Sunday
Mar062011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Hammond brought to Booker
Mar 6, 2011 Energy Christopher Booker has picked up on the suggestion by Transport Secretary Phillip Hammond that onshore wind pays its way, an extraordinary error that was picked up BH readers earlier in the week. Booker is similarly unimpressed.
Talking on the BBC last week about wind turbines, which are at the centre of our Government’s energy policy, the Transport Secretary, Philip Hammond, said “onshore wind doesn’t need subsidy any more, onshore wind can pay its way”. This was so laughably untrue that one has to wonder whether Mr Hammond was being deliberately untruthful or whether, which is almost worse, he is so ignorant that he actually believed what he said.
Reader Comments (42)
In the light of that comment, surely the time has come for the Government to stop paying any and all subsidies in connection with onshore windfarms and to impose legislation on energy companies prohibiting them from levying increased energy prices to cover the 'additional' expense of energy being derived from onshore wind.
Everyone should write to their politicians demanding this course of action.
Hammond brought to Booker
Such a headline deserves the very best of comment. I am not the one to do it, but the Bishop has set a high bar for commenters to leap, and I charge you all of comment fame to rise to the occasion.
The subject matter lends itself to excellence.
As well as subsidising wind, I understand that PV is also subsidised ('though I know not the rate of subsidy) and supported from the 'feed-in tariff'.
This becomes important to know when I discovered that there are plans to site a 22,000 PV array within a few miles of where I live (and it's not the south coast!). It is proposed to have 40 rows of 550 2 metre panels on a five acre site (I estimate the size). I estimate that this will offer a peak of 300Mw.
I have written to the local press to hi-light the absurdity of the plan with, I hope some salient facts gleaned from BH and WUWT. I would appreciate any other arguments any commenters here might wish to contribute to the pot (like, have I got the output correct; what is the current EROERI? etc)
Finally, back to Hammond's gaffe: I wrote to my MP about the Met Office's failure to warn the public about a cold winter. Last week, he sent me a reply from Andrew Robathan at the MoD. He said that the MO not failed to warn of a cold winter and had, in fact told the Cabinet Office that there was a 40% chance of a cold winter for December. I wrote back to explain that a 40% chance of a cold winter meant that there was a 60% chance of a NOT cold winter. D'oh!
Local farmers in West coast of Scotland are being inundated with people wanting them to devote fields to Solar. Due to FITs its more profitable than Dairy farming.
Isn't there moves to limit subsidies to plants producing less than 50Mw purely to stop farmers / landowners making a killing?
@Lord Beaverbrook: merely producing or actually delivering said 50Mw ?
@ breath of fresh air
Sun farmers milking the system eh!!
Onky Politicians could be so dumb. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would realise that solar and wind are useless.
As regards solar, the latitude of the UK is far too north such that the angle of incidence of the sun is low and therefore not efficient. At times of peak demand, ie., winter, the hours of sunlight are less (therefore less generating hours),AND there is more cloud (thereby cutting down efficiency of the sunlight) AND due to the low incidence even on sunny and cloud free days, the power of the sunlight is less. On top of this, the sun does not shine at night and is therefore incapable of providing any evenning power.
In Spain, the subsidies are so generous that many solar farm have coupled a diesel generator to feed in power (and therefore get the subsidy) when the sun is not shining such as during the night!!! The entire subsidy system is open to such abuse.
As regards wind, the winter of 2009/10 proved how useless wind power is. The experience has been repeated this year. Wind is far too unreliable.
The Danes are world leaders in windpower and yet not one single conventional power station has been closed. Due to the unreliable nature of wind, conventional power stations need to be run all the time as back up. Thus wind power does not reduce the CO2 footprint and merely puts up energy prices.
Until there is an efficient means of energy storage, both solar and wind are obviously useless and it is madness to have any energy policy based upon these as playing any significant part.
The effect of this will lead to increased energy poverty which in turn will result in more old people being unable to heat their homes and living their end days in misery. In fact, many old people will die prematurely because of this policy.
So why does the government blight the landscape with these elephants? Well many have connections (often family connnections) to firms involved in the green energy business. Would appear that the anser lies in 'follow the money'.
Perhaps in 10 to 15 years time when we have brown outs and the full extent of this folly comes to light, people will consider what possibilities exist for obtaining re-imbursement from those who had a financial interest in the green energy business. Perhaps some class action will be started.
"Hammond's an organ"
Oh come on, indulge me, it's Sunday
Confusing:
Article 3 sets the specified maximum capacity for eligible installations in the FIT scheme at 5
megawatts.
Chapter 1 of Part 3 (articles 4 to 9) gives the Authority the duty of accrediting eligible installations
as accredited FIT installations for the purposes of the FIT scheme. An “eligible installation”
means an installation capable of producing small-scale low carbon generation from one of the
following sources of energy or technologies: (a) anaerobic digestion, (b) hydro generating station,
(c) combined heat and power with an electrical capacity of 2kW or less, (d) solar photovoltaic or
(e) wind.
http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/library/regulation/uksi_20100678_en1.pdf
Accreditation of eligible installations previously accredited under the ROO with a capacity
of more than 50 kilowatts
7.—(1) Subject to article 8, the Authority must accredit an eligible installation as an accredited
FIT installation where—
(a) the Authority receives from the FIT generator on or before 1st October 2010 a notice
which—
(i) states that the FIT generator wishes the eligible installation to be accredited; and
(ii) identifies the FIT licensee which is to make FIT payments in respect of the eligible
installation; and
(b) the Authority is satisfied that the installation meets the criteria in paragraph (2).
(2) The criteria referred to in paragraph (1)(b) in respect of an eligible installation are that—
(a) it has a declared net capacity of more than 50 kilowatts; and
(b) it was accredited under the provisions of the ROO during the period beginning on 15th
July 2009 and ending on 31st March 2010.
Exceptions to accreditation applicable to all eligible installations
8.—(1) The Authority must not accredit an eligible installation as an accredited FIT installation
where—
(a) the installation has a declared net capacity which exceeds the specified maximum
capacity;
(b) the installation is an extension to an accredited FIT installation or other installation using
an eligible low-carbon energy source and the aggregate declared net capacity of the
extension and installation exceeds the specified maximum capacity; or
(c) electricity from the installation is or has been sold pursuant to a NFFO arrangement.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the Authority must not accredit an eligible installation as an
accredited FIT installation unless the FIT generator has given notice that—
(a) no grant from public funds has been made in respect of any of the costs of purchasing or
installing the installation; or
(b) where any such grant has been made, the grant has been repaid to the person or authority
which made it.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not prohibit the Authority from accrediting an eligible installation where
a grant referred to in sub-paragraph (2)(a) has been made and not repaid if —
(a) the grant is a permitted grant; or
(b) the grant is not a permitted grant but the Authority is satisfied that the making of FIT
payments in respect of the installation would be in accordance with the law relating to
state aid.
(4) In this article, “grant from public funds” means a grant made by a public authority or by any
person distributing funds on behalf of a public authority.
(5) In this article, “permitted grant” means—
(a) a grant made before 1st April 2010 in respect of costs of an eligible installation which
was commissioned before 15th July 2009; or
(b) a grant made before 1st April 2010 in respect of costs of an eligible installation on a
residential property which was commissioned between 15th July 2009 and 31st March
2010.
Current thinking on large scale solar pv:
http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/regulation/first_review/fast-track/
Huhne takes action on Solar farm threat (Press notice)
07 February 2011
DECC Press Notice: 2011/010:
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/pn11_010/pn11_010.aspx
The review will also include fast-track consideration of large scale solar photovoltaic projects (over 50kW) with a view to making any resulting changes to tariffs as soon as practical, subject to consultation and Parliamentary scrutiny as required by the Energy Act 2008.
The Act covers:
* offshore gas supply infrastructure: strengthening regulation to allow for private sector investment to help maintain the UK’s reliable energy supplies. This is crucial, as we expect to have to rely on imported gas to meet up to 80 percent of our energy demands by 2020
*
Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS): creating regulation that enables private sector investment in CCS projects. CCS has the potential to reduce the carbon emissions from fossil fuel power stations by up to 90 percent
*
renewables: strengthening the Renewables Obligation to increase the diversity of our electricity mix, improve the reliability of our energy supplies and help lower carbon emissions from the electricity sector
*
feed-in tariffs: enabling the Government to offer financial support for low-carbon electricity generation in projects up to 5 megawatts (MW). The aim is for generators to receive a guaranteed payment for generating low-carbon electricity
* decommissioning offshore renewables and oil and gas installations: strengthening our statutory decommissioning requirements to minimise the risk of liabilities falling to the Government
* improving offshore oil and gas licensing: improving licensing to respond to changes in the commercial environment and enable DECC to carry out its regulatory functions more effectively
*
nuclear waste and decommissioning costs: ensuring new nuclear power station operators build up funds to meet the full costs of decommissioning and their share of waste management costs
*
offshore transmission: amending powers so that Ofgem is able to run offshore transmission licensing more effectively
*
smart metering: allowing the Secretary of State to modify electricity and gas distribution and supply licences, so the licence holder has to install, or help install, smart meters to different customer segments, including private households
* Renewable Heat Incentive: allowing the Secretary of State to establish a financial support programme for renewable heat generated anywhere, from large industrial sites to individual households
* housekeeping: various other points covering nuclear security and the transfer of some regulatory functions to DECC
Snotrocket - asks about the feed in tariff rates. Companies like www.solarelectricitysystems.co.uk are currently running full page adverts for domestic solar panels where the figures associated with their "Free Electricity 100% Guaranteed" advert, say that the guaranteed price for the feed in tariff is 41.3 pence/unit vs the current electricity price of 12.0 pence/unit. Solar panels do not run on sunshine they run on subsidies.
In relation to snotrocket's 22,000 PV array.
My estimate of the peak output of such an array, where the panels are 2m2 each is that each panel will have a peak output of the order of 1Kw and thus the peak output of the whole array would be of the order of 22MW, not the 300MW that snotrocket mentioned.
Of course, we are talking about a bright sunny day with no cloud cover to achieve this.
@ richard verney
Until there is an efficient means of energy storage, both solar and wind are obviously useless
We already have a very efficient way of storing energy; it's called oil.
Re Selar PV:
There is a solar "park" proposed near where I live. It needs 45acres of land to produce a peak power of 5MW. Huhne has announced a review of the FiT (see http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/news/fits_rev_wms/fits_rev_wms.aspx) which has essentially knocked commercial solar PV on the head. There is a last minute rush by a few developers to push proposals through before the chop comes down.
I have written to my MP asking him the following with regard to Hammond's statement that "onshore wind doesn’t need subsidy any more, onshore wind can pay its way”
I also asked my MP to obtain an apology from Hammond or an explanation to the HoC, to Johnny Ball and to the BBC.
@Mike Edwards
Thanks for your input Mike. I was using Wiki (I know!) to get some basic numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaic_array
It based them on 4kw/sq m. I figured the park would be using PVs of 2x2m: so 4Sqmx22k PVs = 352Mw.
Of course, that must be ideal conditions and I stand to be corrected by wiser heads than mine. Thank you all for your input.
BTW...I loved the idea that "Hammond is an organ"! Thanks, Mouse
Snotrocket
Don't worry. There is very little likelihood of the array getting built. I have been opposing a similar scheme actively for some months now and am quietly confident that the government has killed off large-scale solar in the UK.
Since announcing a review of the FIT for solar arrays >50KW, the venture capital that finances these schemes has got cold feet.
Essentially what was happening is that venture capital trusts (VCTs) were providing a mechanism for wealthy speculators to fund large-scale solar and profit handsomely both from the FIT and a 30% tax break on income up to £200K.
This only works with the original massive FIT for solar of 41.3p per kWh (about 10x wholesale market rate).
Now that the government has belatedly realised that it has created a system whereby the rich can tap directly into the wallets of the whole UK population, the party’s over. Bang goes the hypertrophied FIT for solar, and the greedy bastards of this world are already scuttling away in search of easy profits elsewhere.
The fund manager Matrix has just suspended private client investment into its solar fund. The rest will surely follow suit. No money = no panels = no problem.
S-Rocket
[Sorry for the delay but the effing comment lock-out problem is back. God I'm fed up with this.]
Mike Edward's estimate of the likely output of the proposed array sounds about right. If we could get
4kW out of a square metre of panel, the world's energy problems would largely be solved.
However, if you have found someone who can do this, please get in touch with me as I know a few splendid VC chaps who would just love to take you out to lunch.
What I continue to find puzzling is the breathtaking naivety of politicians in the face of what history tells them.
Windmills and windpumps were abandoned completely as the Industrial Revolution brought with it a RELIABLE source of energy - steam power, based on coal; subsequently replaced by diesel and electricity.
Are the politicians under some sort of illusion that wind has somehow become more reliable..?
It wasn't then; it isn't now; and it never will be.
Now of course we have the firecracker thrown into the ring by Steve Holliday, the boss of National Grid, effectively telling us that reliable 24/7 electricity must no longer taken for granted.
I thought it was one of Western government's principal responsibilities - to ensure that we DO have reliable energy supplies.
Perhaps this is something else that Call Me Dave thinks should be provided by volunteers, under the banner of the 'Big Society'...
'Come on Mavis - don't worry about baking that cake - just pedal harder...!'
"Local farmers in West coast of Scotland are being inundated with people wanting them to devote fields to Solar. Due to FITs its more profitable than Dairy farming."
...and if the Spanish model is followed, the late night milking schedule can be utilized for switching on the diesel generators...
Spanish Solar-Panel Trade Group Calls for Fraud Investigation ...
12 Apr 2010 ... Spanish Solar-Panel Trade Group Calls for Fraud Investigation ... a news report
said that some were getting paid for producing power at night. ... the Madrid-
based association for Spain's photovoltaic-panel industry said ...
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-04-12/spanish-solar-panel-trade-group-calls-for-fraud-investigation.html
And on a lighter note, Fenbeagle continues to mock Huhne mercilessly:
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/
In a world where virtually everything we do, from protecting ourselves against possible foreign invasion or home-grown terrorism to ensuring the safety of people in the public street and maintaining and restoring their health relies upon the use of electricity, there can hardly be anything more essential for ensuring people's security.
It might well have been the case in the early 1970s that we could cope with power outages in an emergency and that all that resulted was a degree of inconvenience but it only takes a couple of seconds thought to realise that such a situation today would leave this (or any) country extremely vulnerable.
I have also gone on at some length here and elsewhere about the effect of unreliable energy supplies on the elderly and others who find themselves in fuel poverty as a result of government (this one and its predecessor) failing to understand the very simple notion that energy (whether for heating, lighting, manufacturing or transport) needs to be as cheap and as reliable as possible. All else is a bonus.
Even if it were possible for wind power to become sufficiently efficient to replace the existing base load stations (and we know it can't) subsidising power generators to go down this dead end inevitably diverts limited finance and delays the search for other possible forms of electricity generation which, for all we know, could be the answer to our problems.
Meanwhile the elderly and the poor find themselves at greater risk of dying from cold or at the very least of damaging their health and shortening their life expectancy thanks to politicians chasing after a non-existent holy grail.
Snotrocket --
The Wiki article you mentioned contains a figure of 4 kWh/m^2/day, which isn't quite the same thing as 4 kW/m^2. Even with full sun, and the panels oriented perpendicular to the sun's rays, the maximum possible incoming solar radiation is approx. 1366 W/m^2. Allowing for a 20% efficiency in converting sunlight into electricity, that comes to 273 W/m^2. At 4 sq metres per panel (2m on a side), this is around 1 kW maximum per panel, as Mike Edwards posted earlier.
The *average* power is of course quite a bit less, when one considers the obliquity of radiation (or, if the panels swivel to track the sun, the shading of one panel by another), cloudiness, dirt on the panels, and number of hours of daylight. The previously given 4 kWh/m^2/day [caveat -- source is Wiki], when divided by the maximum of 1366 W/m^2, gives an average of approximately 20% of the above.
Anonemouse says
"Hammond's an organ"
Yeah, maybe, but does he know what to do with it?
Or is he a useless one?
I did a calculation based on the monitored output of all 50kW and above solar installations in England and the average capacity (load) factor came out to <6%. Thus a 2kW panel will on average produce about 1MWh of electricity per year. As an average household uses 4.7MWh/year, you would need about 5 x 2kW panels on your roof to produce the same amount of electricity as you consume. Unfortunately most of us don't use much electricity at noon in mid summer but we use a lot in the dark in winter. Solar is useless in this country unless the gullible public are prepared to pay you 40p/kWh to generate and use your own electricity.
Robert Thompson sums up alternative energy in general as well as I have ever seen it when he says,
"Solar panels do not run on sunshine they run on subsidies."
Windmill power does not run on wind. It runs on subsidies, as well.
@ Paul in Sweden Mar 6, 2011 at 2:37 PM
The fraud could be significantly greater than reported since it is conceivable that solar farms are using generators not simply at night but also during cloudy/rainy days, and possibly even every day no matter the weather. The subsidy is so great that it is cheaper to operate a diesel generator to produce energy and claim the subsidy on the energy fed into the grid from the diesel generator.
No doubt, the same could apply to wind farms although may be the feed in tariff is slightly less attractive.
If wind or solar was ever a realistic proposal there was never a need for subsidies. As an infant technology, there may well have been additional costs in getting a farm up and running. However, these costs should have been borne entirely by the energy company and the government should have prohibited the energy company from increasing energy prices to recoup the additional cost of set up. The additional cost would be recovered by the energy company long term since if all the propaganda is believed, wind and solar is free (once the farm is up and running). Thus without subsidies, the energy company would incur substantial upfront costs (which any way probably would qualify for some form of tax relief in so much as it is reducing profit/capital expenditure write dons etc ) and once up and running, the energy produced would be free (well largely free subject to maintenance etc) and at this stage, the energy company would be recouping its investment (and eventually paying mor tax since long term profits would be higher). Of course this model would not work simply because wind and solar are not realistic energy generating systems and have high maintenance costs and short life expectancy. I suspect that by the time a windmill is beginning to pay for itself, it needs replacing.
I consider that government (and this is largely labour) has been grossly irresponsible and there has been a dereliction in public office in either not properly investigating and auditing the efficacy of these schemes and/or in implementing the roll out of these schemes with subsidies and green taxes.
@Haroldw....you are a gem!! Thanks for the feedback. I suspected that 4Kw output was a tad on the optimistic side of things. So, I'm left with a 22k panel PV farm - that may never be built - that could produce less that 20Kw (Kw/hrs?). As I'm not going to pay for it directly, one has to ask, how is it an economical project for the investors? I think that's been answered on this blog: We all pay through the FIT.
Oh what a wonderful government we have? Not to mention the fabulous we just had....... </sarc>
Govt: Britain 'Must Wean Itself Off Oil'
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110306/tuk-govt-britain-must-wean-itself-off-oi-45dbed5.html
Chris Hulne at it again.
Snotrocket
22 mW, not 22 kW.
The point about 'we all pay through the FIT' needs to be examined further. If you were elderly, or on a low income, you would pay relatively more of your income in terms of higher energy bills (pumped up by power companies clawing back the cost of the FIT from their customers).
So what NuLab actually did was introduce a stealth regressive tax to fund its obsession with 'greening' electricity generation.
That is not something we hear nearly enough about.
Bishop Hill
Now on fourth router re-boot.
My understanding is that in the fantasy land inhabited by Milliband, nobody envisaged that in the real world, if you allowed solar developers to print money for 25 years, then all the cowboy developers and snake-oil salesmen would be out in force cashing in on the bonanza. Only now has the coalition government realised how the scam has been playing out. I understand that several hundred cowboy, who were trying to sign farmers in the SW up to covering their fields in solar panels, have suddenly disappeared back into the slime from whence they first appeared.
Snotrocket --
Well, BBD has beaten me to the punch. Peak electric production ("installed capacity") from the 22000 panels will be of the order of 22 MW. At noon on a cloudless day with the panels all freshly cleaned and pointed dead at the sun. Using Philip Bratby's figure of 6% on average (see above at 3:13 PM), the annual production would extrapolate to around 11 million kWh. At the FIT rate of ~40p per kWh, that's around £4.5 million per year of gross income. BBD at 2:03 pm says that's about 10 times the market wholesale rate. Without the FIT, I suspect the capital costs would make this project a non-starter.
HaroldW
Thanks for the calculation you provide above.
The FIT for solar PV is not going to be abolished. It is probably going to be reduced from 41.3p kWh for installations >50kW to discourage vulture capitalism.
Doubtless there will be furious lobbying from the SPV industry (which though it was made) and the gentlemen in good suits who never really come out into the light (who thought they were quids in).
More visibly, the energy fantasists will posture and screech too.
But as I said earlier, I am quietly hopeful that big solar is dead in the UK.
BBD:
I understand the upper limit for solar to qualify for FiT will be 50kW. Nothing guaranteed though.
I want to return to David's comment above:
As an advocate of limited government, I can't agree that this should be a government's responsibility. Rather, I believe their responsibility lies with ensuring that those who can produce energy, or in fact any other good, are allowed to do so without crippling them with inordinate regulation and special taxation. And most emphatically *not* to use public monies to support inefficient producers, which is not only wasteful immediately, but counterproductive in the long term as it undermines the un-subsidized producers.
Look Englanders!
Reliable, affordable electricity is so last century.
Get over it, please do.
The windmills of your mind are very beautiful.
And well worth a few (all right a lot) of your lazy krazy pounds Sterling.
If you don't like the look then you're just not into post modern art.
Windmills are to beautify the ugly, bland countryside.
You in the back, stop laughing,
I did not say post modern science or economics.
But that's a thought though,
I'll work on that for tomorrow's lecture.
/yese, yes ok - sarc off now if you must/
But in Australia, we're all very slow,
But we're watching you with interest.
We're intending to join you "real soon now",
If the dang parliament only lets us.
"more profitable than Dairy farming"
Most things are, I believe... :-(
I, too, am writing to the local paper re the proposed 'turbine farm' off the Needles (shame it's not Cowes) and our local FoE's wilful confusion between ROC's and subsidy. Someone here mentioned DECC's Annual Energy Statement and its admission that 31% of consumer bills would be for 'green energy charges' but the PDF document doesn't appear to use that terminology. It has the ring of truth, though - does anyone know if/where it is?
"I am quietly hopeful that big solar is dead in the UK"
Agreed, but you'd think that Spain's difficulty with it would have presented a clue. Huhne does know they have more sunshine there, I suppose..?
These feed-in tariffs for wind and solar, remind me of the (real) definition of Overseas Aid:
'A system for taking money from the poor of rich countries and giving it to the rich of poor countries..'
The Italians seem to be pulling the plug on subsidies; why not US.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/03/07/arrivederci-solare-italy-pushes-to-cut-solar-subsidies/