windmills article in a popular paper

[sm_jamieson]

daily mail today:

[The Natural Philosopher]

guff from a DECC spokesman:

"That?s why we want to see a diverse energy mix with renewables, nuclear, clean coal and gas all playing a part"

Which doesn't actually make any sense beyond not offending any lobby too much. And doesn't specifically mention wind or solar either.. the latest weasel/reverse ferret is to shove in things like wood burners and hydro into the 'renewables' category and show 'how much renewables are doing' with a picture of a windmill ..and follow that up with a call for more (subsidies for) windmills.....

If anyone wants the hughes report in its entirety a copy is here

particularly like the bit that says that :

"The casual assumption that expenditures on green technology represent an efficient and economic use of scarce resources is little more than a convenient fairy tale for troubled times. "

Well, yes.

[tim.....]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But it's not though is it.

We don't build power stations for a 10 year life time they are built for a

40 year lifetime so comparing over a 10 year period is statistically completely wrong.

And who can say, with certainty, how much gas will cost in 10, 20 or 30 years time.

The point about renewables is that once you have built them the running costs are near zero, but with fossil fuel power stations the costs of running them go up and up every year, and sooner rather than later (IMHO) we are going to reach a point where we have run out and the price will sky rocket. But I will bet my house that Professor Fells has used an unrealistic value for the increase in fuel prices in his calculation in order to get the result that his vested interest wants.

There may be other things wrong with windmills, but the cost comparison over

10 years is not one of them.

tim

[Martin Brown]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think they are basically right. Far too many windfarm proposals are to farm the grants and subsidies rather than the wind. It isn't uncommon to see two out of three wind turbines non-functional.

At the moment natural gas prices look like they may actually fall in the short term as shale gas comes on stream in ever larger amounts and in situ gasification of coal becomes possible on an industrial scale.

Actually Prof Fells is one of the few experts that I would trust to give an accurate assessment of the nations future energy requirements and the failings of successive governments to plan for them.

I don't think it will make too much differnce what timescale you compare them over. Wind is much better than solar PV but that isn't saying a great deal. Solar PV really is the pits in terms of ROI.

Half the turbines round here are broken and feathered at any one time. The only place I have seen consistent >90% availability is the cluster around the Nissan plant near Sunderland. They did have one catch fire.

Wind power is a part of the solution, but it can only be a small part because their output depends on the cube of the windspeed.

Regards, Martin Brown

[The Natural Philosopher]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they are up around 15% of capex PER YEAR in terms of maintenance. MUCH higher than a conventional plant, and windmills typically are BER in about 10-15 years. At which time if there is still silly money to be made they will install even bigger newer and more expensive ones, or if there isn't silly money, they will be leat to rot forever as a danger to walkers or shipping, whichever.

but with fossil fuel power stations the costs of

No, the costs are in fact relativiely constant - unles they are required to co-generate with wind of course, which increases the costs as there is more wear qand tear on them and they overall are not required to generate as much electricity. So the unit electricity contribution of capex and maintennace rises.

and sooner rather than later

The price wont go above the nuclear break even price of about 6p-8p a unit. Because when it does we will simply build nuclear.

Unless of course we carry on with renewables when the cost will be in the 12p-50p mark or in fact if we have no fossil or nuclear whatsoever, the cost will rise to about £10 a unit by my calculations.

It most certainly is.

I've done the calcs.

Right now amortized costs of electricity are about 3.5p-4.5p for coal,

5.5p for gas (of which the gas cost is nearly all of it) , 6p-8p for nuclear, 10p-15p for onshore wind (leaving OUT the cost of gas backup) and 20-30p for offshore wind, and about 45-60p for solar (again ignoring the cost of backup).

[The Natural Philosopher]

It actually isnt part of any technical solution. It is neither the cheapest and most environmentally friendly way to reduce CO2 emissions, (that is gas or nuclear) nor is it the cheapest way to generate electricity (that right now is coal).

It is and it always has been a political solution to governments who want to be seen to be 'doing something' as it fools enough people for enough of the time to allow the reality - that it does f*ck all and costs a packet - to be 'credibly deniable'.

The cleanest generation technology is nuclear: the cheapest is coal, and gas is ideal to cover short term deficiencies in those - which are essentially baseload technologies.

So best cost= 80% coal 20% gas Best emissions at lowest cost = 80% nuclear 20% gas.

With that little hydro and biomass we can muster making up the numbers.

There is absolutely no case for wind whatsoever, not on cost grounds and not on emissions lines, either.

It is pure politics.

[Bill]

In message , tim..... writes

OK, my anecdote from a wild day this spring.

Walking along a pontoon to our boat we kept passing a large motor boat, about the size of a small MTB, with large drums of diesel being loaded aboard. My son later chatted to one of the crew who said there was no facility where we were for them to be lifted out, so on the tide they were having to set off along the North Wales coast to Liverpool, where they would be craned out onto the road transporter. Then overnight across the Pennines for an emergency job on a wind farm in the North Sea.

I wonder what that cost.

[tim.....]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, they are up around 15% of capex PER YEAR in terms of maintenance. MUCH higher than a conventional plant, and windmills typically are BER in about 10-15 years. At which time if there is still silly money to be made they will install even bigger newer and more expensive ones, or if there isn't silly money, they will be leat to rot forever as a danger to walkers or shipping, whichever.

but with fossil fuel power stations the costs of

No, the costs are in fact relativiely constant -

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, the costs of the fuel will go up - with inflation at least - and possibly more so as it becomes scarcer. These predictions about fracking gas forcing the price down seem to be pie in the sky

tim

[The Natural Philosopher]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If gas goes up more than 50% nuclear is cheaper

Nuclear is always cheaper than wind.

[tim.....]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If gas goes up more than 50% nuclear is cheaper

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

so what?

tim

[The Natural Philosopher]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, if gas goes up more than 50%, no one will build any more gas powered generating sets: they will build nuclear instead.

That sets an upper limit on the price of electricity in a free market.

Its only by subsidising an individual technology to totally distort the market that windmills even exist at all.