The Obscene Profitability of Wind Power

Due to the pandemic and the virtual shutdown of the national economy the day-ahead wholesale price of electricity has plummeted. In May it averaged  £22.17 MWh. There have been occasions where the price has gone negative for several hours at a time. Normally the average monthly price per MWh is around £45.

As you can imagine this is really bad news for any generator that is dependant on the market price of electricity to support its operation.

But one group of producers has no worries.  

The subsidy payments received by generators classed as "renewable" dwarf these market prices. 

Here I’ll just deal with the most outrageous and costly i.e. windfarms. But biomass, Solar PV and others are all excruciatingly expensive too. Its just there's less of them.

The effect of the subsidy payments to wind-farms is such that until the price goes significantly negative it is not in their interest to shut down. They have privileged access to the grid so can demand access when the wind blows whatever the current grid status. But they suffer no penalty when they (often) fail to produce when needed. 

So in times of low demand and high wind they continue to produce. They only stop when they get bought off by the National Grid with what is known as a constraint payment. In 2019 wind turbine constraint payments came to over £139 million. Money for nothing – except to stop risking overloading the grid.

Today almost all wind-farms are subsidised by the now defunct Renewable Obligation scheme (RO). This was replaced in 2017 with Contracts for Difference(CfD) which is arguably even more costly and inflexible than its predecessor. 

ROC stands for "Renewable Obligation Certificate". Today one ROC is worth £50.05. Every time a wind turbine produces one MWh of electricity it gets the market payment for that MWh topped up an amount dictated by the RO scheme

A land based wind turbine gets 0.9 ROCs (£45.05) + Market Price for each MWh.

A offshore wind turbine gets 1.8 ROCs (£90.10) + Market Price for each MWh.

So back in May on average a land based wind turbine was in total being paid about three times the market price while an off-shore turbine was paid fives times the market price. In normal times they still (on average) get paid double and triple the market price per MWh respectively.

Even at times of oversupply, when prices fell to zero (or below) they were still guaranteed that subsidy – or an even larger constraint payment.

This RO subsidy scheme for wind turbines alone is currently costing UK customers £2.7 Billion a year and will continue to do so for the next 20 or so years. Here's the figures on the REF website

The companies running these wind-farms are over-joyed at their profitability. Truly when comes to acting as money making machines all other unsubsidised generation capacity pales by comparison. Look at this chart (HERE) from OfGem and weep.

So while renewable generation undermines the integrity of the grid it is obscenely profitable. 

Why is it so profitable? 

Because of a massively over-generous ROC subsidy. A subsidy which, at the end of the day gets paid by the consumer.

Years ago when the RO scheme was dreamed up, the idea was that the payments (i.e. number of certificates issued per MWh) would be changed as the technology/costs/profitability evolved. 

However this was only done once. When the ROC payments per MWh for on-shore and off-shore turbines were slightly reduced from 1.0 and 2.0 to 0.9 and 1.8 respectively it caused such a mountain of complaint from the renewable industry that it has never been attempted again. So today these vastly extravagant payments remain untouched. 

I suppose though we should be grateful that they are not on the new CfD scheme. This guarantees an index-linked fixed price. 

Current offshore windfarms using the CfD scheme are: 

• Beatrice (g’teed £162/MWh) 
• Burbo Bank Extension (g’teed £173/MWh) 
• Dudgeon (g’teed £173/MWh) 
• Walney Extension (g’teed £173/MWh). 

All of these make the RO scheme look cheap! These prices are index linked and so will only increase as time goes on. 

Of course today we have the wind industry crowing about “falling” CfD’s for future (i.e. jam tomorrow) wind farms. Much is being made of the proposed future Dogger Bank offshore scheme where the CfD auction was won at £48/MWh. 

But will they ever be built at that price? Besides that we are still lumbered with the excruciatingly over-priced one we have today!

A few years back there was similar huge publicity for Solar PV when CfD auctions were also won at around £50 MWh. It was headline news on the BBC and  all over the papers. Then after the razzamatazz, it all went quiet.

None were built. Just more unsubstantiated hype. More jam tomorrow. You have to give it to them though. It was wonderful propaganda.

Today the UK consumer (and industry) are literally being robbed by the big energy companies and their renewables scam. Large companies stack up huge profits from wind farms. Not because their wind turbines are wonderfully efficient (far from it) but because they are hugely subsidised

There is no excuse for this. The RO scheme was designed to be flexible and take into account the varying profitability of renewable generators. But today  it has ossified to the benefit of financial parasites.

If the UK govt had any balls it would cut the ROC (at least) in half and phase it to zero within 5 years.

But you know and I know that won't happen. Wind turbines are simply too fashionable. Nobody dares question their economics, or who actually ends up paying for this extortion racket.

So just get used to being robbed for the next twenty years. You (and I) have no other choice.

But perhaps we don't have to stay quiet while our pockets are being fleeced.

Domestic Electricity Prices & Wind Turbine Subsidies

Nearly nine years ago I wrote a blog post analysing the consumer electricity price differences between European countries. This was based on the table below which came from  THIS SITE.

The original post is HERE.

European Electricity Prices in 2011

The data was sobering. Especially with how the price appeared to track the level of installed wind power within the country.

I intended to update this on a regular basis but for some reason the website stopped making the data available. Eventually  I gave up trying and forgot about it.

By chance (as it is the year end) I was looking at the stats for this blog. I noticed that the old post on European electricity prices (now nearly nine years old) was still getting a fair amount of traffic.

So yesterday I went back onto the The European Energy Portal just in case they had any links to up-to-date data. The good news is that they have restarted providing the data. So now I can at least (after a delay of eight and a half years) update the original.

The readings today, after nearly nine years of rampant and virtually unconstrained development of industrial wind turbines and other RE make for even more sober analysis than before.

Here’s the new table of European electricity prices.

European Electricity Prices 2019

You will notice that the relative price between countries is virtually unchanged. Denmark still hosts the most expensive household electricity. Germany is again a close second. Sweden is today marginally cheaper than France but both have undergone significant price increases. Especially France which has politically disavowed its clean cheap and effective nuclear power in favour of yet more wind turbines.

Bulgaria still has the cheapest electricity in Europe with a virtually unchanged price. Interestingly Austria has also maintained its 2011 price.

Many European countries though have suffered large real-value increases in the price of their electricity. Often well above inflation.

The UK is a case in point. The is a period of eight years between the original post and the updated table. The price (in Euros) over this time went up from 15c to over 22c. That’s a rise of over 7c or a rise of about 50% unadjusted for inflation.

FROM HERE price inflation in the UK since 2011 to 2019 was 21%. So the rise in electricity prices in the UK over this eight year period has on average been at more than double the annual rate of inflation.

So why is this?

Maybe gas prices have gone up? (gas accounts for about one half of UK electricity generation)

No.

The gas spot price is actually cheaper today than it was in 2011, and by a considerable margin.

Is nuclear adding to the cost?

No.

In fact what nuclear there is left is now more efficient and cost effective than ever. Today nuclear power offers the cheapest electricity on the UK market.

Coal as a major UK electricity generating fuel is no more. It is a bit part player. Besides, the coal price (like the gas price) is considerably lower today than in 2011.

But there is a large new added cost since 2011 and that cost is associated with Renewable Energy.

There’s been lots of smoke and mirrors about how “cheap” wind power and solar have become but you only have to dig a little way into data to show the truth.

As the years have gone on the amount of subsidy to wind turbines you provide from your electricity bill has steadily gone up.

It is the old “boiling frog” approach to implementing a considerable price hike over time.

Disguised by the natural fluctuation of the market due to fuel price changes the price of electricity has been slowly and carefully ratcheted up over many years.

Today for every five pounds you spend on your consumer electricity bill, one pound is allocated to what is known as “Environmental and social costs”.

According to OfGem:
[quote]
These are the costs of government programmes to save energy, reduce emissions and encourage take up of renewable energy. 
[unquote]

Of that 20%, the Lions share is used provide subsidy payments to Wind turbine operators and and solar PV owners. Mostly it goes on wind turbines.

The vast majority of these subsidy payments are made through what are known as ROC certificates. This is a subsidy scheme that is now obsolete but will still impact your bill for the next 20 or so years.

The RO scheme has been replaced by an even more duplicitous (and still lucrative) scheme called Contracts for Difference. But as of today ROC payments form the majority of wind turbine subsidy.

In other words the majority of the 20% added to your bill as “Environmental and Social Costs” is the amount you pay to subsidise wind turbines and to a lesser extent solar PV.

Paltry amounts out of this 20% go to improving home insulation or to providing remote locations with electricity.

So, you may be surprised to find that your annual electricity bill shows far less of an increase than  this boiling frog price hike suggests.

This is because people now use less electricity than in 2011.

Why?

Because today we have more efficient appliances, particularly electric light bulbs, but white goods are much better too.

So just think:

All that money you spent on LED bulbs and eco-friendly washing machines has been used not to reduce your electricity bill, but to line the pockets of the big companies running wind turbines. 

And it will continue to be used in the same way for the foreseeable future.

Today for every MWh of electricity produced the generating company must provide 0.484 ROC certificates. The value of a ROC certificate in 2020 has been set at £48.78 per ROC. This cost is passed directly through to the customer.

A typical consumer uses 3.7MWh electricity per year. Maybe you use more. Maybe less.

So work it out yourself how much you are subsidising wind turbines by.

I don’t think you will be amused.

An Expensive day in April.

The 30th April 2017 was a Bank Holiday Sunday in the UK and consequently the use of electricity was very low.

By chance it is also a Goldilocks day for wind and solar. Not too much wind but windy enough to provide a high output. The icing on the cake was that the wind speed was pretty constant across the day. Solar meanwhile has a nice day too with cloudless skies.

The day has been lauded far and wide as the day the UK was supplied with more power by renewables than by all other sources combined. When averaged over the day, the subsidised renewables (wind, solar and biomass) contributed 41% of the total energy used.

I wondered how much this Goldilocks day cost the UK taxpayer in subsidies.

The Electric insights website (Here) gives us a lot of information.

Here is a snapshot of the full day of generation from 30th April.

Knowing a few of the details of the subsidy regimes and the average generation per technology over the day we can get a rough idea of how much this golidlocks day cost, both for actual electricity generated and for wind, solar and biomass subsidies.

All of existing RE generation (bar the shouting) is subsidised by the Renewables Obligation (RO) or for smaller generators by the Feed In Tariff (FiT). CfD's (contracts for difference) are yet to apply to operational generators, but they are unlikely to reduce the total cost by much (if anything).

Bear in mind  RO and FiT subsidies are NOT the full price. The fullprice is (subsidy + selling price).

Currently one ROC is worth £45.58

Interestingly the RO for ground level solar (1.2 ROC/MWh) is almost the same as the latest total FiT price (generation + export) for small arrays.  Which means I will assume all solar gets the same subsidy of 1.2 ROCs/MWh (actually this is an significant underestimate of the subsidy due to a number of reasons - but I'll use this to err on the side of caution with this rough calculation)

Large scale wind has two separate ROC subsidies - one for onshore (0.9 ROCs/MWh) and one for offshore(1.8 ROCs/MWh). Offshore is far more productive per turbine than onshore while there are more onshore turbines than offshore. So a happy medium is to place the average ROC subsidy at 1.35 per MWh( (onshore + offshore)/2)

There is also some embedded wind which is subject to the FiT scheme. But per MWh this works out at approximately the same level of subsidy as our average for on-shore and off-shore.

Roughly working out the subsidy per technology for this single Goldilocks day:

Wind. 
The average power output over the day for wind was 8.8GW So the total energy generated was (8.8 x 24) just over 210GWh. Our subsidy  per MWh is (1.35 x £45.58) or £61.53 per MWh. So the subsidy on 210GWH amounts to £12,921930.

That is (as near as dammit) £13 million for the day

Solar.
Obviously solar only works during daylight so although there was a glut at midday of around 5GW, when averaged over the day the output was a more modest 1.5GW or 36GWh. The subsidy cost is 1.2 ROCs per MWh.

That comes out roughly £2 million for the day.

Biomass
Biomass power averaged 1.4GW over the day producing 33GWh of energy. Biomass gets one ROC per MWh.

The subsidy for this single day was just over £1.5 million.

So the total subsidy was £16.5 million.

How does this compare with the total generation cost?

Now the average payment (ex-subsidy) for all generators over the day was £32.43 per MWh and the average total power was 28.4GW.  So the total cost (ex subsidy) for all the electricity generated (28.4 x 24 x 32.43) was about £22 million

Bear in mind that my back-of-a-fag-packet subsidy calculation of £16.5 million uses the latest (and smallest) FiT rates.

It is pretty clear that when you include the hidden ROC and FiT subsidies this single day of 41% penetration by Wind, Solar and Biomass came close to doubling the wholesale price of electricity.

Yet on this sunny, windy, and expensive day in April, there was also an elephant in the room.

It is an elephant whose name environmentalists dare not speak. An elephant that is shunned, ignored or pilloried.

That elephant is the UK's existing nuclear power fleet.

One that April day it continuously provided about 25% of our power or 7.3GW. It does this day in day out 24/7. Not just when there is a Goldilocks day.

There were no emissions and for existing nuclear, there are no subsidies.

F Minus for the GroKo

OK. I've been away. Recovering from my jet lag I came across this. The video not only shows that our German friends have a truly wicked humour it also shows that they are becoming pig sick of the fatuous and failing Energiewende and their coalition government that promotes it. The video is subtitled and starts slowly but persevere. After two minutes it is a truly wonderful cutting satire.

Love & kisses
Billo

Wrecking the Sea Bed with Offshore Wind Part 5

This is the fifth and last in a series of posts about the damage done to the sea floor by offshore "Wind Parks". Data has been taken from the proposed Navitus bay wind park consultation documents (Available On This Link) which are also available on a DVD. The main files are:
PEI3_Ch2_NavitusBayWindParkProject.pdf  ( Link HERE )
PEI3_Ch5_PhysicalProcesses.pdf  ( Link HERE )
PEI3-Ch_9_benthicecology.pdf (Link HERE)
PEI3_Ch_10_fishandshellfishecology.pdf ( Link HERE )

I hope I have shown in the first four posts (using the Navitus' own documentation) that the small power plant that would be Navitus Bay Offshore Wind park will involve massive damage to the seabed.

Just to summarise from previous posts: 

The foundations will  involve ripping up around one and a half million tonnes of seabed. This damage coupled with disposal of the spoil will wreck around 1000 acres of sea bed - or around a total of 4 square kilometers.  

Several hundred miles of undersea cabling will involve trenching, ploughing and jetting into the sea-floor. The debris will spray out, burying everything within a 5 -20 meter wide corridor. Though a plume of finer debris will extend much further. So another 1000 acres (or another four square kilometers) of sea bed will be trashed. 

On top of this cabling sea bed disturbance, there will be dumped  over a third of a million tonnes of rock debris to protect the cables from being accidentally trawled up.

But it does not stop there. There is even more rock debris required. This rock is known as anti-scour.

Anti Scour

The Navitus Wind Park (like any other offshore wind farm) will need thousands of tonnes of imported rock piled around the bases of turbines to prevent the foundations being undermined by scouring. 

This anti-scour rock debris will essentially form a foreign and unnatural marine environment around about 30% of the turbines. Typically, each anti-scour ring will measure  25 meters in diameter and be 2 meters thick. (para 2.70)

A ring that size will account for about 1000 tonnes of rock debris per turbine or around 70,000 tonnes in total for the proposed 30% of turbines (para 2.68) that will need the anti-scour.

In addition to this there is additional anti-scour to cover the cable entry points (this is in addition to the rock used for cable protection described in a previous post). This will be needed on an unspecified proportion of turbines requiring anti-scour (para 2.71). Assuming 40 turbines need this and it will be as thick as the anti-scour itself then this will be another 30,000 tonnes of rock debris.

In total the anti-scour alone will involve importing another one hundred thousand tonnes of foreign rock and dumping it into the marine environment directly off the World Heritage Jurassic Coast.

The suffocation of the natural environment around these turbines by building what are essentially artificial and foreign habitats will no doubt, over time, also import foreign wildlife into the area (as has happened elsewhere - para 9.121). With the excavation and  dumped spoil, this anti-scour will inevitably skew the current balance of the existing wildlife within the turbine area. No doubt some species will prosper. But others may collapse as they struggle to compete in what is to them an artificial and chaotically changed environment. Sadly though it does not end there.

Effect on Tidal Flows


Although the potential gains from this scheme are pitifully poor, it will still be a huge artificial structure. In fact a structure so enormous and so intrusive on the natural environment that it will actually slow down the tidal flow rate by 7% within the turbine area and cause a flow speed increase outside. In an area already suffering from considerable marine coastal erosion, having a structure that speeds up tidal flows north (i.e. landward) of this structure would appear to be careless - to say the least. (para 5.325)

Finally I'll point out that this thing is so big and intrusive on the natural environment it could actually cause a change of tidal phase where the peak rate of flow may be retarded by a full 10 minutes (para 5.325).

Finally I would like to bring up a topic nobody is talking about although I suspect it is a topic many involved with this project are fully aware of.

Sea-bed Methane Release

Coastal sediments can potentially hold large quantities of Methane ( see paper Reindl & Bolalek link - Here ) & ( paper Mascharka, Montross, & Pierrehumbert link - Here )

Whenever you disturb ancient coastal sediments you are guaranteed to release trapped seabed Methane. Large Dredgers (as an example) are usually fitted with methane extraction and venting equipment to prevent the risk of explosion (See The Art of Dredging - Here ). But here the problem is not so much tied up with an explosion risk as to the fact that methane is a green house gas 20 times as potent as CO2. 

It would be high farce for this monstrosity to be built only to do more damage to the atmosphere than it is optimistically slated to offset. It is difficult to see how that trenching and ploughing an area equating to 1000 acres then excavating a million and a half tonnes of seabed can do anything but release copious quantities of trapped coastal seabed methane. 

Somehow this possibility appears to have been missed out of the Navitus documentation altogether.

So finally - What Exactly will be the Environmental Gain?

Sadly the pillage and destruction described here are just the tip of the ice-berg. 

In these few posts I have dealt solely with a sub-set of the sea-bed damage caused by offshore wind farms. Nobody seems to have publicly paid much attention to this, although to be fair English Heritage has raised the alarm (table 9.2). Perhaps the surface calamities threatened by these offshore projects are so awful they push other unseen destruction to the back of people's minds.

A very good site detailing other major problems with offshore wind (particularly Navitus) is on this link - Challenge Navitus - Here 

Most of all though, let us just remember that all this destruction and upset to a fragile and internationally recognised coastal region is to provide a SMALL intermittent power supply of typical daily output of 250 MWe or less.

Even then, simply to be viable, this offshore wind farm will have to be paid around three times the typical electricity wholesale cost.

If we leave aside the quasi-religious zeal, the vacuous fashionability and the endemic greed that drives this foolishness, can anyone really give a good reason to desecrate this coast (or any other) for so little gain? 

Wrecking the Sea Bed with Offshore Wind (Part 2)

This is the second in a series of posts about the damage done to the sea floor by offshore "Wind Parks" . Data has been taken from the proposed Navitus bay wind park consultation document.Document reference link below. On the DVD the main file is: PEI3_Ch2_NavitusBayWindParkProject.pdf

Undersea Cabling, Trenching, Ploughing and Encasement.

In order for an offshore wind park to show a semblance of operational ability, it requires a massive amount of undersea cabling. This cabling not only connects to land, but runs turbine to turbine and from turbine to substation, substation to substation and finally  substation to land. (Link: Navitus Bay PE13 Chapter 2 Section 2.6.10)

To protect these cables, they need to be buried. As a result, the sea bed will be variously trenched, ploughed and then backfilled. In some places these cables need to be secured to the sea floor by further encasing them in rock and/or concrete.

We are not talking about narrow little furrows here. This gouging through the seabed will involve hundreds of miles of trenches, many meters across and up to two meters deep.

Here are the main tables taken from the Navitus DVD itemising some (but not all) of the cabling.

NOTE: for export cables the "construction zone width" is missing however
para 6.116 indicates it is 10m

There is also a potential 70 Km of  of inter-substation cabling. The documentation indicates that this will be similar to the export cabling (para 2.106) so I assume 10m wide "construction zone"

Using the proposed trench/plough construction width multiplied by the length of the trench we find that if the trenching/ploughing was done as a continuous block, the trenched/ploughed area would amount to just over 4 square kilometres. That is around 1000 acres of virgin seabed, immediately off the World Heritage Jurassic Coast, completely ploughed up or covered with trenching spoil, then backfilled.

To get a feel for this vandalism, imagine excavating a trench across the New Forest. A gash that runs all the way from Bournemouth to Southampton - about 25 miles. The "construction zone" for this trench (i.e the trench itself, plus piles of debris, plus machine access) will be 100 meters wide. Then when you are done you roughly backfill it. 100 meters is incidentally just short of three times the width of an eight lane motorway.

Cable Protection

About 30% of the inter-array cabling and inter-substation cabling will require rock armouring. If you use the figures in the Navitus DVD, you will find that there will be a seven meter wide strip, one meter high (para 2.137) piled on top of some cables for a distance of over 27 Km ( 17 miles ).

 If you figure that out as a contiguous area of sea-bed smothered in foreign rock to a depth of one meter it comes out at over 47 Acres. 47 Acres of seabed immediately off the Jurassic coast. To achieve this encasement will require over a third of a million tonnes of rock debris (340,200 Tonnes of imported rock debris @ 1.8 tonnes per cubic meter)

Another way of viewing this mountain of rock debris is by imagining Bournemouth square filled with a cone of rock debris 100 meters across with a height of 77 meters (230 feet) in the middle. That is 25 feet higher than Westminster Abbey.

All this so a small intermittent power facility can operate at a wholesale cost of about three times that of the base electrical wholesale price.

Did I say it gets worse?

Well, sadly it does. Tomorrow we talk about foundations, piling and waste dumps. (The 3rd post is HERE)

Wind Turbine Reliability and that Elephant Again

A detailed  analysis of the reliability and life span of on-shore and off-shore turbines has been produced by Professor Hughes of Edinburgh University. Because his findings are so controversial the paper has been independently statistically verified.

Far from having a lifespan of 25 years as promoted by the wind industry, it looks like the lifespan will be more like 10-15 years. Furthermore, during that 15 year lifespan, the capacity factor will progressively diminish.

Professor Hughes paper is Here
The Telegraph has also produced an article on this Here.

Professor Hughes suggests that even the wind industry has not yet realised it has this problem. Personally I think they have known about it for years.

I first blogged about the massive ongoing gearbox reliability issue (Here) This was based on this article Here. But it is not just the gearboxes. Since then we have had the grouting failure that has affected almost all offshore turbines in Europe, with many shifting on their base (Here). But these failures are just the headlines.

Yet the wind industry are in denial. Take the  pathetic bluster from RenewablesUK in the Telegraph article.

[quote]
...so it’s very much in their interests to make sure that their turbines are maintained… to an optimum level, which includes upgrading as the technology improves. 
[unquote]

Anyone running machinery should optimally maintain it! But it will still wear out.

The question here is : What is the lifespan WHEN you optimally maintain it.

It sounds like the wind industry is back to relying on miracles. You know, something (as yet unknown) will come along that will make it all better. Don't forget wind turbines are supposed to be a mature technology. Sadly, whatever you upgrade to, you are simply not going to beat the laws of physics, and every upgrade is yet  another capital cost.

As any rotating machine ages it requires more maintenance. Eventually it reaches a stage where the machine requires so much maintenance it is classified as Beyond Economic Repair (BER). In other words, it is clapped out. This happens to ALL machinery. It happens to Jumbo jets, nuclear power stations, buses, cars AND wind turbines.

The wind industry propaganda has declared that BER for a turbine is 25 years. The truth, as proven by Prof. Hughes, is that the BER is reached in about 15 years.

Wind Turbines are capital intensive. The whole of their potential profitability is solely dictated by the total amount of energy they can produce over their life time. If their lifespan to BER is lowered then the possibility of them being profitable without an enormous subsidy decreases, especially later on in their life cycle.

You will also find that from a DECC document (Here) that current wind turbine annual maintenance costs range from £12000 to £110,000 per turbine. The amount is heavily dependant on the status of the warranty and consequently its age. As it gets older the maintenance cost sky rockets – until you reach BER.

With a decreasing capacity factor and an increasing maintenance cost over time, the money making years for a wind turbine are the first 5 years. Then its downhill all the way.

Turbines are medium term cash cows for their corporate owners. When they approach BER, either because the subsidy is cut or they blow up their second gearbox, they will be sold on. Then when the second/third/fourth company has run them into the ground they will be sold on again for scrap and  the  valuable components stripped out. Then they will be abandoned. In situ.

When the bailiffs finally turn up demanding the derelict  be cleaned up they will find that the “owner” is a post office box in Belize.
Guess who will get the final clean up bill.

Texas Offshore Turbines: 50% total loss in 20 years?

A article from the New Scientist (Here) reports on a major modelling exercise done by Carnegie Mellon University. This report aims to predict how offshore turbines would stand up to the weather off the Texas coast.

The modelling predicts 50% of the turbines will be destroyed within a 20 year period. Remember that is total loss. It is not going to cover the known gearbox reliability problems (See Here) or simply the massive maintenance costs faced by any offshore structure.

Over here in the UK assorted wishful thinkers dream of huge offshore wind farms far out in the North Sea, or crammed into the shipping lanes around our coast.

Galveston Bay is of course in Hurricane Alley, but it lacks the unremitting hostility of the North Sea. For comparison, the cost of oil extraction in the North sea is among the highest, if not the highest in the world. (Wikipedia Here). This high cost is mainly due to appallingly high maintenance and support requirements.

Meanwhile over in Galveston, they have been routinely extracting oil both on-shore and off-shore (especially in shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico) since 1924. It is only since they have ventured into deep water that they have had major technical problems as displayed by the Deep Water Horizon disaster.

This North Sea maintenance penalty is going to apply to any North sea offshore structure. Even in the less hostile environs along our south coast the cost is going to be prohibitively high (that is, without massive government subsidy). It is difficult to see that offshore wind farms anywhere around our coast are going to be any more practical than that Carnegie Mellon University  have found for Galveston Bay.

We have already seen one severe problem where most offshore turbines in Europe have actually shifted dangerously on their foundations (See Here) Although the wind industry has managed to (by and large) keep this major problem quiet, it bodes ill for the long term survival of these structures.

These offshore turbines, wherever they are built, are going to require enormous amounts of maintenance. This maintenance cost will far exceed the practical economic viability.  Offshore turbines, like their on-shore counterparts stand no chance of ever being free of massive government subsidy.

But offshore turbines take the cost and subsidy fiasco to a totally new level.

Without doubt, the minute the subsidy stops, so will they.

Wind Turbine Scam On Steroids

There are times when the stupidity of Her Majesties Government exceeds even the realms of fantasy we normally expect from these buffoons.

Believe me, Monty Python has nothing on what I am about to tell you. Terry Pratchet could
imagine nothing so absurd.

When it comes avarice and greed, Arthur Daly would have blushed at such a scandalously lucrative con.

If I tell you that this involves the current wind turbine fiasco will probably also come as no surprise.

But believe me, my grubby little Englander, this is the wind turbine scam on steroids. If you thought the carpet baggers in the wind turbine cartel were already ripping us all off to the limit of endurance then get used to being screwed some more. (See Spectator Here)

So how does this scam work?

Basically it revolves around the utterly hopeless capability of these absurdly large structures to generate electricity.

If you forget about intermittency, a 125m tall standard 2.0 MW wind turbine actually acts like a piddling 0.5 MW generator (albeit an unreliable and unpredictable one). In other words in England it has a capacity factor (CF) of around 25%.

Most of the time though it is running at significantly less than 25% CF. It relies on occasional and highly unpredictable high wind events to big up the CF to 25%

Now if you reduce the maximum rating of the generator attached to the turbine to less than 2.0MW, but keep the same horrendously large structure, you increase the capacity factor. But you decrease the maximum output as you can no longer exploit the high wind events. So over a year the total amount of electricity generated will be less. Even though the CF has been increased.

And here comes the rub.

If you keep the preposterous size but reduce the generator rating to 0.5 MW your subisdy per MW/hr rises from about £50 to £125.

So whereas nuclear, coal or gas get paid about £45 per MW/hr and a standard 2.0 MW turbine gets paid £95 per MW/hr. A 2.0 MW size turbine crippled to max out at 0.5MW gets paid £175 per MW/hr.

Bear in mind MOST of the time this turbine will be outputting well under 0.5 MW irrespective of whether it has a 2.0 MW generator or a 0.5 MW generator.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that the carpet baggers will be raking in even more subsidy by  running these monsters inefficiently. They don't care about losing even over half of the annual output of the thing, they still get paid more by crippling it

Here is the punch line: Your government is encouraging this. They think this is a "good idea".

Well, all I can say is: What do you expect from a government led by someone who is such a  technical incompetent that he believes you can use windmills to power cars? (See Here)

Regards
Billo

Wind and the Myth of Fossil Fuel Subsidies.

One of the latest little scams our wind turbines aficionado's are trying to pull is to justify their obscenely expensive and ineffective Wind Turbine generators (WTG's) by inventing fictional subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear. The latest and greatest of these has the carpet baggers claiming that that the massive ROC subsidy received by wind is on par with or even less than that received by gas, oil and coal.

Of course, this is a load of tosh. Just as it is a load tosh that wind is cheaper than nuclear (See this Post).

Here is a fine example of this bufoonery at The Guardian - Here  (where does the Guardian get their reporters from?). You have to ask: Do Guardian journalists ever read the documents they supposedly quote from? Or do they just do as they are told? 

According to our Guardian scribbler, poor hard done-by wind (which at best produces 1% total energy supply) "only" got £700M subsidy in 2010. Whereas (shock horror probe) the demon spawn of Satan (aka fossil fuels) received a whopping £3.63 Billion. 

He supposedly derives this from an OECD document available Here. Pity the journalist didn't read it first. I have to ask if Guardian journalist are just naturally lazy or so dedicated to spewing out propaganda they willingly subvert the truth to aid their carpet bagging friends in the wind industry.

At the end of this document from the OECD are three tables that summarize the subsidies received by coal oil and gas (produced at the end of this post)

Each of these tables itemise the folowing:
A "Producer subsidy" i.e. the subsidy received by the energy producer.
A "Consumer" subsidy which relates to the reduced VAT rate charged on all electricity and heating (however generated) 
Finally, a subsidy for inherited liabilities. (£8.5M - coal only)

These are the producer subsidies:
Coal: Nil (Coal provides approx 14% total energy)
Gas: £233M (Gas provides approx 40% total energy)
Oil: £301M (Oil provides approx 38% total energy)

These subsidies though are acknowledged by the OECD as for specific purposes, not like the ROC which simply lines the pockets of the shysters running the WTG scam.

What this ridiculous article includes in to order to get to £3.63 Billion is the Consumer subsidy. This of course, applies to all energy providers including wind and relates to consumers NOT providers. Wind (whose energy is also subject  to the same consumer VAT reduction from 20% to 5%) still gets an another £700M. All for their measly 1% annual contribution to the UK energy mix.

I can only see this as a fundamentally dishonest and decietful misuse of data in order to promote a mistruth. The fact that this appears in a supposedly  upstanding newpaper is absolutely unforgivable.

 You can guarantee ther wind industry and their pals will try and pull this trick again.

Just remember, even if you consider the consumer VAT tax reduction a subsidy, then it is a subsidy to consumers. It is a subsidy to people who use the energy NOT the producers. The reduced VAT tax on energy makes no difference to the wholesale sell-out price for that energy whatever it is derived from. It relates to fossil, nuclear, wind, hydro,  and any other energy generation technique.

This non existent fossil fuel subsidy just comes down to another self promotional myth from the wind industry and their sycophants.

One day they may start telling the truth. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

(tables follow)

ROC and Roll Rip-offs

The ROC is the veiled subsidy paid to wind turbine operators. Every MW/hr generated by a turbine operator gains the turbine operator a ROC certificate. This certificate is then sold to fossil fuel generators. These fossil fuel generators are forced to buy these certificates or they have to pay a fine.

At the end of the day, due to the ROC, an on-shore turbine operator gets paid about double for the electricity produced. An off-shore operator gets paid triple.

If we ever managed to produce 20% of our power by wind it would account for at least 50% of the wholesale cost.

The naive political theory behind these massive subsidies is that they were supposed to kick start a whole new industry. This industry would then magically develop ever more effective and reliable wind turbines. (Oh Boy - do they need to be more effective and reliable!)

Unfortunately the truth is very far from the hype.

As the fairy-land theory goes, in the scenario of 100% "renewable" supply the ROC would become redundant, and we would have a vibrant industry developing and producing competitive alternative energy for us and the rest of the world.

Dream on.

Unfortunately this attempt at forced development neglects several very important aspects which are more related to physics and basic economics than political wishful thinking.

First, virtually all of the turbines purchased come from a group of foreign companies. These companies occasionally toss the odd manufacturing bone across the channel when is suites them. But as we saw in the Isle of Wight with Vestas, they are just as keen to maximise their profits at the expense of the workforce as any other ruthless faceless and foreign corporation.

Secondly no turbine in the current turbine fleet could possibly be economically viable without the ROC. The government has recently suggested a measly 10% reduction. This has flown into a hail of objection from the wind turbine lobby.

So if these things become unviable at a mere 10% reduction in the ROC how the hell are you ever going to get to a zero cost ROC? Remember these things are supposed to have a life of 25 years! They are still going to be at least as inefficient and ineffective in 10 -20 years time as they are now.

Of course we must also remember that wind turbines can never replace all fossil fuel generation. Many would say they cannot replace any.

Because wind can never replace much fossil plant there will always be a demand for the ROCs. So our wind turbine carpet bagger friends can always get a good return on their pieces of paper.

They simply have to ensure that their turbines don't actually do what they are hyped up to do. Bearing in mind the physics of the situation (aka Betts Law) this is the defacto situation anyway.

So get used to being ripped off. Until we get a government that is willing to stand up to this ugly wind energy cartel  the robbery will continue.

Bearing in mind how financially involved many senior politicians are with this outrage, change threatens to be a long time coming.

The Great Wind Farm Robbery Revisited

The wind turbine industry gets ever more greedy with its claims for curtailment/constraint payments. Turbine operators are claiming huge sums of money just in order to shut down. 
( The Scotsman HERE ) ( Telegraph HERE )

Luckily for us, wind turbines are so pathetically incapable of actually generating on a reliable basis that the need for curtailment payments are relatively rare. 

Take this scatter graph from the National Grid Winter Consultation 2011 ( HERE )

Each dot represents an individual wind farm output (y-axis) against actual demand (x-axis) The line National Grid have drawn shows where curtailment payments may have to be made. Inevitably these are at times when turbine output is high but demand is low. In other words the turbine power is being generated when it is not needed. Yet they still have the nerve to claim huge curtailment payments.

This scatter graph also confirms two other shocking truths about wind power. The majority of the time the output is actually well below the capacity factor. It is only the occasional high wind occurrence that bigs up the capacity factor to the (still derisory) value of 20-25%. 

Also it confirms the rather obvious flaw in wind power in that there is absolutely no correlation between wind turbine output and demand. Look to the right hand end of the x-axis and you will see plenty of evidence of turbine output being well below 10% while demand was near maximum.

But still, there are occasions when for operational reasons, during periods of low demand and high wind that the grid needs to get turbines to shut down. When these occasions happen the turbine owners go into a feeding frenzy. They demand and get payments many times the value of the electricity the could have produced - just to shut down.

While other generation technologies can also get curtailment payments, they all seem to have more of a sense of moral responsibility than the massively subsidised wind turbine cartel.

These shockingly greedy payments demanded by the wind turbine operators are at least open to inspection.

But the REF (Renewable Energy Foundation - HERE) have discovered that as well as these outrageous payments there are a set of secretive extra payments made to turbine operators which are actually even more extravagant. ( SEE THIS REF LINK ) also (Power Engineering Magazine HERE).

Even so, all these payments get dwarfed by the massive ROC subsidy turbine operators receive. But these greedy claims for yet more cash are perhaps a clearer indication of the predatory and ruthless motives that drive the wind turbine gravy train.

Morally there is no reason a massively subsidised wind turbine should get even a sniff of a constraint payment. Bearing in mind how much of the time they have to rely on other generation to pick up the shortfall caused by their intermittency the occassional call to shut down should go unrewarded.

My original piece on the Great Wind Farm Robbery is HERE

A Letter that Demands Action

It looks like the time has come where many  in high office have finally decided to take a deep breath, grit their teeth and put the interests of the country ahead of the money men, zealots and carpet baggers of the wind turbine cartel industry.

The following letter was signed by 101 MPs

While every signature is important and courageous, perhaps we should provide an extra level of applause to those from Labour and the Lib-Dems who will undoubtedly pay a heavy price for their challenge to the narrow doctrinaire obedience demanded by their colleagues on this issue.

The Telegraph article is ( HERE ).

Here is the letter and signatories:

[quote]
The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
LONDON, SW1A 2AA
30th January 2012
As Members of Parliament from across the political spectrum, we have grown more and more concerned about the Government’s policy of support for on-shore wind energy production.

In these financially straightened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies on-shore wind turbines.

In the on-going review of subsidy for renewable energy subsidies, we ask the Government to dramatically cut the subsidy for on-shore wind and spread the savings made between other types of reliable renewable energy production and energy efficiency measures.

We also are worried that the new National Planning Policy Framework, in its current form, diminishes the chances of local people defeating unwanted on-shore wind farm proposals through the planning system. Thus we attach some subtle amendments to the existing wording that we believe will help rebalance the system.

Finally, recent planning appeals have approved wind farm developments with the inspectors citing renewable energy targets as being more important than planning considerations. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that it is impossible to defeat applications through the planning system. We would urge you to ensure that planning inspectors know that the views of local people and long established planning requirements should always be taken into account.

Yours sincerely,

Chris Heaton-Harris (CON), Daventry
Christopher Pincher (CON), Tamworth
Nadine Dorries (CON), Mid Bedfordshire
Karen Bradley (CON), Staffordshire Moorlands
Steve Baker (CON), Wycombe
David Davis (CON), Haltemprice and Howden
Matthew Hancock (CON), West Suffolk
Richard Bacon (CON), South Norfolk
David Nuttall (CON), Bury North
Bernard Jenkin (CON), Harwich and North Essex
Dr. Daniel Poulter (CON), Central Suffolk and North Ipswich
Anne Main (CON), St Albans
David Mowat (CON), Warrington South
Karen Lumley (CON), Redditch
Nadhim Zahawi (CON), Stratford-on-Avon
Natascha Engel (LAB), North East Derbyshire
Pauline Latham (CON), Mid Derbyshire
Sarah Newton (CON), Truro and Falmouth
Geoffrey Cox (CON), Torridge and West Devon
Brandon Lewis (CON), Great Yarmouth
Adam Holloway (CON), Gravesham
Damian Collins (CON), Folkestone and Hythe
David Morris (CON), Morecambe and Lunesdale
Graham Brady (CON), Altrincham and Sale West
Louise Mensch (CON), Corby
Robert Walter (CON), North Dorset
Aidan Burley (CON), Cannock Chase
Bob Blackman (CON), Harrow East
Nick De Bois (CON), Enfield North
Steve Brine (CON), Winchester
Robert Syms (CON), Poole
Caroline Nokes (CON), Romsey and Southampton North
Brian Binley (CON), Northampton South
Steven Barclay (CON), North East Cambridgeshire
Julian Lewis (CON), New Forest East
Lorraine Fullbrook (CON), South Ribble
Tony Cunningham (LAB), Workington
Christopher Chope (CON), Christchurch
Dan Byles (CON), North Warwickshire
Edward Leigh (CON), Gainsborough
Richard Harrington (CON), Watford
Jacob Rees-Mogg (CON), North East Somerset
Guto Bebb (CON), Aberconwy
Kris Hopkins (CON), Keighley
Iain Stewart (CON), Milton Keynes South
Mark Spencer (CON), Sherwood
John Stevenson (CON), Carlisle
Bill Cash (CON), Stone
Andrew Griffiths (CON), Burton
Simon Hart (CON), Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire
Peter Bone (CON), Wellingborough
Charlie Elphicke (CON), Dover
Justin Tomlinson (CON), North Swindon
Mark Pawsey (CON), Rugby
Stuart Andrew (CON), Pudsey
Marcus Jones (CON), Nuneaton
Alun Cairns (CON), Vale of Glamorgan
Richard Drax (CON), South Dorset
Martin Vickers (CON), Cleethorpes
Craig Whittaker (CON), Calder Valley
Bob Stewart (CON), Beckenham
Adam Afriyie (CON), Windsor
Jack Lopresti (CON), Filton & Bradley Stoke
James Wharton (CON), Stockton South
Julian Sturdy (CON), York Outer
Heather Wheeler (CON), South Derbyshire.
Nigel Mills (CON), Amber Valley
Simon Reevell (CON), Dewsbury
Mark Reckless (CON), Rochester and Strood
Paul Maynard (CON), Blackpool North and Cleveleys
Jeremy Lefroy (CON), Stafford
Jackie Doyle-Price (CON), Thurrock
Philip Hollobone (CON), Kettering
James Clappison (CON), Hertsmere
Sammy Wilson (DUP), East Antrim
David Tredinnick (CON), Bosworth
Roger Williams (LIB DEM), Brecon and Radnorshire
Nicholas Soames (CON), Mid Sussex
Graham Evans (CON), Weaver Vale
Douglas Carswell (CON), Clacton
Patrick Mercer (CON), Newark
Rory Stewart (CON), Penrith and The Border
John Glen (CON), Salisbury
Mark Pritchard (CON), The Wrekin
Caroline Dinenage (CON), Gosport
Neil Parish (CON), Tiverton and Honiton
Stephen McPartland (CON), Stevenage
Greg Knight (CON), East Yorkshire
David Ruffley (CON), Bury St Edmunds
Tracey Crouch (CON), Chatham and Aylesford
Priti Patel (CON), Witham
Karl McCartney (CON), Lincoln
James Gray (CON), North Wiltshire
Mark Williams (LIB DEM), Ceredigion
Andrew Rosindell (CON), Romford
Oliver Heald (CON), North East Hertfordshire
Andrea Leadsom (CON), South Northamptonshire
Ian Liddell-Grainger (CON), Bridgwater and West Somerset
Charles Walker (CON), Broxbourne
Andrew Percy (CON), Brigg and Goole
Andrew Bridgen (CON), North West Leicestershire
Andrew Turner (CON), Isle of Wight
Mark Garnier (CON), Wyre Forest
Andrew Bingham (CON), High Peak
Stewart Jackson (CON), Peterborough
Philip Davies (CON), Shipley
[end quote]

The Elephant In the Turbine

Sometimes when Billothewisp is reading through papers on the foolishness that is wind turbinery, he comes across a paper or article which makes him feel a bit Queasy. A bit like he has read something that is not for general consumption, but has inadvertently been put into the public domain. Something that makes old Billothewisp feel like a spy in a foreign camp.

You know - a bit like overhearing a crimmo secretly confess to a crime while the press and the cognoscenti are baying about a miscarriage of justice.

Or hearing one of "His Majesty's" entourage quietly whisper: "Yes! the King really is wearing no cloths".

Recently I had two of those almost meta-physical moments. And they were related and did not involve any cider.

The first concerned a new  piece of posh propaganda released by the zealots in Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE).

Who are the CSE?

Yet another "charity" (and I wonder where the cash comes from.). While they are no doubt, a bona-fide charity, I don't think any-one there is going short on the pay and perks front.

Anyway, I digress. The CSE have released a document called "Common Concerns about Windpower"

It is without doubt a truly wonderful piece of propaganda.

It is so good Billothewisp awards it the Joseph Goebbels Truth Economy Award for 2011. (First Class)

To be fair, it doesn't tell many lies (although there are some) but it does vigorously, wholeheartedly, and with serious malice afore-thought, twist the truth into its own perverted little vision.

Not since some guy in the CIA described the 1975 failure in Vietnam as a "sub-optimal victory" has there been such a shiny spin put on such a dismal subject.

There is so much that is wrong in this document it is difficult to know where to start, so as Julie Andrews once said "I'll start at the very beginning" (a very good place to start).

There will, no doubt, be several posts about this as I cut my way through this "charitable work" of the CSE.

Anyway part one show us all how wonderfully greeeeeeeen the average turbine is, and how is repays its energy deficit in the wink of an eye.

In fact, according to our charitable friends at the CSE  (billothewisp assumes a straight face here) the average turbine repays its energy cost within 3 months - 6 months at the outside.

The CSE then go to tell us that in its lifetime, a turbine will return at least 20 times the energy used to manufacture it.

Now we come to the first "spy in the camp moment"

3 months x 20 = 5 years. Does a "productive" wind turbine really wear out in 5 years? Or maybe 10 years for the ones that hardly produce anything - aka The Wind Turbine in Reading

Or maybe the figures are..... (dare I say it) Wrong.

Oh, I can hear the indignation.
I can see the trembling bottom lips.
The tears of of outrage welling up in the average windies eyes.

That was "at least 20 times". At least means more than. 5 years is the minimum.

Hmmm let us have a comparison.

I buy a new car. It will be good for at least 100,000 miles. Most though won't get to 120,000 let alone 200,000. 300,000 will be a freak exception.

As a comparison it would (sort of) indicate that hardly any turbines (if any) will ever make it to the much vaunted 20 -25 year life span.

But that of course is just an old engineer making a dodgy comparison.

How about some inside facts?

Here my grubby little Englanders we come to the second document and the second "spy in the camp" moment.

This second article was so well named  I stole the title for this post. It is available Here.

The document is the June 2010 cover story for the August journal: "TRIBOLOGY & LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGY" The article is obviously written by an "enthusiast" i.e. one who thinks wind turbinery can do no wrong.

But the basis of the article, which the author  does comprehensively expound on, is that the gear box blows up every (wait for it) 5 to 7 years. Actually, although it is written by an enthusiast, the article lacks the self serving  deceit of the CSE document. The guy is obviously an engineer. He just needs treatment.

Here is a cut and paste of highlighted paragraphs...

Oh Dear! but then... (Ugh!) there is this....

The author informs us that gear box reliability has been a known problem for well over ten years, without yet even coming close to being solved.

So today the problem of gearbox reliability is NOT solved.

One day it maybe solved. One day. but not today. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never.

We are building these things and plan forcing the Grid to rely on them, even though have a known ( and terrible) reliability issue.

Let us go back to the transport analogy.

Say you operated a a fleet of lorries. Would you replace your existing old but "known to work" fleet with a fleet of shiny new lorries which were known to have a massive reliability problem?

If the salesman came up and said to you, "Oh that'll (probably) be solved in a few years" would whip out your cheque book or kick him out of the door?

Not only are these things ugly, inefficient, intermittent and uneconomic. they are also hideously unreliable.

Other than that (besides the health issues, the subsidy and landscaper damage) I suppose they are (to paraphrase the CIA propagandist) sub-optimally OK

Neodymium and Wind Turbines

Take a look at these two old Chinese NIMBYs complaining about how a six mile wide lake of effluent has ruined their country-side. A lake of effluent, produced mining Neodymium. (See Mail Article Here)

Neodymium is a rare earth metal. It is increasingly being used in wind turbines and is seen by many turbine supporters as a magic bullet. Something desperately needed to improve the farcical output, and improve the reliability of these white elephants.

Neodymium allows turbines to get over the need for horrendously complex gearboxes needed to drive the doubly fed induction generators currently used. Doubly fed induction generators need to turn at about 1500 rpm minimum. You can imagine the gearing ratio needed.

This is what happens when the bearings fail.

With Neodymium magnets, the generator is simplified and the gearbox can be (almost) dispensed with. Grossly ineffective and unreliable turbines become (ever so slightly) less gross.

But at what cost?

To the rich and powerful owners of these things, along with glazed eyed brown nosers who support them, the answer is a small amount of the ROC subsidy for a short time.

To the Chinese peasants who lose their land and see their families broken up the answer is somewhat more devastating.

But, they are only common folk and a world away at that. Even if their existence is known of, they scarcely matter to our eco warrior friends.

Even so, Neodymium cannot break the laws of Physics. The best that you will ever get out of a turbine (it is called Betz law) is theoretically 59% of the actual wind energy, Practically though you would be doing very well to get 40-45%.

Even then, however big and powerful your Neodymium magnets, if the wind does not blow, 40% of nothing is still nothing.

All Neodymium provides are cheaper gearboxes, less embarrassing turbine fires and less need to employ maintenance technicians.

It also provides slave wages to a dispossessed people while lining the coffers of a elitist dictatorship.

Like so many aspects of the wind turbine scam, the rich and powerful, both here and in China, do very well out of Neodymium and wind turbines.

As usual, it is the average person who pays the price.

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.

Chris Huhne and Dennis Moore

Dennis Moore - the unforgettable and inept highwayman in Monty Python.

He starts out as a champion of the poor, but only steals Lupins. Finally he is convinced by the starving peasants to steal items of value.

But he ends up robbing the poor to give to the rich.

Dennis Moore has a rousing anthem, sung to the tune of Robin Hood. The final verse of Dennis Moore's anthem says it all:

Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch

So has Chris Huhne become the real life incarnation of Dennis Moore? Has he become the Lupin Czar of the Coalition?

Maybe not. But he is eagerly pursuing hair brained policies that give tax breaks to the rich while making the poor pay for them.

Lets just leave the lunacy of the ROC subsidies for wind power to one side for the moment and look at the other great plank of renewable subsidy. The FIT subsidy for Solar PV. FIT stands for Feed In Tariff.

Basically a householder would spend about £12-25000 on having an "approved" solar PV system fitted. This of course is done by an "approved" installer.

The FIT subsidy then pays the house-holder about 41p for every unit of electricity they generate (even if they use it themselves).

The electricity generated also offsets previously bought in electricity. This saves about 13p per unit, knocked off the electricity bill.

Finally, if they manage to export electricity to the grid (unlikely) they will be paid roughly what it cost to generate by any normal means - 3p.

The tax free return on the initial investment is said to approach 10%. ( See Here ).

Not bad. especially if you are a higher rate tax payer.

The scheme is paid for by a levy on all domestic electricity bills. Rich and poor all pay the same.

So, who has £10-25K just floating around gathering dust?

I don't mean who has saved £25K for a rainy day, their kids education, weddings or retirement or whatever. I mean who has £25K, surplus to requirements. Money that can be locked up long term in a Solar PV investment.

The answer is of course - the well off.

So, for the well off, fitting solar PV is an extremely tax efficient way of using a spare £25K that is probably just rotting in a bank account.

I have nothing against people being canny with their money. Taking advantage of this ludicrous scheme is a no-brainer. After all, it is government approved! Looking after your own tax efficiency and wealth is a good thing.

Taking advantage of gross governmental stupidity is more akin to sport than anything else.

But you can guarantee that those on low incomes, won't be queuing up for their FIT approved Solar PV panels any-time soon.  Most don't have 25p going spare, let alone £25K.

But thanks to Chris Huhne's levy, it will be the poor who will be paying. Along with those who cannot justify the long payback time-scale or initial outlay.

There is perhaps a case for some encouragement for getting people to fit solar PV, but punishing the less well off to give what is essentially a tax break to the rich is hardly equitable.

Along with that, the current scheme with "approved" installers and "certified" panels etc. is just a dodgy salesmen's dream come true.

You can guarantee that there is a huge mark-up on this "approved" kit and on the hourly rates being charged by these newly badged up installers.

But it is still worthwhile getting FIT approved solar PV installed. If that is, you have the money to spare.

So Billothewisp's Top Tip:

If you have the money and are not going to need it in the short to medium term, and especially if you are a higher rate tax payer, get some FIT approved Solar PV installed.

If however you are poor or simply cannot afford solar PV then, well, you need to get used to paying the subsidy for other peoples tax breaks.

For that you can thank the aspiring Dennis Moore of the modern age:.

Our own Chris Huhne.