Bishop Hill Lockwood: no wind for 40 years
May 30, 2011 Climate: other Energy Greens Well, that's not exactly what he said, but it's not far off:
...the last two winters have featured exceptionally low temperatures and were remarkably still when they should have been the windiest seasons of all, as high pressure diverted the jet stream from its normal position.
Meteorologists have found that the position of the jet stream has been influenced by the lower levels of activity on the Sun. This decline in sun-spot activity is expected to continue for the next 40 years, with potentially serious consequences for the viability of wind farms.
Professor Mike Lockwood, from Reading University, said: “Changes in the jet stream will change the pattern of winds that we get in the UK. That, of course, is a problem for wind power.
“You have to site your wind farms in the right place and if you site your wind farm in the wrong place then that will be a problem.”
So, when you see a windmill standing still, despite all the billions of subsidy thrown at them, you can console yourself with the fact that things will have picked up a little in time for your children to see the benefit.
If only Prof Lockwood had discovered this before we spent all that money eh?
Bishop Hill
Mike Lockwood via email says his research on solar/windspeed links is not new and the reduced average windspeed stuff mentioned in the article is nothing to do with his work. I think what he means here is that his research shows the jetstream will move (a problem for windfarms in itself) but says nothing about average windspeeds.
Reader Comments (50)
"Meteorologists have found that the position of the jet stream has been influenced by the lower levels of activity on the Sun. This decline in sun-spot activity is expected to continue for the next 40 years, with potentially serious consequences for the viability of wind farms."
I would add this to further the idea that the sun is the major, if not only, driving force behind climate variation on this planet and not the computer generated fantasies of humans.
Has there been any very recent research pointing to this discovery?
I can't help thinking that the timing of this announcement is somehow officially sanctioned i.e. the government is looking for a way to unwind the public expectation that has been allowed to build up over the past however many years.
Conspiracy theorists would also possibly like to link this to the recent attacks on Chris Huhne - all being carried out to deprecate the green message.
"I would add this to further the idea that the sun is the major, if not only, driving force behind climate variation on this planet and not the computer generated fantasies of humans."
May 30, 2011 at 6:15 AM | Jabba the Cat
And your evidence for this ludicrous claim which runs contrary to the findings of almost every climate scientist on the planet is.........?
Oh look, completely absent. Well there's a surprise.
Ther maximum life of any wind farm is 25 years and they have to be decommissioned at the end of that period. So they will be gone before the wind picks up and our children (and grand-children and great grand-children) won't see the "benefit". What benefit was that Bish? I have never discovered any benefit, only harm.
Matthu
I've emailed Prof Lockwood with your question.
The 'wiser' warmists are gearing up to finding arguments why climate is not behaving as predicted. A similar example is invoking aerosols (from China mostly) as the reason why the world is not currently warming. Eventually, they need to be able to say "we didn't get it wrong with the evidence we had at the time".
Meanwhile, The Guardian headlines with: "Worst ever carbon emissions leave climate on the brink, Exclusive: Record rise, despite recession, means 2C target almost out of reach"
No comments section.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/29/carbon-emissions-nuclearpower?intcmp=122
Click on the link to the author's name (Fiona Harvey). Looks like an 18 year old schoolgirl. I suppose at that age, there's more future to fear for, especially having grown up with the almost daily scare stories and BBC educational films.
Its not the average speed that counts. The problem with turbines as a major source of generation is intermittency. Generation sources have to be continuous amplitude. Wind is not. The John Muir study showed that even on a pan-European scale it is not. This means that it is entirely pointless to install it. Whatever you do, and on whatever scale you install it, it is not going to be part of the national energy solution. In fact, the larger the percent of capacity it is, the worse it is.
You can argue about solar, its ridiculous this far north, the winter days are too short, its absurdly expensive, but at least it does not now that we do not depend on direct sunlight suffer from the intermittency problem.
The thing that is so hard to understand about the green movement is its insistence on taking actions which, in terms of the doctrine itself, are too small to have any material effect on the problem. We are for instance asked to make tiny reductions in CO2 emissions (in global terms) at great sacrifices, when they are too small to have any effect. Even if the UK were to stop emitting CO2 totally, our economy is too small for that to have any effect on temperatures.
If the green movement wanted to advocate something reasonably effective in terms of alternative energy, there are things that might work. We could, for instance, put up huge solar farms in the Sahara. We could research wave and tidal power. Almost anything would be better than putting up huge windfarms at enormous expense and generating almost no usable power from them. Almost anything would be better than paying people huge sums to erect solar panels on their roofs in tiny installations that generate almost no power in national terms.
If we really wanted to reduce energy consumption, the first thing we would look at is the abolition of private cars and the limitation of internal combustion engines in general. Suburbs, malls, oil based agriculture, these are the big easy targets. Instead we have the green movement wittering on about leaving mobile phone chargers plugged in, TV on standby, straw bale house building, none of which will have any material impact. Its completely baffling.
The problem the movement has is that no-one is taking it seriously any more, and this is because it is endlessly advocating the adoption of enormously expensive measures which, in the movements own terms, have no effect on the supposed problem. Not to mention of course that in the light of the revelations of the climategate material, fewer and fewer actually believe in the robustness of the science behind the supposed problem. This is a model case of how not to move public policy, and in how to discredit a cause.
The tragedy is that as this goes, it takes the cause of real protection of the real environment from real damage along with it.
Statement from the UK Met Office:
Following on from our explanation of last winter’s unusual cold and snowy spell as being conclusively caused by global warming we have produced the following commentary on the news that UK wind has been reducing just as we have erected thousands of windmills-
Th is yet more conclusive proof of global warming.
Hotter air has a higher energy content, so when it meets the colder sea (full of ice melting from Greenland and dead polar bears), there will be a greater thermal gradient and higher winds.
Except when this same phenomenon leads to less wind. Which is perfectly well predicted by our models. Only we can’t show you them because you might find something wrong with them.
And anyway wind is just weather so it doesn’t count.
Thank you.
PS – we’d like another £300 million for another new computer. Any chance of a cheque by next week? Cheers.
@michel
'The thing that is so hard to understand about the green movement is its insistence on taking actions which, in terms of the doctrine itself, are too small to have any material effect on the problem'
Why do people say the rosary of pray five times a day or venerate a dead guys left toenail because a pope once said something nice about him? Beats me, but plenty of people do it.
Greenism isn't about practical solutions to real problems. It is a tribal religion, and like all religions has its little rituals of only symbolic significance.
http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/5275/wind-statistics-raise-concerns-about-u-k-renewable-policy
The only thing missing is the image of the little girl at the Royal Wedding with her hands firmly over her ears ...
40 years is long enough for all alarmists to have retired on full pensions.
ZDB May 30, 2011 at 7:13 AM
And your evidence for this ludicrous claim
"...which runs contrary to the findings of almost every climate scientist on the planet is.........?
Oh look, completely absent. Well there's a surprise.
@michel
The reason for this green madness is that there are no practical and no rational people involved.
Instead we have a strange mixture of emotional hippies wanting something to believe and over-specialised 2nd-rate academics wonking on and on with their cargo-cult theories and models.
And politicians flailing around for something worthwhile in a landscape of political exhaustion and nihilism. Pols on the left no longer believe in socialism and those on the right no longer believe in capitalism. They are desperate for something - anything - to be seen to be doing.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/may/25/wind-power-national-grid-forecasting
Wind forecast upgrade should mean big drop in fossil fuel use
Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 May 2011 13.44 BST
Fiona doesn't seem to have got the memo from Prof Lockwood!
Oakwood is correct, seems the Guradiad are employing child labour in the hope that oft times come gems ;¬)
May 30, 2011 at 7:48 AM | michel
You really should have put your pen down at the end of paragraph 1.
As far as the UK is concerned, the green movement achieved "mission accomplished" in October 2008 with the passing into law of Climate Change Act 2008.
WRT "wittering" as you call it, I fully endorse the final paragraph of Latimer Alder, May 30, 2011 at 8:22 AM.|
Has there been a decent study to capture the heat from overheated gearboxes on windmills? Darn lot more than my rooftop could provide.
Jack Hughes:
Frederick Forsyth has an explanation for why politicians are still flailing around in this mess.
http://www.express.co.uk/ourcomments/view/249033Tories-must-return-to-
real-British-values#ixzz1Ngrptxlu
The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) has data on wind farm and wind turbine performance going back over about 8 years. Eye-balling the data in a 1000 page document, I can't see too much in the way of a downward trend at any particular location. Of course a fall in performance can be due to a fall in wind speeds and degradation of the turbines (wear and tear). The data make fascinating reading. Some turbines/farms have consistent single digit capacity factors with many years of incomplete data, suggesting regular breakdowns. Some are achieving a capacity factor of up to 2% over several years! The infamous Blyth harbout wind farm (pages 528 & 529) reveals wonderful performance over an 8year period. Anyone considering putting up their own turbine to cash in on the new Feed-in Tariifs, would do well to study these data (though I'm sure the lure of huge subsidies put out by salesmen is too great for the gredy and gullible to look at the potential down side).
The data also show huge intermittencies, even on monthly data.
The other thing that has to be remembered is that the power in the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed, so a 10% fall in wind speed results in a 33% fall in power production.
See http://www.ref.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs10/Wind%202010%20v1.pdf
Yes. And when Green magical thinking is finally forced to confront reality, you see what catastrophically bad policy decisions their rituals engendered.
This cold weather is a double whammy, rainfall also decreases so hydro output drops too.
This also shows the AGW excuse for last winter eg a hotter planet increases moisture in the atmosphere which increases snow is also falsified. After you melt the snowfall and convert to rainfall its a lot less than normal.
The MET office press release confirms, must have been written though gritted teeth LOL
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2011/cold-dec
Precipitation (rain and snow) was well below average for the UK, recording just 38% of what is normally expected in December. This makes it the third driest December in the series that goes back to 1910.
Did someone forget to tell the Germans this. They have just announced the closure of their nuclear plants over the next 10 yrs in favour of more wind ( and probably more coal fired plants to give more base load)
@ ZedsDeadBed
You could start with this...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/20/indirect-solar-forcing-of-climate-by-galactic-cosmic-rays-an-observational-estimate/
...though the relative simplicity of the theory might prove a stumbling block for you...
Jabba the Cat
That is simply beyond laughable. You advance a theory that is counter to virtually every single finding in the field of climate science.
When asked to give evidence for this bizarre theory, you point to single un-reviewed internet blog from a man who believes in creationism.
Even funnier than that, you clearly don't understand, or haven't bothered to read, the actual blog piece you pointed me to. It in no way supports your assertion that "the sun is the major, if not only, driving force behind climate variation on this planet".
Have you actually read that blog posting, or did you just post to it because it was referenced on another crank blog?
Next project, installing wind turbines on rail tracks so that they cold be mobilised and transported quickly to where the wind is blowing..mobile wind turbines,.LOL..........
About the sun possibly being the prime mover of our climate and its antics: is there any other energy heating the planet except solar energy? OK, maybe wehave many volcanoes spewing hellish temperatures down in the oceans abysses, but hey, it's the sun stupid. Jaspert Kirjjkby and Smensmark have already showed it, and recently even lab experiments in Denmark proved the amplification due to CGR's, solar radiation and clouds and therfore albedo and therefore climate change..
Zed
Yet another totally irrelevant ad hom aimed at Spencer from you.
You have criticised others here for personal or general attacks on scientists. Why then are you doing the same?
Furthermore, the Svensmark Hypothesis is fully published in the literature. Spencer discusses its implications and examines satellite data (CERES) - a field in which he is a globally acknowledged expert.
Watch it.
Telegraph: "Meteorologists have found that the position of the jet stream has been influenced by the lower levels of activity on the Sun. This decline in sun-spot activity is expected to continue for the next 40 years... One such period of prolonged blocking of the jet stream is thought to have occurred between 1645 and 1715, when Britain experienced a mini ice age, yet also spells of hot, dry summer weather."
Prof Lockwood: “We reached a high point of solar activity in 1985, Since then, it has been declining. We are now halfway back to the levels seen during the Maunder Minimum. The probability is that that decline will continue for the next 40 years.”
Do I understand correctly from this that solar output brought us out of the LIA and that that warming is now reversing, that the LIA was a global event, that solar output variances could explain other events such as the MWP, that the MWP could well have been global, that the high back in 1985 was the warmest we will see in at least a 75 year period, we are in the declining phase of a climate optimum, that CO2 feedback is zero or less, that the IPCC projections are deeply flawed, that the Met office supercomputer output of climate predictions are way-off the mark and that EU policies on mitigation are a total waste of cash and effort?
simpleseekeraftertruth:
I think you have summed it up rather succinctly.
simpleseekeraftertruth:
I think you will probably need to run that past DECC before it becomes official mantra ...
matthu;
Afraid I can't stretch it to include proof of Huhne's innocence.
This is worth a read, and it does not take long.
From 1979. A prediction of a warm period out to the year 2000 then a prolonged period of significant cooling.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/1979-before-the-hockey-team-destroyed-climate-science/
Is this the beginning of an exit strategy which allows them to follow a rational energy policy without losing face?
"ludicrous claim"
Is is really ludicrous to claim that our climate is ultimately determined by the sun? I don't think there'd be much without it - even Truro might lose some of its appeal at -273 degrees...
Re G.Watkins.
Might be getting too late for rational energy policies. Germany announces it's closing it's nuclear power stations. We're losing a bunch of our power stations. EU future energy deficit is growing and seems to be relying on covering the North Sea with windmills. Assumptions that if one country is low on power it can import from another via an EU Supergrid seem somewhat optimistic if much of the renewables is located in a relatively small area that's been affected negatively by climate change the last few winters. Energy companies building new coal, gas or nuclear will be laughing though if any solar minima increases high pressure blocking, reduces windspeed and increases the demand for their energy.
Germany's desire to reduce energy consumption by 10% will probably be achieved by their industry migrating rather than any efficiency savings. One thing I've never understood is if the desire is to improve energy efficiency, why are governments penalising businesses rather than subsidising upgrades to industry. It seems the EU wants to decarbonise by deindustrialisation, and never mind the economic consequences and job losses.
I heard on R4 just now that Manchester Airport is switching off its travelators to save both money and CO2, although I imagine that huffing and puffing passengers may help offset the CO2 reduction.
Since nearly all the green targets, schemes and legislation inflicted on the western world in the last 20 years are predicated on Big, Bad Carbon Dioxide, is there nothing we can do to correct the impression in our bureaucrats' tiny minds?
AH
How long before the Germans do some arithmetic and realise that switching them all off by 2017 will leave a rather large energy deficit? I like to think that the madder the scheme (as with Huhne and our 80% by 2050 target) the better, in that it will be harder to defend when reality bites, but environmentalists do seem to have rather thick hides.
Zed
"another crank blog"
That seems uncalled for. After all, you contribute to it. Oh, I see... :-)
@ ZedsDeadBed
"the sun is the major, if not only, driving force behind climate variation on this planet".
I am happy to claim sole ownership for that statement.
"You advance a theory that is counter to virtually every single finding in the field of climate science."
So what?
Atomic Hairdryer
Germany's decision is ample evidence of the utter confusion in energy policy inflicted by the Greens. Anti-nuclear lobbying has just trumped logical policy making. The consequences will be disastrous for Germany.
Oddly enough, it's a disaster for emissions regulation as well. The increasing proportion of renewables in the energy mix exacerbates the intermittency and slew (variability) problems. Lots of inefficiently cycling spinning reserve will be necessary to compensate.
Everybody loses. It's insane really.
The grid operators in Germany are already warning that the reactor safety inspection shutdowns post-Fukushima are placing a real strain on the security of supply - and there are fears for the coming winter.
I posted this recently from the German Energy Blog, so apologies if you have already seen it. They are hanging on by the fingernails:
Re James P
I'm hoping the EU will do the math and look at the growing EU energy deficit. Not much point building a new grid if there is a very large EU-wide energy hole looming and no power to fill it. Or no financing available to build base load because it's all been lent to the wind farmers and lost when that bubble bursts. I just wish I had several billion now to start building more nuclear ready to fill the gap and make out like a bandit selling reliable power to distressed states.
Re BBD
France and EDF will probably do very well out of it :)
I have worked for 2 multi-national manufacturing companies, both of them did annual exercises on cost of manufacture in each country (including the countiries they currently had not plants). This was then fed into the long term planning dept and used to decide which plants closed and where the new ones were sited along with lots of other info like shipping costs.
I fed the exercise with the UK figures and got to see the final report, in the 90's and upto 2005 the UK was the most competitive energy cost country in Europe, just before I left in 2009 it was racing up the table to be top.
On shipping costs you may be interested to know it costs the same to get a 20T container from Shanghai to Felistowe port to port as it costs to get it by road from the Midlands to Scotland.
Combine that with all the other costs eg labour, land costs etc and you can see an accountant would never site a manufacturing plant in the UK.
That is the reality ad no amount of posturing in the HOP is going to change that, only getting back to cheap energy.
AH
Oh yes indeed. Buy.
BOFA
Actually, I'm not surprised. The first leg of the journey is probably quicker too:
michel
You're right of course - particularly on the point about the 'greenies' having no concept of the SCALE of energy generation in this (or any other industialised) country.
As an ex-nuclear power station engineer (a long time ago, when I still had a career in engineering) - I have stood in the turbine hall watching 500MW being generated - and of course I've also watched white whirlygigs on hilltops. The comparisons are laughable.
David
Your point about the pro-renewables lobby (aka the energy fantasists) lacking a sense of scale is absolutely spot-on.
It is the failure to understand how inefficient renewables are vs fossil or nuclear that underpins the mistaken belief that renewables can displace either from the energy mix to any significant degree.
Now Germany is going to find out the hard way that trying to manage demand while reducing baseload capacity is not going to work.
Germany has just joined the UK at the sharp end of the biggest mistake in energy policy the world has ever seen.
It does not feel like a privilege to witness this historic event.
I suppose there's some hope that the lights will begin to go out in Germany while there's still some time to recover here. Not that I wish it on them, but I wish it even less on us!
"concept of the SCALE"
That applies to lots of things that are not understood by politicians. Sadly, you have to be numerate enough to know that GigaWatts aren't readily or reliably produced by windmills and anything measured in parts per million is rather small.
The following is from REF – Renewable Energy Foundation
“Low Wind Power Output in 2010: An Information Note”
“Comment
Wind power output is significantly variable and difficult to predict over several timescales, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years.
Variability over short time scales has been much discussed, and it is now well known that low wind conditions can prevail at times of peak load over very large areas. For example, at 17.30 on the 7th of December 2010, when the 4th highest United Kingdom load of 60,050 MW was recorded, the UK wind fleet of approximately 5,200 MW was producing about 300 MW (i.e. it had a Load Factor of 5.8%). One of the largest wind farms in the United Kingdom, the 322
MW Whitelee Wind Farm was producing approximately 5 MW (i.e. Load Factor 1.6%).
Load factor in other European countries at exactly this time was also low. The Irish wind fleet was recording a load factor of approximately 18% (261 MW/1,425 MW), Germany 3%
(830MW/25,777 MW), and Denmark 4% (142 MW / 3,500 MW).4
Such figures confirm theoretical arguments that regardless of the size of the wind fleet the United Kingdom will never be able to reduce its conventional generation fleet below peak load plus a margin of approximately 10%.”
http://www.ref.org.uk/attachments/article/217/ref%20on%202010%20wind%20performance%2002%2002%2011.pdf
Really it is ample time that your readership appreciate the work of Marcel Leroux so this kind of "discovery" or "rediscovery" gets the fundamentals of atmospheric circulation understood.
May I suggest his latest book "Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate" Springer/Praxis 2ed English edition 2010, Yes it was a UK publisher!
And to whet your appetite, an older and yet vindicated, his seminal peer reviewed paper:
http://ddata.over-blog.com/xxxyyy/2/32/25/79/Leroux-Global-and-Planetary-Change-1993.pdf