from Hammonds LLP, 11 June 2010, to Northumberland County Council planning department (letter and map linked here).
• [newly installed] Wind power capacity to slump from 1,368Mw to 90Mw in 2013
• Ministers to announce overhaul of energy market this month
The Guardian, 8 November, 2010.
'Orders for offshore wind turbines in Britain will slump next year, threatening to halt the industry's recent growth and the expected creation of up to 10,000 "green economy" jobs.
'Analysts are forecasting a 93% drop in the installation of new offshore windfarms in 2013 compared with the previous year. As orders for cables, foundations and other equipment are typically made two to three years ahead of the project being completed, the slowdown will start to bite among UK suppliers next year.
'Windfarm developers are worried that the hiatus in the industry will last several years, which could result in large-scale job losses if other related work cannot be found. One said this gap would cause "huge problems" for the supply chain and it would be hard for manufacturers to invest in new facilities in Britain without a steady stream of work.
BBC News, 26 October, 2010.
'A wind turbine manufacturer which received £10m from the Scottish government to safeguard jobs in 2009 has gone bust.
'The Danish company Skykon, which took over the Vestas wind turbine factory in Kintyre last year, has announced it is suspending payments to its creditors.
It seems that, despite government support and huge public subsidies, the wind sector is less than healthy.
In the North East of England, the loss-making Clipper Windpower was recently bailed out by its major shareholder (UTC) in return for agreeing to sell it the remaining shares in the company.
This came after the company was awarded a £4.4 million grant from the Environmental Transformation Fund last year to develop a factory on Tyneside to build its grandiose 'Britannia' offshore wind turbine.
Meanwhile, Vestas, the world's biggest turbine manufacturer and former owners of the Kintyre factory, has announced profits warnings for the second quarter in a row. It says that it will axe 3,000 jobs, 14% of its global workforce, and shut 4 production plants in Denmark and Sweden. The closures in Denmark represent one third of its domestic workforce.
As of 10 December, 2010, Vestas had seen its stock price fall to less than $30 a share from more than $140 in 2008.
Figures released by the American Wind Energy Association on 29 October show a dramatic drop in new projects during 2010. Installations in the first half of 2010 were down 72% on 2009.
To underline the message, Suzlon, the world's No. 3 wind energy company, has announced that it is laying off remaining workers at its Pipestone, Minn., blade factory on 29 December. The company has no orders.
In some ways it is surprising that the wind industry in the US is in such dire straits when it is the beneficiary of massive federal, state and county subsidies.
The US government has itself calculated that the largest turbine array to be built in the US, at Shepherds Flat, in Oregon, 338 wind turbines on a 30 square mile site, will receive $1.2 billion in subsidies for 35 permanent jobs, a cost per job of $34 million.
The recent US election results are likely to put additional strain on the US wind industry. Wide-ranging climate change legislation is likely to be shelved as a result of deep-seated Republican opposition to carbon pricing and scepticism about renewable energy and wind in particular. The wind industry had already been damaged by the revelation that very large incentive payments were being awarded retrospectively to large foreign companies such as Iberdrola.
Obama has highlighted nuclear energy, as well as electric cars and natural gas, as areas where cross-party support could deliver new clean energy legislation.
See: 'Obama vows to work with resurgent Republicans on energy policy overhaul', BusinessGreen, 4 November 2010.
Research from think tank Policy Exchange, which has close links to government ministers, warns that UK consumers will pay the equivalent of 4p on the current basic rate of income tax to bankroll government energy and climate change policies by 2020.
The figures reveal that by 2020, the cost of policies like the Renewables Obligation and Feed-in Tariffs (FiTs) - which pay householders to produce power uneconomically through technologies like solar - will hit over £16 billion a year.
That is a tripling in less than a decade, and equivalent to 4p on the current basic rate of income tax, or 2 per cent of total forecast tax revenues in 2020, according to the think tank.
The 'Green Bills' report can be downloaded from the Policy Exchange website.By Daniel Fineren, Reuters, 14 October, 2010.
'LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's plan to plant thousands of wind turbines at sea may cost cash-strapped consumers dear, reinforce the UK's risky reliance on gas and hinder deep cuts in carbon emissions.
'Shamed by its failure to build many relatively competitive onshore wind farms [? Check the maps, Ed.], Britain is poised to pour tens of billions of pounds into the North Sea in a bid to reduce emissions of climate-warming carbon.
'But offshore wind is one of the most expensive ways to make electricity, even if the multi-billion pound additional cost of building backup gas plants for calm days is ignored.
'The strategy may only prolong Britain's unhealthy reliance on gas when there is little wind, ensuring the power sector continues to emit carbon unless still unproven carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology can trap it.
'"Over commitment to subsidized wind power runs a high risk of cementing gas dependency at those times when our need for electricity is greatest, thus increasing the UK's exposure to gas rather than alleviating it," John Constable, policy director at the Renewable Energy Foundation, said.
'Keen to make up for Britain's poor renewable energy performance to date, largely because of public opposition to onshore wind, the government is offering big incentives to install turbines ever further out at sea at increasing cost.
'The government expects offshore wind to make up most of the renewable electricity capacity needed to reach Britain's legally-binding target of getting 15 percent of its energy from renewables by 2020 and some 33 GW of offshore licenses have been offered to prospective developers.
'Building that many turbines would cost about 99 billion pounds ($158.6 billion), at the UK Energy Research Centre's (UKERC) current estimated capital costs of about 3 billion pounds/GW, for about 15 GW of effective capacity. Grid work is expected to cost another 15 billion.
'Even at an inflated cost to match Finland's infamously over-budget nuclear project -- the Olkiluoto EPR -- Britain could build 24-27 GW of effective EPR capacity for the same money.
'Such a large nuclear contribution could make coal plants redundant and mean less reliance on gas-fired plants which will need ever more imported fuel as Britain's own gas output declines and need CCS fitted if Britain is to meet its 2050 emissions cut goal.'
See also: UK Energy Research Centre - 'Great Expectations: the cost of offshore wind in UK waters – understanding the past and projecting the future', 27 September 2010.
Christopher Booker, Telegraph, 26 September, 2010
'In all the publicity given to the opening of "the world's largest wind farm" off the Kent coast last week, by far the most important and shocking aspect of this vast project was completely overlooked. Over the coming years we will be giving the wind farm's Swedish owners a total of £1.2 billion in subsidies. That same sum, invested now in a single nuclear power station, could yield a staggering 13 times more electricity, with much greater reliability.
'The first all-too-common mistake in the glowing coverage accorded to the inauguration of this Thanet wind farm by the Climate Change Secretary, Chris Huhne, was to accept unquestioningly the claims of the developer, Vattenfall, about its output. The array of 100 three-megawatt (MW) turbines, each the height of Blackpool Tower, will have, it was said, the "capacity" to produce 300MW of electricity, enough to "power" 200,000 (or even 240,000) homes.
'This may be true at those rare moments when the wind is blowing at the right speeds. But the wind, of course, is intermittent, and the average output of these turbines will be barely a quarter of that figure. The latest official figures on the website of Mr Huhne's own department show that last year the average output (or "load factor") of Britain's offshore turbines was only 26 per cent of their capacity.
'Due to its position, the wind farm's owners will be lucky to get, on average, 75MW from their windmills, a fraction of the output of a proper power station. The total amount of electricity the turbines actually produce will equate to the average electricity usage not of 240,000 homes, but of barely half that number.
'A far more significant omission from the media reports, however, was any mention of the colossal subsidies this wind farm will earn. Wind energy is subsidised through the system of Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs), unwittingly paid for by all of us through our electricity bills. Our electricity supply companies are obliged to buy offfshore wind energy at three times its normal price, so that each megawatt hour of electricity receives a 200 per cent subsidy of £100.
'This means that the 75MW produced on average by Thanet will receive subsidies of £60 million a year, on top of the £30-40 million cost of the electricity itself. This is guaranteed for the turbines' estimated working life of 20 years, which means that the total subsidy over the next two decades will be some £1.2 billion. Based on the costings of the current French nuclear programme, that would buy 1 gigawatt (1,000MW) of carbon-free nuclear generating capacity, reliably available 24 hours a day – more than 13 times the average output of the wind farm.
See: UK Energy Research Centre - 'Great Expectations: the cost of offshore wind in UK waters – understanding the past and projecting the future', 27 September 2010.
In public discussions regarding the costs of the Thanet project, RenewableUK (formerly the British Wind Energy Association, the trade lobby of the wind industry) has suggested that very high subsidies for wind power are justified because of the contribution it can make to security of supply.
However, a sober examination of the available data, and analysis by organizations such as Ofgem [see below] and National Grid, suggests that this is a simplistic analysis, and that government subsidy for wind will deepen and cement the gas exposure of the UK electricity system, particularly at times of peak load.
By distorting the market the presence of large quantities of subsidized wind gives the market no option but to invest in gas generation, and not necessarily the most efficient type of such generators.
Investors will make this choice because the variability of wind, which is difficult to predict, creates a volatile market, and gas generation, which is relatively cheap and flexible, reduces investor exposure to this volatility.
A renewables policy that is over-reliant on wind is in fact a gas policy.
The truth of this is already evident in National Grid's planned increases in gas capacity.
Ofgem has stated:
"[…] we consider that the net effect on security of supply of displacing fossil fuel generation with (largely) intermittent renewable sources of generation is at best neutral, but not beneficial. There are considerable management issues that arise in electricity generation […] and no evidence to suggest that the availability of wind is more reliable as a fuel source than imported fossil fuels (which in any case will still be required as a back-up source of generation)."
(Ofgem's response to BERR consultation on the UK Renewable Energy Strategy (Ref 139/08: 2008), 23).
See: National Grid, 'Seven Year Statement, 2010' and 'Winter Outlook, 2010-11'.
Reuters, 27 August, 2010
'LONDON (Project Finance International) - Two projects in the embryonic but fast growing offshore wind sector are currently seeking debt finance. The sponsors, large European utilities, want to transfer construction risk on the deals to the banks to keep the financings off their balance sheets. A further test for the financiers is the fact UK wind speeds have been at 180 year record lows this year - raising concerns about the reliability of wind as an energy source.
'C-Power - in which RWE (RWEG.DE) and EDF (EDF.PA) are involved - has put together a second 950m euros financing on its 325MW Thornton Bank scheme off Belgium while Centrica (CNA.L), DONG [DONG.UL] and Siemens (SIEGn.DE) are out to banks on their new 270MW £1bn Lincs deal off the UK.
'Despite the risks, neither scheme has a construction guarantee from the sponsors. And there is plenty of risk on offshore deals. The Fluor (FLR.N) additional revenue claim on its US$1.7bn Greater Gabbard construction contract now stands at US$202m and could rise further. The 500MW UK scheme, being developed by Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE.L) and RWE, had been suffering from faulty monopiles. The scheme is being financed solely on balance sheet. C-Power believes, as an expansion project with an operating first phase, its construction story is already well progressed. However, its first phase was for just 30MW whereas the latest will be for a further 295MW. The Centrica team is offering various financial contingencies to cover its construction risk - up to £180m on the £1bn plus scheme.
'The deals are being launched as it has become clear 2010 has been a bad year for UK wind speeds, perhaps the worse since 1821. Wind speeds clearly have a direct impact on energy MW yields from wind.
'A recent report from wind consultancy Garrad Hassan said UK wind yields have dropped this year to perhaps a 1 in 15 year event due to stable high pressure. Energy levels from wind dropped 27.8% in the first quarter compared with the average and 18.3% in the second quarter - compared with a 5% drop in the last quarter of 2009 and a 15.7% increase in the third quarter of 2009. The North Atlantic Oscillation index has been measured since 1821 and this correlates with the Garrad Hassan wind index which itself been in existence for 15 years. The NAO index numbers for the 4 months from December 2009 to March 2010 were the most negative since 1821.
'Unless something very odd is happening [climate change?] it is fair to assume wind yields will continue to vary quarter by quarter. Debt and equity financiers use probability models - P50 and P90 tests - to make judgments on the wind yields over a period of time so while low wind yields are not good, they can be factored into financial models.
'The much bigger question, however, is for energy planners. Relying on a variable source of energy creates problems in terms of day-to-day security of power supply, particularly if wind accounts a quarter of the country's power generation by 2030 as planned in the UK. National Grid Company (NG.L) has already started to build up its short term operating reserve (STOR) programme to encourage the building of peaking power plants which can be turned on very quickly, for short periods of time.
Just over 90% of the income to the scheme is backed by power purchase agreements and renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) with Centrica and DONG. The equity on the deal is around 40%. The EIB and EKF have been approached as potential funders, either by providing direct loans or funding banks, or even the EIB funding an EKF guaranteed portion.
Lower than expected wind speeds can be a global phenomenon in the renewables market. In a recent note on FPL Energy American Wind's US$250m of bond debt, rating agency Moody's referred to the recent "very low wind years" in the US. However the bonds kept their rating due the financial structural protections built into the debt. In Europe, rating agency Fitch has downgraded the 350m euros of bonds issued by Breeze Finance twice this year on a portfolio of German and French wind farms to below investment grade due to lower than expected wind yields and some unbudgeted construction costs.' [Our emphases].
Daily Mail, 17 August, 2010.
'It's not exactly rocket science – when building a wind farm, look for a site that is, well, quite windy.
'But more than half of Britain's wind farms are operating at less than 25 per cent capacity.
'In England, the figure rises to 70 per cent of onshore developments, research shows.
'Experts say that over-generous subsidies mean hundreds of turbines are going up on sites that are simply not breezy enough.
'Turbines operating well under capacity are still doing well out of the scheme, but Professor Jefferson, of the London Metropolitan Business School, wants the cash to be reserved for the windiest sites.
'He said: "There is a political motivation to drive non-fossil fuel energy, which I very much respect, but we need more focus."
'He suggests that the full subsidy be restricted to turbines which achieve capacity of 30 per cent or more – managed by just eight of England's 104 on-shore wind farms last year.
'Those that fall below 25 per cent should not be eligible for any subsidy. Professor Jefferson said: 'That would focus the mind to put them in a sensible place.'
'Britain has 2,906 wind turbines spread over 264 sites. But a further 7,000 are planned for the next 12 years to meet European targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
'Nick Medic, of Renewable UK [formerly the British Wind Energy Association], which represents the wind industry, said talk of efficiency was 'unhelpful'.
Copenhagen Post, 1 September 2010.
''Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore'
'State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.
'It had been Dong and the government's plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.
'Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: "It is very difficult to get the public's acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options."
See also: 'An ill wind blows for Denmark's green energy revolution', The Telegraph, 12 September, 2010.
'New nuclear power stations in Finland and Sweden are poison for the Danish wind industry, but good for electricity prices.'
Jyllands-Posten, Denmark, 19 June 2010.
'Sweden's decision to allow the construction of up to 10 new nuclear power stations may result in the electricity price in Denmark collapsing. That will destroy the economy for wind turbines, biogas plant and other forms of sustainable energy, according to Lars Aagaard, a director of Danish Energy.
'According to General director Luis Echávarri of the OECD Nuclear Energy Authority everyone is banking massively on nuclear energy.
'Poland and Italy are new nuclear energy states, while Finland, Great Britain, France, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Belgium as well as the USA, China, India and now Sweden are developing more'.
Copenhagen Post, 21 September 2009.
'The Liberal Party wants to cut state funding for land-based wind turbines in favour of financing biogas, hydrogen and solar cell development. Several parties oppose the idea.
'Since 2005, the wind turbine industry has received an average of 1.3 billion kroner in subsidies each year.
'The government's ally, the Danish People's Party, welcomed the proposal, pointing out that the subsidies had cost residents and electric companies billions of kroner.
'Party group chairman Kristian Thulesen Dahl said consumers had paid huge additional charges on their electric bills for almost three decades, based on an ideological desire to promote the development of wind turbines.
'When the current energy agreement expires in 2012, we expect a new agreement will be reached where support for onshore wind turbines is phased out.'
Ingeniøren, 14 September 2009
'On the 1 October [2009] wind turbine owners risk having to pay to get rid of their power in windy weather. They have therefore developed a system which automatically stops the turbines, they say it is a crying shame to chuck away green power.
Bloomberg, 18 August, 2010
'Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the world's largest wind-turbine maker, lost more than a quarter of its value in Copenhagen trading after it reported a larger-than- expected loss and cut forecasts, blaming delayed orders.
'The stock dropped the most since October 2008 after the Randers, Denmark-based company posted a second-quarter loss of 119 million euros ($153 million), exceeding the average estimate of a 7.3 million-euro loss in a survey of 15 analysts.
'"Right now it's just a shock, and Vestas has suffered a serious blow to its credibility," Teea Reijonen, a London-based analyst with Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, said today in a telephone interview. "Analysts are going to take a very dim view of margins for 2011 given what's happened this year." Reijonen had a "hold" rating on the shares before today.
Denmark and Germany may have a huge installed capacity of onshore wind turbines but the figures should be seen in the context of overall electricity production and consumption.
It is reported that Portugal will review its feed-in tariff mechanism following widespread criticism that the subsidies are excessive and are ramping up electricity prices to consumers. 1
This follows reports in July that the Spanish government is set to trim US$1.5 billion off wind power subsidies.
The Spanish system of funding renewables subsidies, "has created debt of about 16 billion euros for which the government is ultimately liable". 2
The Wall Street Journal reported that cuts in subsidies will result in the loss of 2/3 of wind power jobs by the end of 2010. 3
1 'Portugal set to cut feed-in tariffs', Windpower Monthly, 1 August 2010
2 'Spain Said to Save $1.5 Billion on Wind Power Cuts', Bloomberg Businessweek, 9 July, 2010.
3 'Spain to shed 2/3 of wind power jobs by end 2010', Wall Street Journal, (On IWA), 18 March, 2010.
In the same week that it was reported that the Olympic Delivery Authority spent almost £1m working up plans for a 'symbolic' wind turbine on the Olympic park only to drop the idea when it could not be delivered in time, it has been reported that smaller turbines on top of the Civic Centre in Kirklees have proved to be an expensive fiasco:
Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 31 July, 2010.
'More than FOUR MONTHS after one of the two turbines on top of Civic Centre 3 broke down, it is still out of action.
'And a Kirklees Council spokesman said there was still no date for a repair.
'The two turbines on top of the building alongside the ring road have become a familiar sight since they were put up four years ago.
'But in the middle of March, one of the two 6kw turbines had stopped working and Kirklees Council confirmed it was broken.
'The council confirmed the electrical generator was faulty and officials were investigating repair costs.
'Today, a council spokesman said: "No date has been set for the repair of the faulty turbine."
'The Examiner revealed last summer that the pair of 27ft-tall turbines on top of the Civic Centre cost far more to run than the amount of money they save the council.
'The two turbines only generated enough energy to cover a third of their upkeep in 2008.
'The two turbines brought £2,078 into Kirklees Council coffers, but cost £6,431 to maintain and repair.
'They cost the council £101,000 to buy and install.'
Recharge News 12 July, 2010
'The offshore wind industry faces a disquieting reality: that the cost of building projects has risen dramatically over the past five years - and is likely to continue rising for the foreseeable future, rather than fall as has been predicted.
'"Let's face it, if you didn't have government support through the EIB [European Investment Bank] pouring in, very few of these projects would be going ahead", says Subocean managing director John Sinclair. In the past, when confronted with offshore wind's eyebrow-raising price tag, supporters have consistently fallen back on the line that costs will shrink as the industry gains experience and economies of scale.
'That may yet prove true. But with 1GW now installed in UK waters, and the industry supposedly shifting into a rapid-growth phase in anticipation of Round 3, the notion that offshore wind will naturally become cheaper seems more slippery now than ever.
'"Sadly, it would seem we have not derived benefits from learning, scale and technological improvement over the last five years," says Rob Hastings, director of the marine estate at the UK's Crown Estate. "We have, indeed, gone backwards."
'Consider the 60MW North Hoyle project, owned by Germany's RWE, which in 2003 became the first major offshore wind farm commissioned in UK waters. North Hoyle was built at a cost of £1.2m ($1.8m) per megawatt, according to Hastings.
'Allowing for price inflation and the current weakness of the pound, it would cost at least £2.6m/MW if built today.
'Yet even that figure is significantly less than the £3.25m/MW average quoted for most projects currently moving into the water. Moreover, a new report, written by consultant Douglas-Westwood and published by the trade body RenewableUK, concludes that things will get worse before they get better.
'"It is likely that costs will increase - or at least remain high - during the initial stages of Round 3 projects due to a combination of factors, such as increased project size, distance from shore and water depth," the report says.
'With Round 3 projects not set to enter construction until 2014 at the earliest, many industry sources worry that investors will simply lose patience. A financial chill - exacerbated by the recession - has already clouded the prospects for many projects.
'Making matters worse, the UK has not decided whether to extend the increased Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) [subsidy] banding for offshore wind, set to regress from two to 1.5 ROCs in 2014.
Bloomberg Businessweek, 12 July, 2010.
'Thousands of U.K. manufacturing jobs are threatened by the government's drive to slash carbon dioxide emissions and boost renewable power, London-based policy analyst Civitas said in a report.
'Green energy policies have already boosted energy bills to businesses by 21 percent, a figure that could rise to 70 percent by 2020, the group said today. That endangers jobs in industries such as steel, cement, chemicals, paper, ceramics and plastics, according to Jeremy Nicholson, a co-author of the 35-page study.
'"If we do not see reform of energy and climate legislation a whole swathe of businesses will not be able to operate competitively in the U.K.," Nicholson said in a telephone interview. "The only question is how long it takes for their closure to result."
The wind industry trade press reports that major repairs are required on 181 Siemens turbines at four different UK offshore wind parks. In addition to Dong Energy's Gunfleet Sands, the affected developments are: Burbo Bank (Dong), Rhyl Flats (RWE NPower) and Lynn and Inner Dowsing (Centrica). Gunfleet Sands was only brought online last month.
The turbines require "extensive work" in order to address problems "relating to corrosion protection of pitch bearings in blades". This will require the removal of blades using a specialist 7000-ton vessel hired for the task.
Offshore turbine parks have experienced repeated problems with corrosion and blade and gearbox failures, as well as major construction faults. This does not help the costs of offshore wind projects, including very high insurance premiums.
Some major turbine manufacturers, such as Enercon, refuse to get involved with the marine market.
Full story: 'Wind Power Monthly', 17 August 2010)
See also:
'OVG report points to fatuous Crown Estate build estimates', Press & Journal, Energy, 7 June 2010.
'Cash crisis is a threat to wind target', This is Money, 25 July 2010
'Fall of 7.5% in power obtained from wind, hydro and other renewable sources blamed on dry winter with low wind speeds.
The Guardian, 28 June 2010.
'Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.
'The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).
'The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.
'RenewableUK [formerly know as the British Wind Energy Association], the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.
'However Sir David King, the government's former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. "We can't rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," he said.' [our emphasis]
See also:
'Failing to deliver', Windpower page.
'Experts warn of power cuts as warm, dry weather creates a blow for wind turbine energy', The Scotsman, 04 July 2010.
By Robert Mendick, The Telegraph, 19 Jun 2010.
'Britain's biggest wind farm companies are to be paid not to produce electricity when the wind is blowing.
'Energy firms will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing.
'Critics of wind farms have seized on the revelation as evidence of the unsuitability of turbines to meet the UK's energy needs in the future. They claim that the 'intermittent' nature of wind makes such farms unreliable providers of electricity.
'The National Grid fears that on breezy summer nights, wind farms could actually cause a surge in the electricity supply which is not met by demand from businesses and households.
'The electricity cannot be stored, so one solution – known as 'the balancing mechanism' – is to switch off or reduce the power supplied. 1
'The system is already used to reduce supply from coal and gas-fired power stations when there is low demand. But shutting down wind farms is likely to cost the National grid – and ultimately consumers – far more. When wind turbines are turned off, owners are being deprived not only of money for the electricity they would have generated but also lucrative 'green' subsidies for that electricity.
'The first successful test shut down of wind farms took place three weeks ago. Scottish Power received £13,000 for closing down two farms for a little over an hour on 30 May at about five in the morning.
'Whereas coal and gas power stations often pay the National Grid £15 to £20 per megawatt hour they do not supply, Scottish Power was paid £180 per megawatt hour during the test to switch off its turbines.
'It raises the prospect of hugely profitable electricity suppliers receiving large sums of money from the National Grid just for switching off wind turbines.
'Dr Lee Moroney, planning director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank opposed to the widespread introduction of wind farms, said: "As more and more wind farms come on stream this will become more and more of an issue. Wind power is not controllable and does not provide a solid supply to keep the national grid manageable. Paying multinational companies large sums of money not to supply electricity seems wrong."
'Earlier this year, The Sunday Telegraph revealed that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.
'The proceeds of the levy, known as the Renewables Obligation (RO), are divided between the main renewable energy sources, with wind receiving 40 per cent, landfill gas 25 per cent, biomass 20 per cent, hydroelectric 12 per cent and sewage gas 3 per cent.
'Professor Michael Laughton, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of London, said: "People will find it very hard to understand that an electricity company is getting paid the market rate plus a subsidy for doing nothing. It is essentially a waste of consumers' money."
Reuters, 13 June 2011.
'British wind farms may be shut down about 38 days per year by 2020 to avoid power transmission overload at times of weak demand and high wind speeds, UK energy network operator National Grid said on Monday.
In 2006 wind turbines were taken off the grid for several hours on about 40 windy days in the effort to dampen instability, "And with respect to this year [2007] we are already talking about a downtime of 15 percent," said Hermann Albers, vice president of the BWE [German Wind Energy Association ]. 2
Germany's huge installed wind capacity has not delivered on the forecasts made for it, delivering only 17-18% of installed capacity. It has also caused increasing and serious instability in the electricity supply system.
As in the UK, there are also huge cost implications in strengthening the transmission system to try and cope with intermittent wind power surges:
'FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - German utilities are warning the government of bottlenecks in power transmission grids due to the difficulties of integrating higher shares of wind energy, Handelsblatt reported.
'The number of incidents has risen significantly over the past two years, the report said. Vattenfall Europe AG's transmission unit recorded 155 days where the situation was critical on grids last year [2007], and 28 out of 29 days so far this year. 3
Germany is committed to not replacing nuclear stations and it was announced in 2007 that they will have to build 26 new coal- and lignite-fired power stations in order to provide stable, base-load power generation. Lignite, or 'brown coal', is even more environmentally damaging than coal.
'German state agency calls for new power stations.'
'Demand increases and supply volatility arising from a growing share of erratic production from renewable sources still make new coal and gas-fired power stations necessary, Dena Managing Director Stephan Kohler said during a trade fair.'
'Kohler illustrated problems with wind energy, saying 23,000 MW were nominally installed, but high pressure fronts in January curbed wind speeds. On one day, only 113 MW capacity was active.'
'"This is nothing against renewables, we will just run into problems if we have 45,000 MW of weak load in the system (2020), we'd have to store power (which is technically not yet possible) or look abroad in the European market environment," he said.'
'But imports from neighbouring Europe could not solve the problems as it faced wider supply shortfall scenarios itself.'
'Also, more trade would necessitate more spending on cross-border transmission lines, which faced uncertainty, Kohler said.' 4
The Danes now penalise wind producers through the use of penalty payments when the spot market for electricity dictates that there is no demand for their product:
'Now the wind turbines stop, just when it blows most' (Denmark)
Ingeniøren, 14 September 2009
'On the 1 October [2009] wind turbine owners risk having to pay to get rid of their power in windy weather. They have therefore developed a system which automatically stops the turbines, they say it is a crying shame to chuck away green power.
'On the afternoon of May 19, in a single chaotic hour, more than a thousand wind turbines in the Columbia River Gorge went from spinning lazily in the breeze to full throttle as a storm rolled east out of Hood River.
'Suddenly, almost two nuclear plants worth of extra power was sizzling down the lines -- the largest hourly spike in wind power the Northwest has ever experienced.
'At the Bonneville Power Administration's control room in Vancouver, it was too much of a good thing. More electricity than its customers needed. More than the available power lines could export from the region. And more than the grid could readily absorb by ramping down generation at the region's network of federal dams.
'So the edict went out: Feather your turbine blades; slash output.
'It was an unwelcome instruction for wind farm owners, whose economics depend on generating electricity whenever possible. Yet it's one likely to go out with increasing frequency.
'During the last three years, the building boom spawned by green energy mandates in Oregon, Washington and California doubled the generation capacity of wind farms in the region. By 2013, it's expected to double again.
'That seems like great news. Plenty of carbon-free energy with no fuel costs. Jobs. Property taxes.
'In the real world, however, the pace and geographic concentration of wind development, coupled with wild swings in its output, are overwhelming the region's electrical grid and outstripping its ability to use the power or send it elsewhere. [...]' 5
1 See Balancing Mechanism website.
2 'Wind parks: a hot power lines dispute', Heise Online, 23 June 2006.
3 'German utilities warn of power bottlenecks due to wind integration.' Thomson Financial News, CNBC,
4 'Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants -- Despite High Emissions.'Spiegel Online, 22 March 2007.
5 'Too much of a good thing: Growth in wind power makes life difficult for grid managers'The Oregonian, 17 July 2010.
'German state agency calls for new power stations.'Yahoo, Finance (Reuters), 10 February 2009..
'Germany's Green-Energy Gap. Germany stumbles in its move to replace coal and nuclear power with offshore wind energy.'IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] Spectrum magazine feature, July 2009.
"Given that government (and also government planning) policy is in favour of wind and other renewables, I wouldn't encourage you to query the carbon benefits of wind farms."
(David Liddell, a planning official at the Scottish Government, quoted below).
By Jenny Fyall, The Scotsman, 12 June 2010.
'Damaging wind farms that unleash carbon dioxide from the soil are being permitted in Scotland because no government body is equipped to advise on the impact of building on peatland, The Scotsman has learned. Peat bog has been described as "Scotland's rainforest" because it stores huge quantities of the greenhouse gas , which is released into the atmosphere if the peat is disturbed.
However, council planning teams in Scotland have been unable to get advice on the damage individual wind farms will do, because of a lack of anyone with the necessary expertise.
Documents seen by The Scotsman reveal that neither the Scottish Government, the country's environment watchdog the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, nor Scottish Natural Heritage, can provide informed advice on the issue.
Environmental groups have said they think it "extraordinary" that such an important issue has been neglected and there have been calls for a moratorium on wind farms on peatland until the issue is resolved.
Planning officials at Shetland Islands Council tried to get advice on the likely impact on peat of the 150-turbine Viking Wind Farm, which, if built, would be the largest onshore wind farm in Europe.
However, they came up against a brick wall.
A reply from David Liddell, a planning official at the Scottish Government, said: "Sorry, but not aware of a particular source of expertise on the carbon accounting query."
In what the Shetland Council staff member, Hannah Nelson, then described to colleagues in an e-mail as a "surprising response", Mr Liddell added: "Given that government (and also government planning) policy is in favour of wind and other renewables, I wouldn't encourage you to query the carbon benefits of wind farms."
Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, said: "I think it's extraordinary that there is nobody available with the necessary expertise. It seems to be a case of see no evil, hear no evil."
"How on earth are local councils supposed to know what to do? It's absolutely urgent that something is done about this."
She believes wind farms that damage peat bogs have already been granted permission in Scotland.
Wales Online, 6 April 2010. (Article on a Report prepared for the Welsh Assembly).
'Both Environment Agency Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales pointed out that turbines have been built without any thought to the effect on carbon storage – and are now allowing carbon that has long been locked away to be released from the land.
'Forestry Commission Wales confirmed that no assessment had been made of the impact of the Welsh Assembly Government's policy of using national forest estates for wind turbines on the carbon stored in the uplands.
'And no-one knew who was responsible. The Forestry Commission indicated that it was the planning authorities, but Environment Minister Jane Davidson suggested that it was the responsibility of the developer.
'The report expressed concern that no-one accepted overall responsibility and called on the WAG to carry out the assessment, and for soil carbon management to become a central consideration in the current review of TAN8 – the policy that defines areas suitable for wind turbines.
'It also called for a ban on forestry and wind turbines on deep peat "in order to ensure maximum environmental benefit in future".
'CPRW director Peter Ogden called for an immediate moratorium on any further wind schemes proposed in upland areas with deep peat.
Daily Mail, 10th June 2010
'Nick Clegg's wife has accepted a lucrative job with a major Spanish wind farm firm just weeks after her husband became Deputy Prime Minister.
'Miriam Clegg is joining the board of Acciona which has been awarded contracts in Britain.
'The high-flying Spanish-born lawyer has risked conflict of interest accusations by acting as an independent adviser to the firm which is the world's largest provider of wind farms.
Daily Mail, 29 March, 2010.
'David Cameron's father-in-law is among rich landowners cashing in on Labour's green subsidies, with a wind farm generating an estimated £3.5million a year on his country estate.
'Sir Reginald Sheffield, 63, who is worth at least £20million, splits the profits with the project's developers.
Around half of the income comes from a government scheme to make power companies use more renewable energy, much of it bought from private generators. It is subsidised by every household, via their electricity bills.
'Sir Reginald's eight 400ft turbines were switched on last August at Bagmoor, part of the 3,000-acre Normanby Hall estate near Scunthorpe that has been in his family since the 16th century.
'He plans a second development at nearby Flixborough Grange, despite fierce opposition from locals.
Press & Journal, 24 March, 2010
'PLANS to instal a wind turbine at a north-east school have received a setback after councillors heard the mast would take more than 100 years to turn a profit.
'Aberdeenshire Council wanted to erect the structure at Balmedie Primary School.
'Councillors on the Formartine area committee refused to give the project the go-ahead after hearing it would cost £102,156.54 to instal.
'"The estimated annual reduction in electricity costs due to the energy produced by the wind turbine is £1,000."
'The report went on to say it would take 100 years to pay for itself without taking into account maintenance or rising energy costs, adding that "the payback period is significantly longer [by at least five times!] than the expected life of the turbine".'
Times Online, May 16, 2010
'For someone keen not only to do their bit for the environment, but to be seen to be doing their bit, there is nothing better than erecting a wind turbine in the garden. The neighbours may be wary, but those spinning blades are clear proof of your green credentials.
'When it comes to generating electricity, however, they may not be all they're cracked up to be, as the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby has found. The presenter of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions?, who courted controversy last year by erecting a 50ft turbine in the grounds of his Devon home, revealed last week that its blades were turning rather more slowly than he had hoped.
'"It's meant to produce about 11,000kW a year, but it's not delivering anything like that," he complained. "I'm afraid we need a very bad summer for it to deliver its potential."
'Government urged to step in to stop energy cuts
The Times, February 3, 2010
'Britain's energy regulator today urged the Government to tear up the existing rules governing the privatised energy market and take greater control to ensure future supply.
'Ofgem said the country could face power and gas shortages after 2015 because ageing power stations are not being replaced quickly enough.
'The country needs up to £200 billion of investment in new low-carbon power stations and gas storage, it said, but existing Government incentives are not strong enough to encourage private companies to invest.
'It proposed five options for Government intervention in the market — all of which would effectively increase government control over the building of new power stations and infrastructure, replacing existing market-based incentives.
'Its most radical suggestion was to create a centralised energy buyer which would effectively undo the past 12 years of liberalisation, turning back to the early days of privatisation when a central "pool" was responsible for buying energy.
'Ofgem said the changes were necessary because there was "reasonable doubt" whether Britain's current energy market will be able to deliver sustainable supplies in the years to come and that the current supply was only "relatively" secure for another five years.
'The rising costs of gas and electricity meant that eventually growing numbers of households would not be able to afford the gas and electricity they would need, it said.
Sunday Express, 15 November,2009.
'The Government's renewable energy strategy is in tatters after a report exposing the true costs of generating electricity by wind power.
'An internal document from the National Grid, seen by the Sunday Express, says wind turbine energy will at times cost over 3,000 per cent more than conventional power.
'Industry experts say over-reliance on wind power could mean fuel poverty for consumers, as older power plants reach the end of their working lives while Britain's new generation of nuclear stations is still a long way off completion. Some experts claim the cost of upgrading the nation's electricity grid – so it is possible to use all the renewable energy – could be £250 billion or 10 times the Government's estimates.
'The revelations will make uncomfortable reading for Gordon Brown and his team, who have pinned much of their hopes of meeting carbon emission targets on wind power.
'Professor Ian Fells, Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, said: "For a long time I have thought that the wind power bubble would burst. I think that's starting to happen.
'"Ed Miliband tells people that to oppose wind farms is morally indefensible, but as more people start to realise the reality of what wind power actually offers, that will change."
'The National Grid document, 'Accessing Renewable Energy', deals with the issue of "balancing the grid" to get the right amount of power from different sources across the UK so that it can maintain a supply to customers.
'It says wind power could cost "£300 – £800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at £23 per MWH".
'With generating capacity from wind "increasing rapidly", the document says the company is presented with "a range of challenges" in managing output. It talks clearly of the "need to curtail wind" because "conventional power is more economic".
'A National Grid spokeswoman said the formula for working out the figures was "very complex". She said no one had actually paid such a high price for wind power and that the figures related to possible costs on the futures market. But an energy industry insider said: "These facts make for interesting, if not worrying reading.
'"When they have too much power the Grid bids to shut down operators, but you can't just switch a big power station off and then hope the wind blows. By the same measure, if the wind doesn't blow you can't simply start up a power station at the flick of a switch. It will cost.
'"What they are saying is that wind farms will be producing power which will not be used, and it's the taxpayer who'll be footing the bill. It's a double whammy because consumers are already paying extra on their fuel bills to fund renewable energy."
'Under the Renewables Obligation, an incentive scheme to generate more green electricity, six per cent of everyone's electricity bill is paid to the Government to fund research. This week Lloyds and RBS said they were involved in a loans scheme offering £700million to onshore windfarm firms, which will be matched by the European Investment Bank. The power industry watchdog Ofgem says electricity prices could rise by 60 per cent by 2012, leaving many in fuel poverty.
'Prof Fells said that while wind turbines provide such a small amount of power – about two per cent of the country's energy needs – few customers notice the extra on their bills.
'"Last year subsidies paid out on wind and landfill gas was £1billion. By 2020 that figure will be £30billion. That could subsidise six nuclear power stations. And they operate all the time and don't rely on what the weather is doing."
'The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "Wind is at the heart of our renewable energy strategy and it will stay there. A more realistic comparison of conventional and wind power would be £23 MWH compared to £30 or £80 MWH.
'"The figure of £250billion to upgrade the grid is also not a figure we recognise. It's estimated the cost to deliver our 2020 target is an additional £4.7billion with an additional £15billion needed for offshore grid connections."'
Meanwhile it is becoming more and more apparent to even the more gullible that the UK's self-imposed wind targets are not realistic or affordable, and that they will not be delivered.
Experts and the power industry are becoming more vocal in their condemnation of the Government's stubborn refusal to face the facts.
A report, 'Climate Change, Have We Lost the Battle?', by The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has criticised government climate change targets as "unachievable". Far from realising a reduction our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, the UK is already losing the climate change mitigation battle. The report notes:
The greenhouse gas emission targets set by the Government require a rate of reduction that has never been achieved by even the most progressive nations in the world.
On a global perspective, the UK is one of the better performing nations – China, United States and Germany (with a massive onshore wind capacity) all having economies with higher carbon intensities.
The report does not analyse the reasons for our modest improvement, which many experts say is mainly due to the 'dash for gas' during the Thatcher years and the export of much of our heavy industrial base to countries such as China.
Even more recently, the economic downturn has helped reduce emissions.
France has the most decarbonised economy among the large developed nations. The report notes:
This was achieved as it moved towards nuclear power as the predominant source of electricity generation. However, today France is struggling to increase its decarbonisation rates.
For the UK to be on track to achieve the emission reductions required by the Act, it would have to become as carbon efficient as France by about 2015. To put the magnitude of this challenge into perspective, it is equivalent to the UK constructing and putting into service about 30 new nuclear power stations in the next five years, while retiring an equal amount of coal-fired generation! 1(Our emphasis).
This view is supported by other reports, for example:
... after a decade of pushing windmills and having come perilously close to grid failure in the cold winter of 2008, the UK now has a policy to build a few new nuclear plants. But it faces grave shortages of trained personnel and, as a Johnny-come-lately to new nuclear build, a global shortage of critical component manufacturing capacity.
The European country which has been most ambitious in its attempt to legislate a top-down emissions policy has been the United Kingdom, with passage of the Climate Change Act in November 2008. Specifically, it requires Britain, by law, to achieve by 2016 a carbon efficiency of its economy equivalent to that of the world-leading major economy, France. That would require, for example, building and putting into operation 30 nuclear power stations in 7 years. Thereafter, assuming a GDP growth of 2% p.a., a year-on-year annual rate of decarbonisation of 5.3% is required to reach the Act's target; whereas there is no record of any economy having achieved greater than 2.0%, and then only for short spells. In sum, this Act requires the UK to achieve the
impossible. 2
1 The IMECH report may be downloaded here (1.08Mb PDF download).
2 Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford (LSE Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events), 'How to get climate policy back on course'. July 2009. PDF download (0.6Mb) available here.
The Times, October 18, 2009.
'Government plans to generate 30 per cent of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2020 are doomed to failure, according to the chief executive of one of the world's biggest utility companies.
'Wulf Bernotat, chief executive of E.ON, said that British politicians needed to stop misleading the public about what was achievable.
'He said that British plans to build 33 gigawatts of offshore wind power, up from 0.6 gigawatts at present, was impossible, given the necessary investment and relatively short timeframe. "Politicians need to be more realistic," he said. "If you just set out these targets without really taking the effort to square it with industry, then you end up with the dilemma of it not being achievable."
'E.ON, which reported 2008 revenues of €87 billion (£79 billion), more than any of its peers, plans to spend €10 billion a year globally on new power-generating equipment, including nuclear power plants, wind farms, gas and coal plants. It has invested about £930 million in Britain this year and is a key partner in London Array, a £3 billion project to build the world's largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary.
'Mr Bernotat said that there was a bigger mismatch between government targets and what was achievable in Britain than in E.ON's other key European markets, including its home market. "Germany started earlier and there is a bigger base to build on," he said. "It's not a question of willingness. Targets have to be ambitious but the expectation level should be realistic." E.ON, which employs 88,000 people, has eight million customers in Britain through its UK subsidiary. Its ten coal, gas and oil-fired power stations generate about 10 per cent of the UK's electricity.
'A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: "We must clean up our energy supplies to meet our climate change goals and that will mean a massive expansion of renewable energy. Our target is ambitious but we have a strategy to meet it by 2020."'.
See fuller version of interview with Wulf Bernotot: 'Monday manifesto: UK renewable energy target 'naive' says Wulf Bernotat', The Times, October 19, 2009.
See below for comment on the Government's equally exaggerated 'green jobs' forecasts.
Germany's huge, and hugely subsidised, wind capacity has not resulted in any reduction in CO2 emissions according to some reports: 'Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals', Spiegel Online; 'Germany's renewable myth', Financial Post.
'The image shows clouds forming in the wakes of the front row of wind turbines of the Horns Rev wind farm off the coast of Denmark. The downstream wind turbines lose 20% or 30% of their power, and sometimes even more, relative to the front row. The spacing of the turbines is 7 diameters.' (Wind Watch website).
The combined capacity of Horns Rev (80 x 110m turbines) and Horns Rev II (91 x 115m turbines), is 369MW. The combined output of these two enormous schemes will be substantially less than that of a single CCGT gas generating unit.
This is an effect that has not, as far as we know, been factored into consideration of the impacts of coastal turbine arrays on nearby tourist resorts.
No doubt the tourist businesses in Rhyll, Llandudno, Hastings, and in resorts on the Dorset and Norfolk coasts are looking forward to more cloud cover provided by offshore turbines!
The Times, December 13, 2009
'Civil servants have suppressed warnings that wind turbines can generate noise damaging people's health for several square miles around.
'The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high — 43 decibels — that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep.
'The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible "beating" noises as they spun.
'It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.
'It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain have been allowed to generate much higher levels of noise, sparking protests from people living near them.
The FOI material behind this story is available on the Den Brook Judicial Review Group (DBJRG) website.
See the Noise Page for more on turbine noise nuisance.
"Only when the public can trust the Government and wind farm developers on noise issues will there be a chance that the public will accept them without a fight ..." (Editorial, Noise Bulletin, Issue 15, Aug/Sept. 2007).
"...due to the intermittency of wind, we will need significantly more generating capacity in the longer term." (Ed Miliband, DECC Minister). 1
This is something power engineers have been telling government for many years. Renewable UK (formerly the wind industry lobbying body, the British Wind Energy Association), however, continues to insist on "the myth of intermittency").
1 Ed Miliband, Statement to the House on the draft National Policy Statements, 9 November 2009. (See DECC press release).
Simon Hoggert's sketch in The Guardian, 10 November, concluded:
'Finally we had the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, explain that after only 12 and a half years delay, the government was going to speed up the planning process for lots more nuclear power stations. It was, we gathered, an emergency. If we didn't get the power stations, the lights would start going out.
'He actually came close to admitting that turbines, with their "intermittent wind" (this sounded like a much-loved but elderly dog that lies in front of the fire turning the air in the sitting room foul) were a waste of time and money.
'But these monstrosities have never been there to provide quantities of clean power. Turbines are the cathedrals of the green religion, huge, vastly expensive and largely useless symbols of faith. However, unlike wind turbines, most cathedrals are beautiful. Except Guildford, of course.'
In Planning Policy 6, Renewables, the Scottish Executive recommends a separation distance of 2km for large wind farms, which they define as having a headline capacity of 20MW ('Moorsyde' had a capacity of 38.5MW when the planning application was submitted):
PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
The Scottish Minister has recently confirmed that this policy also applies to small hamlets and even individual dwellings:
... SPP6 confirms that, in all instances, proposals should not be permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. This principle applies to houses within and outwith 2km of the proposed development and regardless of whether they are single dwellings or part of a settlement.
(Letter from Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, to Stop Highland Windfarms Campaign (SHWC).
When consulted on 'Moorsyde', Scottish Borders Council stated:
... this site would not be supported were the proposal to be located in the Scottish borders, primarily by virtue of its landscape character.
(Alistair Lorrimer, Asst. Head of Development Control, SBC.22 February, 2005. Moorsyde planning file).
Note that there are several homes within 1km of the 'Moorsyde' and that all the Berwick appeal proposals would be unacceptable under Scottish guidance.
There is no up-to-date guidance on separation distances from housing in England and Wales. In answer to a parliamentary question on separation distances from Sir Alan Beith, the then DTI minister answered:
The issue of windfarms and their proximity to dwellings and roads should be considered at the planning stage of individual developments and will be subject to policies in the local authority's development plan and the national policies set out in Planning Policy statement 22 (PPS22). [PQ No. 2004/872, 27 January 2005].
This is meaningless, because local authorities are not permitted to devise local separation distances that might restrict wind farm development and PPS22 contains only general, and very limited, guidance on separation distances.
Also, when wind proposals are rejected on grounds of protecting residential amenity, decisions are frequently overturned at appeal or by ministerial fiat on the grounds that the decision is not supported by planning guidance and that the outdated ETSU-R-97 noise guidance provides sufficient protection in post-consent planning conditions. In reality, as has been proved at several locations, noise conditions are almost impossible to enforce.
At a recent meeting that representatives of wind action groups in the North East, including MAG, had with Ed Miliband, the DECC Minister, the issue of issuing guidance on separation distances that harmonised with Scotland was repeatedly raised. The Minister rejected the idea of 2km separation in England and Wales out of hand on the grounds that it would make much wind development impossible.
It appears that government targets and the interests of the wind industry are more important than the health and well being of people.
The Independent, Friday, 9 October 2009 (Press Association).
'The energy watchdog today said UK consumers faced potentially steep price rises in their gas and electricity bills as supplies become more volatile.
'In a review of Britain's energy market, Ofgem said an investment of up to £200 billion is needed to secure supplies and meet environmental targets.
'It lists four possible scenarios for the future and in one - that of a strong resurgence in global economies along with missed renewable and carbon targets - Ofgem warned prices could surge by more than 60 per cent by 2016 before falling back.
'The four scenarios include reductions in carbon emissions of between 12 per cent and 43 per cent from 2005 levels.
'Ofgem said the biggest challenges to Britain's energy supply are the country's growing reliance on a volatile global gas market and its ageing power stations, which are nearing the end of their lives.
'The regulator also said "significant changes" may have to be made in the way we consume and generate power to manage the "variability associated with increasing reliance on wind power". [Our emphasis]
'It said a "massive" investment of between £95 billion and £200 billion in power plants and other infrastructure was necessary "to secure both energy supplies and climate change targets".
'Gary Smith, national officer of the GMB union, said: "This report demonstrates that central planning is essential to ensure that the lights stay on.
'"How many more red light signals do our politicians have to see before they take action?"
'Shadow energy secretary Greg Clark said the challenges in the energy sector came about because of Government "dithering".
'He said the Tories would take "immediate action" to authorise five gigawatts of capacity in clean coal and publish planning guidance for companies wishing to invest in nuclear power - which he said ministers had held back without good reason.
'"This is the characteristic over the last 12 years," Mr Clark said.
'"There has been no policy, effectively. We are in the situation we are because they have had their head in the sand for 12 years."
'Ofgem said current rates of investment would have to be more than doubled to meet the high levels needed.
'Consumer bills will be pushed up by the level of infrastructure investment and by the increasing cost of carbon - particularly if oil and gas market prices continue to rise as they have been since 2003, or spike sharply.
'Gas dependence is predicted to increase "dramatically", especially if environmental measures are not fully successful.
'The regulator identified the greatest risk as maintaining gas supplies through a severe winter.
'Ofgem said that while the outlook for this winter is "more comfortable" - with National Grid anticipating high capacity and good gas infrastructure - its analysis suggests that "existing regulatory and market arrangements may well be tested severely over the next two decades".
There is a power industry saying: "wind fuels gas". It is no coincidence that there has been a remarkable growth of gas plants in Spain in parallel with large scale wind development. It is also no coincidence that people like Texan oil and gas man T Boone Pickens have been moving on the wind sector, with an eye to both the huge tax incentives being offered and the potential benefit to their gas interests.
Wind is 'win, win' for the gas industry.
Highly publicised claims by Ed Miliband, the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, that offshore wind projects could "create up to 70,000 new jobs" are being exposed at every turn for what they are: political wishful thinking.
Recently, there were press reports on the failure of the London Array to bring promised jobs to Kent. The chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses in Thanet, had said that that dream had faded with the decision to outsource manufacturing and assembly to overseas companies, leaving just a few maintenance and support jobs for local people. 1
Now we read that the 140 turbine Greater Gabbard project off the Norfolk coast, the biggest offshore project in the world until the London Array is built, is being held up by faulty welding on its Chinese turbine towers. 2
The first of the turbine towers was due to be sunk into the sea bed this year, but sources say the project - hailed as a cornerstone of DECC's (Department of Energy and Climate Change) green policy - now faces months of delays.
Chinese workers have now been flown in to Holland, where the turbines are being assembled, to remedy the problems.
It is reported that ferrying the 180,000 tonnes of steel tower parts 4,500 miles will have an environmental cost of 27,000 tonnes of CO2.
German engineering firm Siemens is not only supplying the 3.6MW turbines but has also been given the £66 million contract to connect the scheme to the grid.
Dieter Helm (Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford), the CBI and others have long been saying that the excessive costs of wind generated power may have the unintended effect of accelerating the export of what remains of our metallurgical and manufacturing industries to countries such as China and India, where coal is dominant and environmental protection is less rigorous. 3
1 'Wind farm jobs prove to be so much hot air', Kent Online - Business, 4 September, 2009.
2 'Broken wind', The Sun, 18 September 2009.
3 'Don't Blow our £100 Billion on Wind Power', The Times, July 17, 2009.
In March, 2010, the Sheringham Shoal offshore scheme started building.
This Norwegian-owned project has seen the usual spin-offs for British jobs: the only major componant being the two 1000 tonne offshore substations. Offshore construction specialist Heerema will fabricate and load out two substation platform topsides from its yard in Hartlepool, County Durham.
'The wind turbines selected for the site are Siemens 3.6MW - the latest [Danish] model in the company's product range. The rotor is a three-blade cantilevered construction, mounted upwind of the tower while the 52m blades are made of fiberglass-reinforced epoxy resin and manufactured in a single operation representing state-of-the-art technology. The turbine is mounted on an 80m-high tapered tubular steel tower with an internal ascent.
'These 90 giant monopile structures, as well as the transition pieces which join the turbines to them, are being fabricated by tubular structure specialist, the Sif Group, at their plant in Roermond, the Netherlands, on a sub-contract to the main foundation contractor, MT Højgaard. Once completed, the monopiles will be transported to Kats, Vlissingen, Netherlands for storage before installation. The transition pieces will be transported to Belgium and the Hoboeken plant of offshore foundation pioneer, Smulders for outfitting.
'Contractor MT Højgaard will use the "Svanen", its purpose made self-powered heavy-duty floating crane, to drive foundation piles 32-36 metres into the seabed and mount the yellow-painted transition pieces on top, in preparation for the installation of the two substations and 88 wind turbines in 2011.
'The offshore cables are being produced by global cable experts, Nexans in Norway at their manufacturing plant in Halden, south of Oslo, while the fibre optical elements are being produced in Rognan, in the northern part of Norway. The power and optical cables will be bundled together into one unit.'
ESSEN, Germany, Feb 10 (Reuters story on Yahoo).
'Demand increases and supply volatility arising from a growing share of erratic production from renewable sources still make new coal and gas-fired power stations necessary, Dena Managing Director Stephan Kohler said during a trade fair.'
Kohler illustrated problems with wind energy, saying 23,000 MW were nominally installed, but high pressure fronts in January curbed wind speeds. On one day, only 113 MW capacity [0.5%!] was active.
'"This is nothing against renewables, we will just run into problems if we have 45,000 MW of weak load in the system (2020), we'd have to store power (which is technically not yet possible) or look abroad in the European market environment," he said.'
'But imports from neighbouring Europe could not solve the problems as it faced wider supply shortfall scenarios itself.'
'Also, more trade would necessitate more spending on cross-border transmission lines, which faced uncertainty, Kohler said.'
(See full article on Yahoo, Finance).
"Wind turbine Madness: from a dream of environmentally friendly energy to highly subsidised destruction of the countryside." |
At the end of 2007, Germany had 19,460 wind turbines installed with a theoretical capacity of 22,247MW. The UK had 1,951 turbines installed at the end of February 2008. With onshore sites running out and huge swathes of countryside industrialised with giant turbines, Germany has not closed any fossil-fuelled capacity. Indeed, their government announced in 2007 that they were going ahead with 26 new lignite- and coal-fired power stations to add to the numbers of new gas-fired power stations that have been built in recent years. Germany retains its position as the leading greenhouse gas producer in Europe (European Environment Agency figures). |
See the Wind Power page for more about the real world experience of wind power in other countries with very large wind capacity.
Anselm Waldermann, Spiegel Online
'Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.'
'Germany's renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country's electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.'
'But there's a catch: The climate hasn't in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven't prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.'
'Under current EU law, German wind turbines aren't helping to reduce CO2 emissions. They simply allow Eastern European countries to pollute more.'
'Even more surprising, the European Union's own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn't change -- no matter how many wind turbines are erected.'
'Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn't widely known to the public. Even Germany's government officials mention it only under their breath. No one wants to discuss the political ramifications'.
'It's a sensitive subject: Germany is recognized worldwide as a leader in all things related to renewable energy. The environmental energy sector doesn't want this image to be tarnished. Under no circumstances does Berlin want the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) -- which mandates the prices at which energy companies have to buy green power -- to fall into disrepute.'
'At the same time, big energy companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As a result, no one is pushing for change. Everyone involved is remaining silent.'
'In the worst case scenario, sustainable energy plants might even have a detrimental effect on the climate. As more wind turbines go online, coal plants will be able to reduce their output. This in itself is desirable -- but the problem is that the total number of available CO2 emission certificates remains the same. In other words, there will suddenly be more certificates per kilowatt of coal energy. That means the price per ton of CO2 emitted will fall.'
'That is exactly what happened in recent trading. A certificate to emit a ton of CO2 cost almost nothing. As a result, there was very little incentive for big energy companies to invest in climate friendly technologies.'
'On the contrary. Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe -- to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany's wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned. Given the often lower efficiency of Eastern European power plants, this is anything but environmentally beneficial.'
'Experts from the Green Party are taking the problem very seriously: "We are in a veritable crisis situation, and that means we must reconsider and alter things we once took for granted," writes one contributor, adding that it's important to re-examine "whether we have set the right priorities."'
'Another expert begins his e-mail with a general clarification: "Dear People, I'm not fundamentally against the EEG. I only emphasize this because Manfred has repeatedly and erroneously described me as an opponent of the EEG." But here comes the big "but": "When reduction of CO2 emissions is more cheaply achieved through insulating a building than using a wind turbine, that is where we should concentrate our support. When it comes to climate change, everything else is secondary to reducing CO2 emissions".'
'Indeed, when it comes to climage change, investments in wind and solar energy are not very efficient. Preventing one ton of CO2 emissions requires a relatively large amount of money. Other measures, especially building renovations, cost much less -- and have the same effect.'
'The e-mail exchange ends with a conciliatory "What do you think?" But it is quickly followed by a bitter PS: "Do the Greens think that this problem (of climate change) will solve itself if we just screw solar panels onto our rooftops?"'
'The German Renewable Energy Federation is clearly not thrilled about the debate. The lobbying group's official line is: "By implementing renewable energy, there will by a reduction in 2008 of 120 million tons of CO2." When pressed, however, representatives of the federation will admit that this only applies to Germany. But the reality is that the freely traded CO2 certificates can be sold and used abroad.'
'Likewise, one federation employee openly said that there is "a certain degree of inconsistency" between the EEG and emissions trading.'
The Register, 23 December 2008.
'The British Wind Energy Association, which promotes the UK windfarm industry, has been forced to halve its figures on carbon-emission reductions by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).'
'The BWEA had formerly made its calculations on the basis that every kilowatt-hour (or "unit") of electricity generated by a wind turbine would mean 860 grams of CO2 not emitted by fossil-fuelled power stations. Now, however, it has cut that claim to 430 grams per kWh, following a landmark ASA ruling last year against RWE nPower.'
"The 860 gCO2/kWh figure was hard to validate," ASA spokesman Matt Wilson told the Reg today. "Following the ruling there was a consensus that the figure be lowered."
'Setting a new figure was difficult, however, as judging just how much carbon is saved per kWH of wind energy generated is almost impossible to do with any accuracy. The amount of carbon generated by fossil stations per kWh varies according to the technology used and the age of the facility, and different stations are on line at different times.'
"It was a fiendishly complex process," said Wilson. "In the end, we're not experts in this area. We can say a figure is misleading, but we can't say what the true value is."
'The BWEA has now recalculated its carbon savings figures based on 430 gCO2/kWh, which will effectively mean that the amount of wind turbines required to achieve a given level of carbon savings has doubled. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that some older and dirtier fossil stations - particularly coal ones - have closed, and the increasing prevalence of efficient combined-cycle machinery in the gas sector.'
'At present, the BWEA still makes no allowance in its calculations for the carbon effects of uncontrolled variability in wind supply, saying t"his is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20 per cent of total electricity supply".'
'A report written for the Renewable Energy Foundation in the summer said that a substantial wind base would involve more carbon burden than current figures suggest. This was owing to the need for backup gas turbine power during calms - and the fact that irregularly-run turbines would be dirtier than ones run on a predictable schedule.'
'The BWEA is also sticking to its line that a "normal" 2 megawatt turbine "produces enough electricity each year to meet the needs of 1,000 homes". This is true [NOT IN OUR AREA, IT ISN'T - THE BWEA 'ASSUME' A 30% LOAD FACTOR. Ed.] - provided that those homes are well supplied with gas or heating oil to turn into carbon emissions.'
'In a post-fossil future where heating, cooking and hot water were all electric - and assuming no rise in domestic energy use overall - such a turbine would actually meet the needs of 214 homes. Provided there was also a backup fossil power station and/or pumped storage hydropower reservoirs, of course.'
'As of publication, the BWEA still hadn't responded to requests for comment'
Even now, most people are unaware that wind turbines are receiving a massive indirect subsidy that is paid from every consumer's electricity bills (see the Windpower page for the figures).
Even less well known is the fact that the grid is having to be strengthened at very considerable cost to the consumer in order to handle large amounts of intermittent wind power, much of which will be generated at sites such as Lewis or the Shetlands, far removed from the end user.
National Grid has just [8 October 2008] revealed the latest costings for this work:
'National Grid to boost transmission investments by £2bn a year'
'In a presentation to its investors, the transmission system operator said the plan represented an annual spend of £3 billion on the electricity network for mainland Britain. And beyond 2012, the company said "that investment will continue at least at that level for the foreseeable future".'
'National Grid said yesterday it has earmarked an extra £2 billion of capital investment in the UK transmission system up to 2012, above and beyond the £16 billion already announced.' [Our emphasis].
'During the investors' day, Mike Anderson, director general of Defra's Climate Change Group pointed to the "electrification" of the UK's heat and transport as countering the reduction of energy demand in expected efficiency schemes. '
'With an increase in intermittent wind power, Mr Anderson said the UK would require a jump from the current 78GW of power capacity to more than 100GW.' [Our emphasis].
'Getting more renewable energy down from Scotland could involve offshore high-voltage direct current cables running from Loch Ness around Galloway into the Irish Sea and from north-east Aberdeenshire down to Teesside.'
'The presentation also suggested strategic strengthening of the grid in the Humberside and Lincolnshire areas to enable links to a series of 1.8GW offshore substation platforms to link up Round Three offshore wind projects.'
'It also noted the developments in nuclear energy regarding transmission arrangements for up to eight new nuclear plants in the application stage of development. A £1 billion investment in the grid would be needed in the South West of England alone to cope with new nuclear plants at Hinkley Point and Oldbury.'
'Further reinforcements would be needed in Suffolk, Sussex and North-West Wales and Anglesey as two nuclear plants - 3.5GW of capacity - are developed by 2020 and seven plants (10GW) by 2030.'
'Along with investments in offshore grids for 25GW of wind power, that would see investments of £5 to £9 billion around England and Wales to cope with the new power generation sites. In the short-term, a "connect and manage" approach will attempt to connect up renewable energy projects more quickly than the current system where investment in transmission reinforcements waits until sufficient renewable energy proposals come forward in certain areas.' [Our emphasis].
See: 'National Grid to boost transmission investments by £2bn a year.' New Energy Focus, 8 October 2008.
'Wind power is clearly not reducing the dependence on imported fuel, contrary to the frequent claims of its proponents. In fact the experience from Germany and Spain shows that it is increasing the dependence of imported natural gas. And that's not energy security.'
Edgar Gärtner, Business Europe, Wall Street Journal. 11 September, 2008.
'Wind turbines generate electricity very irregularly, because the wind itself is inconsistent. Therefore wind turbines always need backup power from fossil fuels to keep the electricity grid in balance. Gas turbines are the best way to do this. They are able to respond quickly and push power production when wind generators stop suddenly. They can be turned on and off almost instantly, whereas traditional coal-fired plants need to be maintained in a very inefficient standby mode if they are to respond to large fluctuations in power demand.'
'A proliferation of windmills, then, can become a windfall for gas sellers. Just look at the cases of Spain and Germany, Europe's leading producers of wind power.'
'By the end of 2007 Spain had 14,700 megawatts (MW) of installed wind capacity, according to Enagás, which manages the national gas network, producing 8.7% of the country's total power supplies. Most of these wind generators are located in scarcely populated areas, while the power consumption is concentrated in big cities with their many air-conditioned buildings. The peak load of the Spanish power grid is thus in the hot summer months—but this is precisely the time of year when there usually isn't much wind.'
'For this reason, more and more gas turbines are being installed near consumers in the suburbs of Spain's cities. Only last year, Spanish power providers added 6,400 MW of gas-turbine power capacity, taking the total installed capacity of gas turbines to 21,000 MW. Natural gas has become the main source of electricity generation in Spain, and according to Enagás, 99.8% of the gas used in Spain is imported. Most of this comes via pipeline from Algeria, but the import of liquid natural gas (LNG) by ships will increase.'
'In Germany, more than 20,000 wind turbines with a total capacity of 21,400 MW are now "embellishing" landscapes. Wind power's share of total electricity generation has risen in line with that of natural gas since 1990. Germany's gas consumption for power generation more than doubled between 1990 and 2007, and now represents 11.7% of the country's total power generation. The country imported 83% of its natural gas supplies.'
'Today part of the wind power backup in Germany is still done by old coal-fired plants. But the Greens and even parts of the governing Christian and Social Democratic parties are fervently opposed to the construction of new coal plants. So many old power stations will probably be replaced by gas turbines. The green opponents of new coal-fired plants are nowadays the most dependable allies of the big gas companies such as Gazprom, Shell or BP.'
(Mr. Gärtner is a specialized writer on energy and chemicals issues based in Frankfurt. See: Business Europe, Wall Street Journal for the full story).
The UK will be importing 50% of its gas by 2010, and 80% by 2020. The UK is now in the early stages of intense competition with the major Asian economies for supplies of Liquefied Natural Gas.
Even the originators of the wind policy were beginning to recognise the implications for energy security by the fag end phase of the last government:
... due to the intermittency of wind, we will need significantly more generating capacity in the longer term. (Ed Miliband, Statement to the House on the draft National Policy Statements, 9 November 2009. (See DECC press release).
My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. In answer to the question that was asked earlier, wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind. That is why it is not the most effective source in terms of energy security of supply, ...
(Baroness Vadera, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, BERR, House of Lords,23 Jun 2008. Hansard: Column 1219).
We frequently hear about the 12GW of coal and oil fired capacity that is scheduled to be retired by 2016/2017. We are supposed to be reassured that National Grid is apparently planning for at least 17GW of new combined cycle gas plants. What is not clear is how a market that is scheduled to have some 13GW of intermittent wind capacity with priority access is going to work, or even if it can work without capital grants for gas plant construction and an expensive market mechanism to compensate operators for curtailing output. The unplanned nature of the British system will exacerbate these costs.
Whatever happens, the evidence from other countries is that it will cost the consumer dear.
Professor King, who served as government chief scientific adviser from 2000 to 2007, told BBC Radio 4's The Investigation that half a million people could be pushed into fuel poverty by the UK's drive for wind power. [the programme is sadly no longer available as a download].
'The EU needed to renegotiate a more achievable and less expensive target, and he added: "This is an issue which needs to be revisited and I say this as somebody who feels that we really have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions very substantially but in my view it is an expensive, and not a very clever route to go for 35 to 40% on wind turbines."'
(Read the full article: 'Poverty fears over wind power', BBC News , 4 September 2008.
U.K. National Grid Status