Roger Helmer MEP


“The Wind Farm Scam”
October 15, 2009, 9:13 am
Filed under: Uncategorized

Even if you accept the theory of man-made climate change, wind turbines are a rotten way to reduce CO2 emissions, or to improve energy security.  Wind farms are only viable with a complex structure of indirect subsidies, which amount to very nearly doubling the cost of electricity.  The complex subsidy régime appears to be designed as a stealth subsidy, making it very difficult for the public or the media to see the sums involved.  While the industry disingenuously argues that there are “no direct subsidies”, wind involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which falls directly on electricity consumers.  The burden on consumers will grow as our government attempts to achieve its heroic renewables targets (as a recent OfGem report has confirmed).
 
And the bitter irony is that wind farms will do little — or perhaps nothing — to reduce CO2 emissions.  Because wind is unpredictably and continuously variable, wind power requires conventional back-up, and the more wind capacity in the system, the more variability, and the higher the required percentage of back-up to ensure continuity.  Even the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75% back-up required.  Generating industry players like E.ON say over 90%, while a recent House of Lords Report suggests that we’ll need 100% back-up.  The back-up will generally be gas-fired power stations, which will be run intermittently, variably and sub-optimally to compensate for wind variation — and therefore run inefficiently, with higher costs and emissions than necessary.  These higher emissions may well outweigh the CO2 emissions savings from wind.  Certainly Denmark, with the highest intensity of wind generation in Europe, has amongst the highest per capita emissions in Europe.
 
BWEA argues that with enough wind-farms, wind will be less intermittent because “while the wind isn’t blowing in one place, it’ll be blowing somewhere else”.  But the data show a strong self-correlation in wind speeds across the UK, so total wind output for the country as a whole can also be extremely and unpredictably variable.
 
These, at least, are the conclusions of a new book, “The Wind Farm Scam, an Ecologist’s Evaluation”, by Dr. John Etherington.  Formerly Reader in Ecology at the University of Wales, Dr. Etherington is a Thomas Huxley Medallist at the Royal College of Science, and a former co-editor the international Journal of Ecology.  Since retiring from the University of Wales, he has devoted himself to studying the implications of intermittently available renewable generation, and especially wind.
 
I am reminded of the comment from Shaun Spiers, Chief Executive of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE), who said “There is a danger that we will come to see wind turbines as redundant relics of our compulsion to do something”.
 
The book is sufficiently technical to be reassuring, with extensive references, yet still accessible to the interested general reader.  It is also an invaluable reference source for information about wind turbines.  It includes a forward by Christopher Booker, and a cover blurb from TV biologist David Bellamy, who says: “Wind power is a swindle … Please read this book to find out why”.
 
The book is published in the Independent Minds series by Stacey International at www.stacey-international.co.uk, price £9.99.


11 Comments so far
Leave a comment

[...] “Even if you accept the theory of man-made climate change, wind turbines are a rotten way to reduce CO2 emissions, or to improve energy security.” – Roger Helmer, MEP October 15, 2009 — morgan The title above is actually the beginning sentence of a post tody by Roger Helmer, Conservative Member of the European parliament and Honorary Chairman of The Freedom Association.  His post is titled “The Wind Farm Scam.” [...]

Pingback by “Even if you accept the theory of man-made climate change, wind turbines are a rotten way to reduce CO2 emissions, or to improve energy security.” – Roger Helmer, MEP « Allegheny Treasures

I have yet to find anyone that can prove to me that a modern wind generator, in its life time, recovers the amount of energy that goes into its constructionand maintenance (& subsidies).
When you consider the smelting energy needed to extract the copper and other metals and chemicals,the energy used in starting/turning the generator prior to its start-up into wind, the wages of the guys that build it, maintain it, repair it, paint it, grease it, etc, etc not to mention the tax payer who has to do many year’s work to pay taxes to subsidies the generator; ( well there are accountants/solicitors and quangoes involved who also have to be paid.) In short, wind generators are not cost effective, indeed very far from it and I have designed and built one so I know what I am talking about.
Regards
Tony Smith
ppc, Battle & Bexhill
UK Independence Party

Comment by Tony Smith

I am amazed how ignorant our politicians are regarding the true scientific facts and statistics regarding wind power. They would sooner believe the spin and propoganda of the wind farm industry and a few misguided, so called green organisations rather than becoming truly informed by reading the objective technical/scientific reports on the subject.

All political leaders should insist that the “Wind Farm Scam” book is read by their party members. If this happened the ineffective wind farm industry would cease immediately.

Comment by Argyll Eagle

Dear Mr Roger Helmer – you are wrong on so many aspects of wind power. Here are some:

1. All generation into the National Grid requires ‘back up’, e.g. nuclear power stations which ‘drop out’ suddenly about once per year and also the link with France. All generators share the present ‘back up’ methods, so nothing extra is needed now for wind. Of course, when wind is a dominant supply in about 10 years, then the control of the National Grid will have adapted accordingly, e.g. with the management of loads and other methods of modern ‘back up’.

2. Every rotation of a grid-connected wind turbine puts electricity into the grid with no carbon emissions, and so if the total load is constant, other generation elsewhere decreases, which is most likely to be fossil-fueled generation. Thus wind turbines in the UK reduce carbon emissions.

3. Denmark, Norway and Sweden cooperate in a united grid operation. Danish wind power flows to these other countries as well as being used in Denmark. No wind power is ever wasted. At times of less wind, Denmark imports power. Historically Denmark uses much coal and that is one reason why wind power is welcome, so to reduce coal dependence, which has indeed been successful.

Comment by John Twidell

John Twidell,

I think your paragraph 1 entirely misrepresents the reality of electricity supply management, backup considerations and effect of instantly volatile wind based energy on management of the electricity grid.

In addition have you actually considered what level of investment, effort and immediate here and now CO2 output (assuming that is a concern) would be required to build enough wind turbine installations in the next ten years to make wind the ‘dominant’ source of electricity?

If it were not for your other paragraphs I would assume you were being satirical. Perhaps you are?

Paragraph 2.

Nope. In fact in the short term building the turbines and infrastructure (massive concrete supports for a start) will more likely increase CO2 output. That surely should be a problem for you if CO2 release NOW is an issue

If things go well the whole installation might last 25 years and will then need to be entirely replaced. Repeat the CO2 output again …

You also seem to be basing the premise on the ‘If the total load is constant …’ premise. Clearly is isn’t and I didn’t think anyone claimed it was. It seems unlikely that it will be for the foreseeable future. What makes you see thing differently?

Your paragraph 3 …

As I understand it the Danes have much better opportunities for balancing their grid with other countries than we have in the UK but it is still problematic for them and there are time when they have to PAY others to absorb spikes of surplus output to avoid grid melt down. But they also have to pay above contract rates for topping up supply when wind output falls too low. (Neither is the wind benefit a cheap source of electricity.)

The UK does not currently have similar options. However no doubt our EU owned energy suppliers will be more than happy to increase their bills to provide themselves with such links so that they can ‘import’ expensive short term non-contracted supplies when their consumer funded wind input fails to meet demand.

Yours is a nice enough dream John, but I don’t think it has basis in reality for the UK.

Best regards,

Grant Perkins

Comment by Grant Perkins

In the last few days I have been revisiting some analysis I started 3 or so years ago comparing the official register of ROC’s issued by OfGEM to the the claimed installed capacity of renewable energy installations. Specifically wind farms in this case.

For some reason pre 2006 information is no longer available directly from the OfGEM web site and my earlier extracts were for specific locations rather than the whole claimant base so getting more than 3 years of analysis is a challenge at the moment.

Nevertheless despite a huge variation in actual output versus claimed potential month by month and year by year there does seem to be an interesting pattern to be considered. For example February seems to be a wind challenged month assuming the generators are always claiming their credits and doing so ‘on time’. I would find it difficult to believe they are not. (But not so difficult to believe the data records are of questionable accuracy!)

Yesterday I stumbled across a web site that describes a piece of software that can be used to assess the potential financial viability of a wind installation. It is interesting that not only is potential efficiency restricted by a well documented factor to not much more than 50% but that off-shore installation seem to have a much higher maintenance down time than officially estimated.

So with only 85% availability and a 50% (approx) efficiency factor working close to optimum performance the logical conclusion is that the best that could be achieved is about 43% of rated output. That is probably optimistic, even off shore. Halve that again would seem the prudent thing to do for calculations – so yes, 75% backup required … as a minimum since that would still leave us right on the edge of the narrow safety margin as it is calculated in these modern times.

Regards,

Grant Perkins

Comment by Grant Perkins

Both John Twidell and Grant Perkins statements above are correct. Though in my opinion the back up capacity required for wind power will be nearer to 100%. The important thing is to realize that back up plant, while required for days with no wind, does not need to run and burn fuel on days when there is wind. So for 1,000MW of wind turbines installed you may need 950MW of other plant as back up. (we already have 1,000MW of plant generating our power now so we don’t need any new plant until it wears out) Assuming that the load factor of the wind turbines is 0.25 or 25% then they will have produced over a year 2,190,000MWh of electricity. This will have saved the fuel required to have produced the same amount of energy. Taking the most pesimistic figures possible, ie. that the plant taken out of service is a combined cycle gas fired plant with an efficency of 58% this equates to a saving in carbon dioxide of 716,000 tons per year.(327kg per MWh)

BWEA claim a figure of 1,130,000 tons per year for 1,000MW of installed wind power. We’ll never know for sure the real answer, though my guess is that it will be nearer the BWEA figures than the figures I calculated as it makes more sense to turn of a less efficent generator than the most efficent. So for ease of calculation I would suggest a figure of 1,000,000 tons of CO2 saved per year per 1,000MW installed.

World installed capacity at the end of 2008 was 120,000MW saving 120 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year. This is only a small percentage of total world wide emissions ( about 0.32% ) However globaly wind power has been expanding at rates of 20% per year, taking this forward to 2030 wind has the capacity to save 8% of existing emisions each year, It therefor represents a substantial proportion of what can be done to reduce CO2 emissions along with other renewables like solar PV,wave, tidal etc along with nuclear power, and the realy large potential of energy savings from more efficent homes and transport systems.

What ever we do will be hard but we should not throw away a saving of 8% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to save a view, that our grandchildren might not see if we fail to prevent global warming getting out of hand.

Martin Lee

Comment by Martin Lee

Martin,

As a matter of interest do you have any suggestions as to what sort of backup facilities might be available to go from off to on almost instantly on demand and supply 100% of the country’s energy needs without resulting in any disruption?

Around 30 years ago in a time when computers were peripheral to life rather than central to it a sudden black out nationwide might have been little more than an inconvenience. These days a day without power could be immensely catastrophic and my understanding is that there are few options for “instant on” (i.e. with a few hours warning) so I am keen to know what you see as the solution to the standby problem.

Your phrase “We’ll never know for sure the real answer, ….” seems, to me, to sum up the attitude of many who talk about the apparent need to reduce energy consumption now for reasons of attempted “climate control”. The entire concept relies on the fact that as everything will change we will indeed never know what would otherwise have happened.

Quite frankly anyone today who would be encouraging their children to have children born to exist in an enforced world of reduced circumstances has two problems.

Firstly they are at odds with the underlying policy of the main global politicians who would wish to control and reduce world population (so long as they were not affected themselves and retained superiority.)

Secondly I can’t see why anyone would, or indeed will, vote to significantly reduce their standard of living and life expectancy and still wish to have children. Therefore such schemes will need to be forced upon most of the populations of the planet.

So from my perspective there seems to be little point in being concerned about the welfare of grandchildren. Unless you obliterate history they will read about a better past they missed out on and hate their parent and grandparents for throwing it all away.

All this effort on the assumption, as yet still extremely debatable, that there is a human forced climate change issue of a worrying scale causing a problem and, if we accept that, that we can do something about it AND in a controlled way.

Much simpler concepts related to the ‘natural’ use of plants, insects and other creatures in bio-engineering interventions seem more often than not to cause bigger problems than they solve. And that in an area that is well studied and comparatively well understood. Frankly I would not wish for my children to introduce any child to the sort of experimental world that is likely to be the result of the developments that you seem to espouse.

I might do some comparative work on the numbers you put forward for the UK and relate them to estimates form others and to global expectations but they are somewhat meaningless in any event unless you can provide a more substantive response to the standby question since ignoring numbers there misses the entire point of any attempt at the analysis.

Best regards,

Grant Perkins

Comment by Grant Perkins

Grant

If you have a look at this web site which shows the Spanish wind power output you will see that the changes happen over time.

http://www.ree.es/ingles/operacion/curvas_eolica.asp#

These changes are managable by using Hydro power stations of which we have some in the UK, pumped storage of which we have quite a bit, about 3GW at present and could find places to build quite a bit more, gas turbines again we have quite a few of these, coal fired power stations which are quite happy to cycle from part to full load over a day. Transfering power over the interconnectors to France, Netherlands and Ireland. At the end of the day only nuclear power is realy inflexible and needs to run at constant load. Even this might change with those proposed to be built over the next 10 years. I guess that at some point there will be problems which require new solutions but at the moment we have plenty of head room to install lots more wind power in the UK with our existing solutions.

Both Spain and Germany are already producing around 10% of their electricity from wind and Denmark is producing around 20%. Ireland expects to hit 10% next year.

In fact earlier this year for perhaps half an hour Spain produced more than 50% of its electricity from wind power with out a problem. If you have the time a search of the RED web site might produce an old news report about this.(from the link I gave above go to the home page)

Denmark has had problems in the past with having to export wind power at very low values partly because there are lots of CHP plants which were given priority access to the grid. I belive that they are now looking at ways to turn some of these off and produce the heat they require from excess wind power.

I’m sorry that you think we are all so gready that we can’t try and make sure that our children do have a world to live in. Personaly I’m more optomistic that we can do some thing, though I agree that the world won’t be the same as it is now. It’s already changed a lot in the 40 plus years that I can remember.

Martin

Comment by Martin Lee

Martin,

Your last paragraph is typical of a melodramatic appeal based on nothing of consequence.

I heard about the Spanish ‘greater than 50% of demand’ I understand it was for a short period in the middle of the night and relied on their pumped backup facilities and other ‘free’ energy sources not just wind power. When they can do the 24/7 for a month in the middle of winter with no loss of service I may be impressed.

One of the reasons we have so much imported fuel for electricity generation these days is that the potential for pumped storage, as you propose for the instant backup option, is that there are few if any new locations available on this small island that would allow such developments on the scale required. If there were the chances are that we would already have opted for or would now be discussing hydro generation. I suppose we could sacrifice Scotland and Wales and build huge water storage facilities and pump them full with wind power but some locals may not find that idea acceptable. Still, the Chinese did it …

Of course the environmental consequence would be a huge unknown but we can leave those sorts of ‘benefits’ to the grandchildren.

Wind generation can drop rapidly from an optimum level. Opening a gate to generate from a hydro source is probably the only relatively rapid response that we currently have the capacity to engineer. Gas powered generator are the next best it would seem – assuming we have gas available and at an economical price. Of course it still takes a few hours to get it on stream, more than a few if it was at a standstill saving fuel.

The rest are currently nowhere in terms of ‘instant on’ as I understand it – but then maybe that is the wrong strategy since France seems to manage with most Nuclear so presumably the ‘base load only’ concept can be adapted.

But you mentioned it as cycling from part to full load over a day. My neighbour, a retired power station engineer, would suggest somewhat longer for coal in an ideal management situation and also point out that running at part load is not very fuel efficient.

Basically your proposition seems to rely on a massive change in infrastructure. Irrespective of whether such a rushed and enforced change would or would not work (and I rather doubt that a project of that scale would be trouble free when few if any simpler and smaller ones are) the work and construction required would result in an immediate boost in output of the very gas you seem to fear. How do you reconcile that with the calls of the Gores and Browns of this world to cut CO2 output radically and almost immediately? (otherwise it will already be too late, etc., etc.)

More ominously, how do you think the developments could be achieved in the time scales you talk about even if the finance was a possibility?

Personally I am very cautious about any claims made by energy generation companies or new technology developers and countries like Denmark who see significant potential for significant income and kudos from their ‘expertise’.

It’s the same sort of circumspection that leads me to doubt that Gordon Brown’s skills in the field of economics saved the world’s banking system.

Best regards,

Grant Perkins

Comment by Grant Perkins

Grant

I’ve found a link to an American report from the magazine for profestional electrical engineers in North America. Basicly it backs up what I said above, though I appear to have a diferent figure for the German wind turbine output aparently it was 7% not the 10% I noted. I’m not sure where I picked up the 10%. Anyway here is the link

http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

Martin

Comment by Martin Lee




Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>