Thursday
Apr072011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill More on the windy flops
There is a very amusing article on the BBC website about the John Muir Trust report on windfarms, which you read about here yesterday. The report, you may remember, noted that...
During each of the four highest peak demands of 2010, wind output reached just 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity, according to the analysis.
...to which Jenny Hogan of the quango Scottish Renewables has retorted:
no form of electricity [works] at 100% capacity, 100% of the time.
Hilarious.
Reader Comments (48)
“no form of electricity [works] at 100% capacity, 100% of the time”
But demand is 100%. How does she think that renewables will cope with that?
Anyone know where we can get figures detailing cost per KWH of renewable energy that energy companies are forced to buy in and to what extent this is impacting the standard cost of energy to consumers?
Presumably the cost per KWH to the energy companies will be going up to reflect these more realistic ratings?
Thanks, you made me chuckle.
Its a new age thing.
100/100 is just too ... competetive.
We want wind to have good self esteem even at 10/10.
Let's all join arms with Jenny and sing Kumbaya. In the dark.
You've picked the best quote from the fatuous response but good lord! What a fatuous reponse! Jenny Hogan seems to adopt the all too familiar defense of avoiding dealing with the specifics and instead whines about how awful it is to criticise anything in renewables.
So this story is only suitable for the Scots?
Come on bBC, that is quite a story. Share it with the rest of the country or are you frightened of something?
The normal reply from the greens is that in one way or another all forms of electricity is subsidised.
The logic of this is that fossil fuel should pay for its obnoxious CO2. But if CO2 is in fact as harmless or even as some of us think beneficial, fossil fuel derived power is not subsidised at all and is much cheaper than any of the alternatives.
You guys are being mean to the lovely Jenny - and she deserves it Any person who can make statements as silly and as meaningless as her 100/100 masterpiece must be really working at irony and humour - either that or her 'company injection' to help her stay 'on message' was an overdose.
Jenny Hogan's comment is inane, as are her follow up comments. No attempt to answer the points, so she just makes slurs about the John Muir Trust. No attempt at rational argument - she daren't argue rationally and deal with the points made, so has to attack the messenger.
As the report states "It is clear from this analysis that wind cannot be relied upon to provide any significant level of generation at any defined time in the future." If Jenny Hogan can find anything wrong with the figures or the analysis, she would do well to say so. Of course, she can't, so she doesn't.
"We have yet to hear the trust bring forward a viable alternative to lower emissions and meet our growing demand for safe, secure energy."
The answer you are looking for, madam, is nuclear power. No doubt anathema to Scottish Renewables.
matthu, you can find a table of feed in tariffs at the DECC website. The supplier is effectively required to pay the owner of system these tariffs for each kWhr they generate on top of which they are required to buy any power exported at 3p/kWhr (for small domestic systems the standard assumption is that 50% of generated power is exported, with the rest being used on site, while larger systems run dual metering). Note that these numbers have just risen by the RPI (4.8%) as we enter year two of the scheme.
Oxbridge P - thanks for that... need to get my head around the figures!
Look at this: http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Jenny-Hogan-It39s-time-to.6747235.jp.
I'm only guessing but I don't think Miss Hogan is an engineer. Isn't 30% * 80% =24% but as she opines it depends on whether the winds blowing. Now there's a thing.
"First, the myth that wind farms do not work – over the course of a year, a wind turbine in the UK will typically produce useful electricity 80 per cent of the time and generate about 30 per cent of its maximum theoretical output: sometimes this is higher or lower depending on how much wind there is."
"Last, that there is a lack of public support – a 2010 survey by Mori found 77 per cent of those questioned agreed with the statement: 'Wind farms are necessary so that we can produce renewable energy; what they look like is unimportant." Indeed, Whitelee Windfarm near Glasgow had more than 120,000 visitors in its first year and continues to be a tourist attraction for hundreds of visitors every week."
I don't know what to say about this except that if I suggested to MrsGeronimo that we pop up and visit our local wind farm I have a sense she'd be none too excited. Maybe the Mrs McGeronimos are more accomodating.
Our Jen is implicitly incorporating the holier than thou factor: wind energy may only reach 5% of capacity, but it is 20 times better than any other energy, hence it is 100% better for the planet.
Engineering, scientific, and economic logic are no match for green mathematics. Come on, keep up.
I just love the way the BBC keeps saying that the report "suggests" things when it has, in fact, proved them.
Maybe not, Ms Hogan, but fossil-fuelled and nuclear power stations work at around 90% capacity for around 95% of the time...
Bit different....
Jenny Hogan
Given the vexed question of spinning reserves (and increased capacity in same once wind exceeds about 10% of the energy mix), it is simply incorrect to say this.
It's interesting that a specific examination of the misleading claims made by the wind lobby, and the shortcomings of wind generation, has now become an attempt to 'undermine renewable energy' as a whole.
Another energy fantasist at work.
"Indeed, Whitelee Windfarm near Glasgow had more than 120,000 visitors in its first year and continues to be a tourist attraction for hundreds of visitors every week." - Little Jenny Hogan
How many visitors does Auschwitz get every year?
British
Balderdash (I was thinking of something sounding like ball-ox)
Corporate Crap
Re Martin Brumby
Ah, so there is a purpose to wind turbines. All they need to do is attach passenger baskets to the blades and they'll have something to rival the London Eye.
Offshore could also be useful. Put pistons inside the towers, use wave action to pump those, drive crank, spin blades and make a nice cool breeze. They really could help prevent warming! That may be more useful than the current configuration that increases warming downwind.
It would seem that Jenny Hogan can not find her rissole with both hands.
Conclusion the wind doesn't blow on demand.
The last time the wind blew on demand was when Moses split the waters, and even that event is disputed.
I would like to congratulate Jenny Hogan: she has elicited the most entertaining set of blogs I have read for a long time.
Hans Erren
;-)
Her comments remind us of that excellent Scottish expression:
'Awa' with the faeries..'
Has your Bishness heard this afternoon's Costing The Earth (BBC R4) on how the evil government is taking away solar feed in tarrifs ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0100grj
I do have a question though. If Germany has xx% of renewables without nuclear and has manufacturing industry why can't we ? Or is that a different issue ?
Just asking.
Chris
Are you saying there is no nuclear in Germany? Perhaps you should check.
The Scottish word "bampot" fits very well here.
All things are efficient but some things are more efficient than others........now why did that pop into my head?
There's a reason why windmills in the modern, industrial age (the one immediately preceding our present post-industrial age) were banished to pumping water up from underground wells into cattle troughs. It's because our forebears recognised them as medieval technology. Not surprising, then, that the Greens should want to resurrect them.
I may be wrong here, but I think there was a Canadian Candu nuke plant that operated for over 4 years straight at over 100 capacity. I cant find the link.
Chris
Also check out the amount of coal and lignite the Germans are burning. Some massive new lignite mines are being developed.
Look at http://www.euracoal.be/pages/layout1sp.php?idpage=72
Lignite is far and away more "dirty" than hard coal (and I'm not talking about harmless plant food).
The UK and German coal mining industries were of a similar size twenty five years ago before Thatcher and the Greenies got to it.
Although they've closed many old deep coal mines they now still have more than remain here. And they haven't stopped laughing yet when the most modern, efficient and productive coal mine in Europe at Selby was closed down.
The Germans also import very large quantities of hard coal from Russia (as does the UK) and also Poland.
But Lignite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lignite
A quarter of their electricity!
http://www.economist.com/node/16947258
The Greenies are always banging on about how wonderful Germany is. When did they mention where almost half their electricity comes from?
Coal and Lignite.
That's where.
Jenny Hogan has come over all vicious - smearing the report author, who used National Grid figures, and smearing the John Muir Trust, who should stick to preservation of wild land and who should cease preventing efforts to ameliorate climate change.
Well, it is the wind industry who are destroying wild land hundred square kilometres by hundred square kilometres. Climate change, if and when it happens, will change wild land, not destroy it.
I think Christopher Booker's book mentioned that Germany fixed their emissions at a so-called 1992(?) level which was higher than their actual level in the knowledge that they were about to build an enormous brown coal generating plant. And it is when you read things like that and compare them with the nut-jobs running this country who have committed us to be the least efficient, most self-destructive economy, it makes you more determined to try to change things.
Re Phil above at 10:04am - I started a post yesterday along the same lines but was distracted by something else, but absolutely, well said! When I look at a wild land I want to think of it as a wild land and not be reminded that man has conquered them by sticking a large bloody turbine on the top.
In a letter to IET magazine, a former Network Director of National Grid estimated the colossal subsidies needed for UK Wind power as onshore 170 percent; offshore 350 percent. That is, onshore wind power costs 2.7 times our current price of electricity and offshore costs 4.5 times the price.
http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues/1015/feedback-1015.cfm
This must be a real boost to our industrial competitiveness?
Re subsidies for UK wind power.
Correction:
http://eandt.theiet.org/magazine/2010/15/feedback.cfm
Chris
"If Germany has xx% of renewables without nuclear.."
They had nuclear until a few weeks ago. I'd be interested to know how they are coping!
James P
I suspect Chris was confusing this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12745899
With this:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf43.html
The absolutely beautiful thing about this is that the statistics are undeniable. Measuring output is the easiest thing in the world ..... so there is really no point arguing with the stats. And the stats speak for themselves.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.
This is but another instance of the BBC’s position on global warming issues, in line with what I wrote in an earlier post (An uncritical love affair… thread, Apr 3 2011 10.37 or 11.38am and 6.36pm) – the original report is given and then ‘majority’ views, in this case from ‘the industry’ and ‘government’, are aired. No mention of independent skeptical views. Roll on the BBC’s review of impartiality in science coverage and their anticipated internal discussions!
Everybody in this piece is doing what their job descriptions require.
Despite the hilarity, no surprises here.
BBD
Perhaps I should have said "They had more nuclear until a few weeks ago" (about 40% from your link).
Does anyone know how they are handling the sudden disappearance of 8GW input? Just as well it's no longer winter, I imagine!
James P
They are now importing nuclear produced electricity from France:
http://tinyurl.com/5ujaorf
As I write (9.16p.m. BST) - wind contribution to electricity demand: 0.4%.
I'm not sure how to put this, but here goes:
WIND FARMS ARE USELESS - STOP BUILDING THEM NOW....!!
I am not sure if somebody already posted this URL but here is the PDF of the John Muir
ANALYSIS OF UK WIND POWER GENERATION
NOVEMBER 2008 TO DECEMBER 2010
ANALYSIS OF UK WIND POWER GENERATION NOVEMBER 2008 TO DECEMBER 2010
Do read Chris Booker's excellent Telegraph blog - 'What happens when the great fantasies, like wind power or the European Union, collide with reality?'
I particularly like his analysis of the 'phases' of such fantasies...
As I say over and over, the output stats for wind farms are still too high by as much as fifty percent because there is no control over when the turbines are producing - the result being that some portion (50% is as good as any other figure) of their output is at times when it is not needed - night, summer etc - because the conventional stations are operating at maximum turn-down.
the whole issue of controllability works against renewables - solar is ok until you need power at night. Wind is useless at all times. Tidal gives you a steady trickl;e of power whether you need it or not and cannot be ramped up. Why is it so difficult for politcos to grasp that supply and demand will never match?
diogenes
Nightmarish, isn't it:
Because they've postured themselves into a corner over emissions reduction policy. This essentially created the renewables industry we have now, which wants paying.
Obviously the numbers don't work, and now the politicians and the rest of us are a bit stuffed.
The only upside is that the renewables industry looks set for a bit of a rough ride too. Because all the free money has gone.