Saturday
Feb042012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Tory windfarm revolt
Feb 4, 2012 Economics Energy: wind According to the Telegraph, around a hundred Tory MPs have demanded that subsidies to onshore windfarms be dramatically reduced.
A total of 101 Tory MPs have written to the Prime Minister demanding that the £400 million-a-year subsidies paid to the “inefficient” onshore wind turbine industry are “dramatically cut”.
The backbenchers, joined by some MPs from other parties, have also called on Mr Cameron to tighten up planning laws so local people have a better chance of stopping new farms being developed and protecting the countryside.
H/T Jiminy Cricket.
Reader Comments (79)
Finally, I have just seen some hard evidence of man-made climate change, which I would like to share with you all.
I think the image was taken off Denmark.
Source page.
We will have to resist any strengthening of the grid between Scotland and England. In fact there should be big circuit breakers installed at the border that we can open when it is either calm or windy in Scotland.
But coming to and island or coastline near you!
lapogus
We are Fighting the Atlantic Array, proposed for the Severn Estuary, near to Lundy Isle and a Marine Consevation Area. Nothing is sacrosanct when you are
after the big subsidiessaving the planet.http://www.slaythearray.com/
Phillip - interesting. I agree that Scotland in future winters (after Longannet is closed or falls over) will be dependent on English generation whenever the wind drops, but at the moment Scotland typically exports about 1GW to England, pretty much all the time, (which it has done for as long as I can remember). Torness was effectively built for English demand, not Scottish. So in the meantime circuit breakers would mean an bigger energy gap south of the border. Your point is interesting though. At ther moment the SNP is pursuing a different energy policy from England (no nuclear, heavy dependence on renewables). The SNP appear to have forgotten that we are connected to the National (GB) Grid. If the grid falls over in England it will likely fall over here also, there's a good chance it could fall over here also, regardless of how much wind we do or don't have. And how many black start stations are there in England?
Greens keep telling me wind is free.
I keep telling them, the subsidy is going to zero then.
Windmills - like all machinery will sometime become 'life-expired'. Does anybody know how such equipment is going to be removed from our countryside?
Will it be just a simple explosion at the bottom of the tower a la Fred Dibnah? If so there are plenty of opportunities near His Grace's Residence for them to practice with.
I'd buy tickets to watch.
Phillip - I am not active or involved in the say-no-to-Tiree-array campaign, I am just aghast what is being planned for such an amazingly beautiful part of Scotland and important marine habitat. I am also incensed that policy makers could have fallen for the madness in terms of cost and energy density etc.
I wish you well in your efforts to stop the Atlantic Array. Perhaps you should get in touch with folk in Tiree to share thoughts? If so, let me know, I have Robert Trythall's email address if you are interested. By the way the Tiree Array is called the "Argyll Array" by the proponents, presumably because no-one will then know exactly where it is and hence be less likely to object.
Latimer - Likewise (tickets to watch). I would have thought that it would be very easy to bring a turbine down. An angle grinder to make some cuts in the steel in the right place, and strong winds would do the rest. I am amazed that the insurance industry hasn't cottoned on to this yet. Maybe the turbines are not insured. They have barbed wire fences round all the wind farms in Greece. It would be much more difficult to remove all the concrete though.
John in France,
RE helipads: Some maintenance programs do use helicopters but they don't land.
There is a design of turbine that <A href="http://cutedecision.com/wind-turbines-with-a-helipad/">includes a helipad but so far I think it is just a computer model.
Lapogus:
Me, I am amazed that the insurance industry hasn't cottoned on to these yet. Every turbine gearbox needs a teaspoon to ensure smooth running. A veritable Redex/STP/Wynn's for enhanced wind farm performance.
Why is are the MP's focussing on onshore wind? Surely offshore (as discussed above) is worse with knobs on.
is are = are. I used to be indecisive...
James - the reason why they wish to limit ROCs for onshore but not off-shore is simple; tory voters tend to live in the shires, not 10 miles out at sea.
Q: Why [are] the MPs focussing on onshore wind?
A: Fish don't vote.
It's a bit obvious, though, even for them. Why not object to all windmills, especially those with twice the subsidy?
James - I would suggest two possible reasons:
1. they are on the whole too clueless and dim to know that offshore farms are many times more expensive to build and maintain than onshore, and hence probably the most stupid and expensive way to make electricity known to man.
2. Maybe the renewables industry or certain individuals attached have been funding the party, and the MPs now do not want to cut them off completely.
Nope, I will go with the first reason.
If you can make the case that onshore wind is too unreliable for the expense, and make it stick, it clears the way to fling it at offshore too. I am sure nimbyism plays some part in it though.
My apologies for the duff linkage further up.
I notice that, right now, coal fired power stations are providing 56% of the current demand. Aren't they the ones that are about to wear out?
I wouldn't worry too much about offshore wind generators. As Foxgoose and others have pointed out, and, as a boatie, I can attest, Atlantic conditions will turn them to scrap in very short order.
For the windbags, this is a bridge too far. Bring it on. The idiocy will become apparent almost instantaneously.
This morning, wind power is contributing 0.2% (100MW) to the UK's energy supply - and it's a cold morning. The dreaded (and doomed) coal is contributing 48.6% (23,600MW).
Robin, wind is down to just 69MW now. It is a national disgrace that so much money and subsidies are have been poured into this stupid way to make electricity.
lapogus:
Yes - 0.1%. In a sensible world, this would be getting headlines. But, sadly, we don't live in that world.
Just now, it was a row of big fat zeros. I wonder how much they were using..?
JamesP: "I wonder how much they were using..?"
Good question. According to this US report, wind turbines use electricity for various functions including heating the blades (which "may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power") and the nacelle. And it seems that, when they do so, they use electricity from the grid "which does not appear to be accounted for in their output figures". If that's also true of the UK, today's situation would probably mean that wind's contribution is negative.
PS: wind is now contributing 52MW - that's less than 0.1% of demand and half the pathetic amount I noted earlier this morning.
While coal is running flat-out (95% capacity). I wonder which is more useful? Perhaps Mr Huhne would like to answer, now he has a bit more free time...
His downfall is nicely, is somewhat obscenely, satirised here:
Link
I particularly liked the reference to the Department for Entropy and Climate Circuses...
(h/t Katabasis)
Here's a thought.
Suppose the government decided to 'subsidise' - oh, I dunno - say, computers.
However - it turned out that computers only worked for 20% of the time that they were supposed to.
Can you imagine the outcry..? Tax money being used to support something that only works three days a fortnight..?
But this is PRECISELY the situation we've got with wind turbines - and as we are seeing yet again this winter - last night wind was providing a piffling 0.5% of electricity demand.
When will these idiots in Downing Street and other parts of government wake up and spot the elephant in the room..?
Zed and follow-up comments removed.