Onshore Wind Yes or No?

[Bill]

I’m no eco warrior or anything like that but I’ve just signed an online petition from Greenpeace urging Rishi to lift the ban on new onshore windfarms. A recent online poll showed an overwhelming majority (85%) of people thought this made sense in view of the current energy crisis even if this meant the windmill would be near them.

Sadly, an online petition despite the glaringly obvious numbers, is not the way we do things in this country, and the decision-making is being passed on to local councils who’ll no doubt make a total dog’s dinner of it, so much so that we’re likely to have fusion before they come to any conclusions.

 My FB Page

 

Bill 😊

[Confused52]

I am afraid for me the answer is mostly no. It is not about visual impact or planning in any way. The reason we had an electricity supply problem at the moment is that when the wind doesn't blow in winter we need an alternative. Building more wind generation, when the windiest places already have it, it self-delusion. Use the graphs here: Wind power production (gridwatch.co.uk) and see how serious it is when there is no wind and compare it to the maximum. This year the Maximum wind power was 16.909 and the minimum 0.141 GW. The demand and source graphs are here: GB Fuel type power generation production (gridwatch.co.uk), last year,  maximum: 47.209 GW demand. If the maximum intermittent supply is a very large fraction of total demand the shortfall is impossible to live with. We are already at the point where we have to use the( about to to be closed) coal capacity to meet demand - it happened last week. In five year time another 4GW of nuclear will close well before replacement nuclear can help.

Worse than that heat pumps need almost 100 more generation capacity is needed to replace domestic gas heating at the same time as domestic electricity demand. Electric vehicles need another 100% which can use overnight capacity of the other 200% to a degree but only if it is reliable. More intermittent supply is the last thing we need wherever it is.

[Observer II]

Agree with Con, we're being dragged by a hysterical green bandwagon into a reduced energy future,  with a reliance on  unreliable wind and solar.  imo We should be seeking self sufficiency in reliable energy sources, which mean oil and gas, and even coal; until nuclear and tidal options come on stream.   This nonsense about net zero, just passes the carbon load to other Nations, to pump out our pollution into the Earth's atmosphere.   The people who will suffer negativity in their lifestyles are the poorest, the elite will continue to jet around the globe, whilst virtue signaling on the subject.    😠

[Bill]

I understand that completely, and under ideal conditions and in a perfect world, we’d scrap the whole lot and just use nuclear and tidal for guaranteed reliability. We can’t do that of course due to the times and costs involved. So even though wind’s not 100% reliable, at least offers a quick and helpful solution that we can employ tomorrow. That then buys us time over the next ten years or so to develop more stable sources.

For me it’s not all about being green but what we need to do keep the lights on. If that means burning some coal then fine but if private industry wants to build more wind that could reduce the coal burn, then they shouldn’t be prevented from doing this as they are now. After all, most people these days don’t see windmills as quite the unnecessary blot on the landscape as they were in the past.

 

Bill 😊

[Confused52]

What you suggest sounds totally pragmatic but it plays out in an energy market which is heavily regulated towards the Green agenda. There is a capacity market for electricity where an expected demand is calculated for every half hour period of the following day. Generators make bids for capacity during each period and name their price. The final price for each half hour is the price of the highest priced bid that is needed to meet the desired capacity. All bidders are paid at that highest price for the half hour supply that they provide. 

As the amount of wind power/solar power goes up the amount of gas/coal etc goes down. Because it is easy to control the last Megawatt hour for any period is almost always Gas, and will always be Gas because, at night and in winter, there are time when wind power production actually goes negative. However the fixed costs for that gas generation stays the same as the sold volumes go down so the price of the last Megawatt hour goes up, and thus the price of every Megawatt hour goes up, as more wind is deployed. Hence the more renewables the higher the price of Electricity. It doesn't matter that the renewables bid low they still get the extra price and not what they bid. The low bid just makes sure they get used because the contracts are awarded in order of rising prices for each half hour period.

The Government is intending to put a levy on large producers of renewable and nuclear energy who make excess profits of more than £75 per megawatt hour and generate over 50GWhour per annum. The levy rate is 45% of the excess profits (not sales). So the large efficient providers will not be the ones newly entering the market, it is likely to be smaller players below the threshold and for whom the Grid connection will need to be built anew and paid for from the ECO levy added to all domestic bills.

As you see the market is rigged to provide money to inefficient renewable providers at an ever increasing cost to the consumer. We have backed ourselves into a very expensive corner and leaving the grid with an excess of wind power will cost us more for longer as the entrants will demand guarantees on the viability of their investments.

[Bill]

It seems the problems you outline here are caused by short-term variations and yes when there’s plenty of wind, it does make the others look inefficient and more costly but that’s more a fact of life rather than a reason why we shouldn’t move forward with more wind.

I’d guess it’s mainly the gas fired generators that throws the economic spanner in the works but if we could guarantee that these remain available, even when not needed, then we wouldn’t have these price variations.

In my ideal world, fixed and variable energy sources don’t play on the same field. There’d be an agreed price paid to generators that provide network stability (including gas), and if this was done, then there’d be no need for renewables to tender for half hourly slots. This would also remove the silly argument that more wind causes higher prices.

The current system is well broken but it’s all doable and the answer might just be blowing in the wind. 😊

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

The reality is that the politicians seeking green credentials, have been dragged along by eco nerds,  and come up with a illogical system that impoverishes the majority.  Today's generation is the first in the history of humanity, that will end up poorer than their parents.  What the eco-nerds did have right, is the need to properly insulate our housing stock and build new eco-friendly housing, but that would require long term commitment, planning and investment.  The next item would be a massive investment in tidal generation plus small nuclear, with residual use of oil and gas, and coal until they came on stream.  Tides occur twice per day - every day, add to this river flows. and you can literally throw a generator into any fast flowing river or stream;  the bonus being that estuary barriers assist flood prevention schemes.     

[Confused52]

In my view the problem is solved better by making the intermittent generators have to fund alternative technology back-up capacity for when the wind doesn't blow. That would guarantee a revenue stream for the firm generators at all times even when they weren't needed (except for synchronisation). The back-up could also be batteries   but it is unlikely to be cost-effective. Since that would require significant scale to withstand the variability of back-up costs it would force consolidation and larger scale on renewables which, in turn, would minimise access network cost and complexity. The whole problem is caused by the political wish to embrace green politics and not just green electricity.

 

[Bill]

In a free market, we can’t make a wind farm guarantee income for anyone but themselves or force them to invest where they don’t want to, not unless we nationalise the whole setup, which btw isn’t a half bad idea.  

In terms of backup, batteries would work but it would be prohibitively expensive at the sort of scale needed so for now it’s cheaper and easier to simply add more windfarms. The problem is not that dissimilar to my home solar setup. I can and do use some batteries but overall, it makes more sense to just add more panels.

One option though might be to use gravity batteries that work on the same principle to pumped hydro, just without the water or mountain and they could be located at the site of each windmill.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

Or just build estuary dams with tidal turbines in them, and use each and every opportunity to utilise free flowing water, which wouldn't kill any birds.  😉

[Confused52]

Bill, I wasn't suggesting forcing the wind generators to support anyone in particular but to pay for their own back-up. I a logical world the free market would make them choose a limited number of back-up providers since they would have to cover less of the overheads that way. Of course they would be free to be thick if wanted and that would increase their bid and result in less of their capacity being bought on the capacity market. The answer is never more wind because the low wind conditions usually affect the whole country and more wind power doesn't compensate. Oh and the conditions are usually the same on the near continent so the interconnectors are known not to help. The adage that is always windy somewhere does not hold true because it has to be windy within economic range of an interconnector and the desired capacity has to be lower that the maximum of the interconnector(s). Those realistic conditions are not often met.

Obs,

It is generally accepted by the industry that the operational usefulness of tide power extends over a small and changing part of the day and there is no means to store the generated power in this country. There is no working exemplar that is more than a lab model. It is not a serious proposition even without the bird mincing. 

What we need is nuclear and fast so in the meanwhile do everything to increase available gas volumes.

[Observer II]

With storage being a difficulty.  tidal/hydro would have to have primary access to the grid, topped up by nuclear, as and when.  The French have one tidal site on the Med coast, which supplies a local City.  

[Confused52]

7 minutes ago, Observer II said:

With storage being a difficulty.  tidal/hydro would have to have primary access to the grid, 

There you go again tilting the playing field towards a favourite technology, it doesn't work unless the technology's contribution is inconsequential in which case why bother?

[Bill]

Tidal can’t ever be classed a primary source as it drops off twice a day meaning it’d still rely on genuine primary systems for backup. I know it’s your pet theory but it’s so expensive compared throwing up “cheap” windmills that it’s never going to happen to any degree that would make a difference. There’s been talk for years about putting one across the Mersey, (it was on telly a couple of weeks back) and there lies the problem; they’ll still be debating this in another ten years.

Con Asking the wind companies to pay when the wind doesn’t blow seems a certain way of killing off an industry and forcing them to choose who they give money to doesn’t sound much like free market economic to me. The whole system seems to have evolved into a total bag of worms, run like a short-term commodities traders market, when it could be a whole lot simpler and better for the country.

If it were up to me, I’d nationalise the stable providers (including gas) as they are the backbone of our supply. There’d be no squabbling or bidding and they'd be paid whether or not they generate power. The wind and solar companies could put in as much free energy as the weather permits and they’d be paid well for it. But if the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow they get nothing; they’re entrepreneurs and business people after all and should know how to balance such risks.

That's my definition of a free market.

 

Bill 😊

[Observer II]

How much CO2 is emitted in making these windmill eyesores and how long do they last ? 

[Bill]

Just about nothing or maybe a bit less than nothing compared to the vast amounts of CO2 produced just making the concrete for your tidal barrage.

Eyesore? Ten years ago, I thought exactly that, but now they’re a bit like the millions of telephone poles we have down every street in that we hardly even notice them because they’ve become a normal part of our landscape. The survey reported 85% of people these days dont find them objectionable even if they were located close to where they live.

As for how long theey’ll last, your guess is as good as mine, but I suppose because they’re almost mass-produced, parts can be replaced cheaply enough. They don’t need to last forever though because technology will evolve, and they’ll be consigned to history like thetelephone poles eventually will. I’m on my third whiskey so apologies if this dosn’t make sense.

Have a good Christmas Obs and put more water in it than I have. 😊

 

Bill 😊