Wind and Solar Renewables:- The German Experience

This is about a shocking German report from RWI Essen – the leading German economic research institution

The link to the report (in English) is  Here
The English version of the RWI-Essen website is Here
The wikipedia page on RWI Essen is Here

Why is this foreign report important to us?

In the UK we are at a point of crisis regarding future electrical energy generation. Decisions that should have been made 20 years ago have been avoided.  Arguably, whatever is now decided comes too late. Nothing short of a miracle will now prevent power cuts within the next 10 - 15 years. But unbelievably there are still people in government who, either for reasons of self interest or political advantage, still seek to pursue the current insane renewables agenda. If these people are allowed to prevail then the power cuts, economic dislocation and the consequential casualty list will be considerably worse.

Politicians, green zealots and other assorted wishful thinkers have there heads firmly buried in the sand. In Germany it has been even worse. That is why this German report is so important.

As part of the unending Green propaganda, we continually  bombarded with how Germany have embraced wind and solar. It is well worth cutting though the bullshit and picking up on exactly what the real experience is.

The above RWI-Essen document is a highly reputable study regarding renewables in Germany. This report is now three years old. Nothing has improved. It is (even for me) a shocking expose of the cost and waste of the German experience. I'll quote a few items from it below, but perhaps the concluding paragraph from the executive summary say it all.

[quote]
Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in
the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The
Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary
tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic
and environmental benefits.
[unquote]

From the Abstract:

[quote]
To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.
[unquote]

Some more quotes from the Executive Summary

[quote]
Currently, the feed-in tariff for PV is more than eight times higher than the wholesale
electricity price at the power exchange and more than four times the feed-in
tariff paid for electricity produced by on-shore wind turbines.
Even on-shore wind, widely regarded as a mature technology, requires feed-in
tariffs that exceed the per-kWh cost of conventional electricity by up to 300% to
remain competitive.
[unquote]

[quote]
In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a
per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker
subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).
It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion
would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s
export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in
other countries such as the US.
[unquote]

[quote]
Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are
unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counter productive in that respect,
stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.
[unquote]

Clearly, the German experience should serve us as a dire warning rather than an example. Already their energy prices are only second to Denmark. Luckily (so far) for Germany, their industrial base built up from the second world war has enabled them to indulge in this fiasco.  Only a fool would take us down the same debilitating path.

Unfortunately we have no shortage of fools in Westminster.

Wind, Bluster and Carbon Reduction

The IPPC commissioned Garrard Hassan to do a report on how effective wind power is at reducing carbon emissions. For those who don't know, Garrard Hassan are a leading consultancy engaged in the wind turbine gold rush. Commissioning them was a bit like asking the Jesuits to give an even handed account of Catholicism. But never mind. Here I'm going to expand on their main claim that in 2011 Wind power reduced Carbon Dioxide  emissions by at least 5.5 Million tonnes. I'll leave their comedic denialist style claims regarding intermittency and reliability to another post.

Their arrogantly titled report "Beyond the Bluster" is HERE. This "peer reviewed" report (peer review panel of one) bases a great deal of its gravitas on another (quite good) report "Empirical estimates of emissions avoided from wind power generation" (good quality copy available HERE)   Garrard Hassan interpret the results from this report  and then grandly come to the conclusion that in 2011 at least 5.5 million tons of carbon dioxide was mitigated by wind. Of course they cannot but help to gild the lily by then going on to claim that this figure could potentially save over twice as much if all the wind power was directly offset by cycling coal plant (which, of course, in the UK  it hardly ever is, and is frankly, absurd) So I think we'll stick to the optimistic 5.5 million tons and put the gilding down to a little over enthusiasm.

5.5 million tons of Carbon Dioxide. Sounds impressive. Unfortunately sounding impressive is not quite the same thing as being impressive.

Ideally wind will have displaced carbon intensive power production i.e. Coal. But in the UK it is unlikely that coal is ever directly replaced.  Gas displaces coal and then cycling the CCGT plant accommodates the intermittent wind supply. But let us be nice, let's assume all of the 5.5 million tons can eventually be reflected down to a shut down of coal plant.

Now coal is almost pure Carbon. In fact 27% of carbon dioxide by weight is Carbon. So our 5.5 million tons carbon dioxide equates to a burn of 1.5 million tons coal.

Now, what size power plant does that correspond to?

Well, one ton of coal roughly corresponds to 2 MW/hr of generated electricity. (See here) So our 1.5 million tons of coal correspond to 3 million megawatt/hrs. There are 8760 hours in a year. So we can work out what size power station could provide this in a year. (3000000/8760)

So our idealistic  reduction in coal burn equates to a continuous output of 340MW.

Now assuming a good coal fired power station operates with a capacity factor between 70% and 85% the 340MW equates to a single power coal fired power station of around 400 - 450MW.

So in 2011 (a windy year) the entire wind turbine fleet, at a subsidy cost of over £800 million managed to reduce carbon emissions corresponding to a single small to medium sized coal fired power station.

That is of course, if you believe the wind industry. Remember, this 5.5 million tonnes is NOT my figure it comes from Garrard Hassan - doyens of the wind industry!

This also means that the cost of offsetting that 1.5 million tons of coal comes out at well over £500 per ton in subsidy to the wind energy cartel. Every ton of coal saved from burning by wind costs us an extra £500 in subsidy on top of the actual cost of the power generation.

By chance an old clapped out, 50 year old Magnox nuclear power station in Oldbury was retired in 2012. It had been producing carbon free power for nearly half a century. Its rating? 430MW.

So every year for the last 44 years, this single small first generation nuclear power station reduced carbon dioxide emissions by roughly the same amount as the entire wind turbine fleet managed in a windy 2011.

Don't figures like that just knock you out?

Cold Feet in Turbine Heaven.

On the 12th July the government published its latest white paper of energy reform The Electricity Market Reform Paper 2011 Here

Although this white paper cements in an absurd commitment to a massive expansion and deployment of wind turbines, the bankers and investors are getting cold feet.

They are blaming this on what they say is a lack of clarity in the white paper. (As described in "The Scotsman" Here)

But there is more to the bankers prevarication, as noted in the above article:

[quote]
That was partly due to regulatory uncertainty, he said, but funding for wind farms was also being impacted by low average wind speeds over the last couple of years, which has depressed rates of return on existing projects.
[unquote]

Maybe the bankers have started paying more attention to data indicating a reduction in wind speed across the UK. As described in a paper by Wind Turbine enthusiasts Garrad Hassan.
(see Billothewisp post "Wind Speed In Decline: A Blip or a Trend?").

Maybe now they can see that even with their huge subsidies, erratically performing turbines may not be the sure investment bet they were once thought to be.

Whatever the bankers think, one thing is sure, nobody in government would now risk the wrath of the electorate by giving the bankers a guarantee on any continuation of the currently flawed ROC scheme let alone an increase. If they want a cast iron guarantee on what is really very risky high return investment, they are going to be dissapointed. (at last)

What if these grubby little investors attempt to blackmail us by threatening to take their "green" investments elsewhere?

Billothewisp has two words to say to them

Bye Bye.

Wind Speed in Decline: A Blip or a Trend?

It has been knuckle chewing time for the last couple of years for those wind farms that have been stupidly built in the less windy parts of the country. Even those built where the wind actually blows have seen their profitability massively cut. But those who had been planning to cash in on sub 20% capacity factor outputs are now beginning to feel the heat.

Of course we all know that none of them were, are, or ever will be, viable without a massive ROC subsidy. But even with this subsidy some must now be trading on the margins of viability.

Last year for example the output of all UK wind farms fell by 7%. Yet in that same year many more turbines were built. The theoretical (some say imaginary) total wind-farm capacity increased by 13 %.

To me, that looks like over a 21% drop in total.

Ouch!

An unpredictable long term reduction, getting worse year on year. Just what the bankers want to hear (not).

2009 wind speed was low, last year it was lower still.

So, is this a blip? Or is it a long term trend?

Oh, such a quandary and who has the answer?

Actually it is our friendly BWEA to the rescue. Or rather a paper presented by the doyens of the Wind Turbine fraternity: Garrad Hassan and Partners Ltd

I hasten to add this paper was presented first in 2006 and is now dated 2009, both dates are before the current downturn.

You can find the PDF of their paper Here  (if it disappears, Billothewisp has a copy)

It is titled:

LONG-TERM WIND SPEED TRENDS IN NORTHWESTERN EUROPE

The running 15 year trend with wind speed, according to Garrad-Hassan is as follows

It is going down. Now remember this was up to 2005.

Garrad-Hassan then tried valiantly to use some weather indices as proxies to go back further. Back to the 1960's in fact. The most important of these is the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) then there are two other indices used. One is Katalog Der Grosswetterlagen Europas. This is a subjective catalogue of large scale weather patterns over Europe dating back 100 years. Then finally they also used the UK Jenkinson Lamb weather classification (which is similar to the Grosswetterlagen catalogue but for the UK)

Here is what they found for the NAO

here is the Jenkinson Lamb result

Finally here is the Grosswetterlagen graph

Notice how they all roughly correlate.

Also notice the "blip" around 1995.

In their conclusions, Garrad-Hassan try and sweeten the pill of the 15 year decline by suggesting that all that was happening was that wind was returning to stability after a upward blip in the mid 1990's.

However we should remember that this is then essentially returning to a stable "low" wind-speed. Garrad-Hassen re-assuringly write that a further fall in average wind speed should not be assumed. Though, they could not rule it out.

But of course, this Garrad-Hassan data only goes up to 2005. Since then we know that things have actually got worse (significantly so in the last year)

So, are we just bottoming out? Or are we still going down?

Perhaps our previously loan happy banking fraternity should look a little more closely at what they might be letting themselves in for.

Maybe the wind turbine carpet-bagging fraternity will be seeing that big red stamp that spells out "DECLINED" being used a little more on their loan applications from now on.

Maybe a few of their pals who have built these things in totally inappropriate areas will soon be queuing up at the local Licensed Insolvency Practitioners office.

Then I expect the poor bloody rate-payer will have to fork out to pull the things down.

What a waste.

The Great ROC Rip Off

A worked costing example for a 4 turbine Industrial Wind Turbine Plant. This is a little rough and ready in places but it is not far off centre.

Factors: 

1. Turbine size 2.5MW
2. Capacity Factor (CF) examples 15% 20%, 25%, 30%
3. Average Trading value of each ROC certificate (1 MW) £50.00 (an under-estimate) See ROC trading last 3 months Here
4. Trading value supply of 1MW/Hr £45 taken as a rough average of NETA buy/sell price 14/07/11 see graph below:

For those who don't know, the Capacity factor is the actual percentage of the boiler plate rating that the turbine really generates. So a CF of 25% on a turbine means it only really (on average) produces a quarter of the turbines supposed rating. The national average last year was 22%

 Electricity generated per year:

15% CF = 8760 x 0.15 x 2.5 x 4 = 13140 MW/hr
20% CF = 8760 x 0.2  x 2.5 x 4 = 17520 MW/hr
25% CF = 8760 x 0.25 x 2.5 x 4 = 21900 MW/hr
30% CF = 8760 x 0.30 x 2.5 x 4 = 26280 MW/hr

Payment for generation at £45 per MW/hr

CF 15% £591300
CF 20% £788400
CF 25% £985500
CF 30% £1182600

ROC Income based on £50 per ROC certificate (1 MW/hr)

15% CF £657000
20% CF £876000
25% CF £1095000
30% CF £1314000

So total annual income per year for each of the above CFs

15%  CF £1,248300
20%  CF £1,664400
25%  CF £2,080500
30%  CF £2,496600

Turbine cost: around £750,000 per MW + £150,000 Installation = £900K per MW installed

So our 4 turbine site costs 2.5 x 4 x £900K = £9M

Maintenance, extended warranty and repair, about £150 per day per turbine all in. Plus rent to the landowner and other sundries. Say £250K per year all in.

Capital loan at 7.5% for £9M = 675K year (diminishing) plus capital repayment 10M/25 = £400K per year.

Initial total annual outlay = 250K + 675K + 400K = £1.325M. diminishing as loan is repaid to around 650K after 25 years..

So, on those figures a CF of 15-16% is just viable. But this is only because of the ROC subsidy.

If you excluded the ROC even a CF of 30% (less than 8% of UK turbines achieve this) is bordering on non viability.

But because of the ROC, anything above about 16% is financially viable - even in the short term. With 15% CF capital repayment could be offset against future profits, so even a dismal 15% CF would be attractive.

All because of the ludicrous generosity of the ROC.

I hope that explains why these things are being built in wholly inappropriate areas. As long as the Capacity Factor is a pathetic 15% or more then the generators are onto a nice little earner, irrespective of the damage they do to local communities in building their white elephants.

This is not going to get any better. Nothing is going to happen next year or even in ten years which will alter the laws of physics so these white elephants can actually contribute without being propped up by massive subsidies from the consumer.

We are stuck with this for 25 years.

But if our little carpet bagger friends have turbines running at last years average of 22% CF then they are raking it in. But only because of the ROC. Without the ROC the things are wholly unviable.

If the ROC was withdrawn tomorrow, I would bet that nigh on every wind turbine in the land would be scrapped within 6 months.

Junk Energy in its "purest" form.

A Grid Tie Revolution

Or the Law of Unexpected Consequences

One of the most clever and potentially game changing pieces of kit to come out of the mad dash to solar PV is the grid tie inverter.

Is this going to be a whimsical tekkie diatribe? Well, partly. But there is a sting in the tail at the end.

The small grid tie inverter is the piece of equipment that has made domestic Solar PV technically viable.

It is very, very clever.

Due to the fact that reference designs by companies like Microchip are freely available, small grid tie inverters rated at about 250-300W are cheap and plentiful. They cost about £70 -£150 on ebay (p.s. you get what you pay for)

So what is it and why is it so special?

Well, a grid tie inverter, like a normal inverter will turn a DC low voltage source into an AC mains voltage source. So your low voltage solar panels end up outputting mains electricity.

But that has been done for years.

The clever part is that the grid tie does this synchronously with the mains feed into the house.

Why is this important?

Because the grid tie is synchronised to the main frequency, you can use the power output of the grid tie to supplement/replace or even output power to the mains. Without this sychonicity all you would end up with is a lot of sparks and smouldering electronics.

The result of this is that you do not need to abandon a normal electricity supply and go off grid. If for example, when you want to use the washing machine that may take 2KW, your grid tie contributes to that value. You do not need to provide the maximum power your washing machine needs. But anything the grid tie does produce will reduce the amount of power you draw from the grid, thus reducing your electricity bill.

The whole of the current FIT subsidy orgy could not take place without cheap and effective small grid ties.

Currently, in order to claim the FIT subsidy, you need an "approved" installer with "approved kit" that are registered with a trade cartel (er.. sorry i mean trade body) and it costs A LOT of money. Of course it costs everyone else even more to pay your FIT, but that's the way it is.

But what if you don't claim the FIT? What if you set up a system that simply offsets your mains usage? You still massively reduce your electricity bill. There is incidentally at least one company on the market already doing this. FIT free (and cheap)

But what about "approvals" "Part P" etc. Well, as I understand it, most of the modern small grid ties are G83 approved and are advertised as "Plug and Play" They literally plug in like an appliance, but they actually drive electricity into your ring main not suck it out. Setting up a couple of solar panels to supplement your electricity supply could not be simpler. You reduce you electricity bills and so don't personally end up paying other peoples FITs, and you system is massively cheaper than an "approved" installer one. As you can appreciate this gets more and more worthwhile the higher electricity prices go.

But here is the sting in the tail.

The current Grid ties almost universally have what is known a MPPT (Maximum power point tracking) front end that is tailored to extract the most energy possible from solar panels.

So what happens when someone comes up with a cheap grid tie that instead of interfacing to solar PV, interfaces to a small generators? Or even more likely when some clever wag designs an interface to fake up an MPPT output  from a petrol generator?

We end up with people backing off the mains with polluting small generators simply because electricity has become so expensive due to the ridiculous ROC and FIT subsidies.

But surely mains electricity is cheaper than equivalent petrol or diesel? Today? Only just. But if you use LPG or Tesco's best sunflower oil, probably not even today.

Remember you do not need to power your maximum requirement you just reduce it, so a small cheap generator is all that is needed.

If electricity prices continue to rise, people will find ways to beat the system and solar PV will only be a small part of it.  We will end up with distributed pollution rather than distributed "renewables".

But worse, the people still paying for the ROCs and the FITs will be the poorest and most vulnerable who don't have the wherewithal to beat the system.

Windfarm Wars and a Reluctant English Hero

The third instalment concerning a bitterly contested bid to build an industrial wind turbine complex in the middle of rural Devon was on BBC2 tonight.

If you missed it WATCH IT HERE. It will only be there for the next 14 days.

Believe me, it is important. It is inspirational.

Even the bloody BBC (who would have given Hitler a good press) have difficulties showing the "good" side of the corporate windfarm carpet baggers.

( Note to BBC: - Maybe that is because the "good" side doesn't exist? )

This episode is a chance to see a true English Hero called Mike Hulme, with a group of ordinary people defend their country and homes from a ruthless corporate windfarm developer. The developer is all smiles (and crocodile tears) for the camera, but their spin and propaganda cannot hide their planned ugly profiteering at expense of the locals.

Reluctantly the locals, led by Mike Hulme mount an expensive legal challenge in the High court.  They almost won.

Mike Hulme and his wife. True English heros

They at least, made the bastards squirm.

I don't know what the final episode will bring. In this the third episode, the developers,  in  true Gaddaffi (No Mercy) style, seek to extract their pound of flesh. They slaver over the prospect of getting full legal costs and ruining Mike on the imaginary pretext that someone must be backing him.

Their ruthless quest to trample over anyone who gets in their way bodes ill for the next episode, but fits exactly with what people have found elsewhere.

At least this time the judge gave the bastards a hammering. Mike got away without having to pay their fees. Which was Oh So Sweet.

I just loved the confrontation in the coffee house after the judgement. Mike, I admire your restraint.

We all now know these corporate windfarm carpet baggers have to release their data, which they have refused to do until now.

That is thanks to Mike Hulme and the Den Brook Defence committee. We all owe them a great debt for leading the way.

Well done Mike, and your friends in Den Brook. You have my admiration and respect.

The April Wind Farm Robbery

On the 6th-7th April, over a period of a few hours we were all collectively held to ransom and robbed of nearly £1 million.

I expect that nobody told you of this crime. Believe me, there are a lot of people who want it to be kept quiet.

I know I tend to drone on about how hopeless wind turbines are, but this is not simply about the "normal" over-payment.

This is about legalised extortion.

Over a few hours on the night 5-6th April you paid approximately £1 million to a group of windfarms simply to get them to stop generating.

Under normal circumstances, wind farms get paid a stupendously generous £55 per MW/hr when they actually manage to produce power. Normal generators get about half that.

But on 5-6th April they were asked to stop generating, though they would get paid for the lost production. One wind generator demanded (and was paid) £800 per MW/hr simply to put the breaks on and stop generating.

This extortion was, of course, legal. An ordered theft. As is always the case when the common folk get screwed over by rich exploitative bastards who can manipulate the system.

Here is the list of shame.

All of these wind farms demanded payment many times what they would normally get paid simply to shut down generation. They demanded it in full knowledge that the Grid had no option except to pay because they could not close down any more traditional generation.

Why couldn't they shut down other generation?. Because it needed to stay on line in case the wind stopped blowing. They had to keep reliable generation on line. It would have been dangerous to do otherwise.

So how and what exactly happened?

On the 6th of April the wind began to blow unexpectantly. It began to blow in the night. As it was in the night, nobody wanted the electricity. But legally, the grid has to absorb the energy from wind turbines whenever they produce power. So on April 6th the National Grid had to absorb the power whether it was needed or not.

Normally any other form of power generation has to book slots where it guarantees to produce a certain amount of power. If it fails to produce that power, then an auction takes place where others step in the make up the short fall - at a price. The defaulting generator has to pay.

On the other hand, if more power is being generated than is needed, a generator can be paid to shut down or reduce output. This is also decided at an auction where the lowest bid wins. Most generators actually bid less than their typical charge per MW/hr as they save on fuel and wear and tear on the plant.

But wind power is different. Due to their intermittency, they simply could not compete in a true market so they do not have to book slots. They are allowed to sell power whenever they are in a position to produce. If the wind fails to turn up, they get out penalty free. But if the wind turns up when nobody needs the power, then somebody else has to shut down.

Because wind power is so unreliable, the grid has to be able to provide backup (or spinning reserve) at a moments notice, just in case the wind stops blowing. On the 6-7th April, the grid was suddenly inundated with wind generated energy. At that time they were also coping with a sudden increase of power from hydroelectricity due to a sudden heavy rain fall. The Scottish grid had wound down the traditional power plants to an a safe minimum. They could not safely reduce traditional power generation any more, because they always have to be able to guarantee supply.

But somebody had to shut down or the grid frequency would dangerously rise. Some of the wind farms, which had caused the crisis, were asked to reduce power. Consequently they were asked for bids in a power reduction  auction. They knew that nobody else could shut down. Greedily, their bids ranged from 180 -1000 per MW/hr.

Remember, the bids in the above table are the winning bids. They were the lowest. Others were even higher.

Essentially these bastards, having caused the problem then set about extracting as much money as they possibly could from the people trying to rectify the situation.

Because of the wind turbine carpet baggers privileged position, you can guarantee this will happen again and again and again. Each time the grid will be held to ransom. At the end of the day it is you who will pay. The more wind generation that gets put on the grid, the more this will happen.

Get used to being screwed.

The carpet baggers will be back for more.

The full story is HERE on the Renewable Energy Foundation.
How the ROC subsidy works is explained HERE

Wind Power: The Reality Today.

In these frozen autumn days, Billothewisp thought he would cheer himself up by having a look at all that free energy flowing into the grid. After all wind turbine generators  get a Billion quid a year in subsidy paid for by the likes of Billothewisp and other assorted grubby English folk, so perhaps a little payback in the form of happy-time may be in order.

He had a look at the NETA Site, which is the site that shows the day-today costings and accounting for the countries power grid. It tells us how our electricity is made, transmitted, paid for and regulated.

Billothewisp puzzled over the figures for the mighty wind turbines. Surely there was something wrong. There must be a mistake! There was no happiness here! A single tear rolled down his knarly cheek.

He had seen this graph:

His rheumy old eyes misty with tears, could barely make out the contribution from wind power. A billion quid seemed a lot of money for a barely legible pixel wide line!

Then he read this.

For a moment his sorrow was placated as he read the bottom line (or boiler plate rating) giving the theoretical output for his billion quid. But then he looked up.

Oh sorrow on sorrow!

The boilerplate rating for all the wind turbines in the country was 2430 MW but the maximum nationwide output today was 276 MW.

11.3% of their much lauded boilerplate rating.

But then it got worse . He looked at the predicted output for the next day. The maximum output was going to be just 94 MW.

That is 3.8% of their boiler plate rating.

I will write that again in large letters in case you missed it.

3.8% 

But even worse than that. This maximum occurs at midnight. Just when Billothewisp and the rest of old England is tucked up in bed, with the low energy light bulbs turned off.

Don't forget these are national figures. Not a single isolated case. National. All major turbines. And these are the PEAK values for these days.

So much for the argument that if the wind isn't blowing in one place it will make up for it elsewhere.

These figures are so bad, so dreadful, so outrageous that I feel I must have made a mistake. Our politicians and assorted environmental dreamers are not really this gullible are they?

Surely we are not spending and extra One Billion quid a year for this?

Thanks to Jockdownsouth and his comment on This Post at WUWT that tipped me off to the magnificent NETA site and the distinctly un-magnificent figures for wind generation.

I think I am going to have some serious fun here with the figures from NETA in the future.