Wind Power - A Rising Capacity Factor. Really?

The Capacity Factor (or annual fraction of maximum output achieved) has come to dominate the credibility of wind power schemes. The wind industry vigorously promotes the idea that the Capacity Factor (or CF) is rising. They eulogize wind power as an improving and developing technology. 

CF  has become the de facto metric by which energy generation is measured by. So a wind turbine system displaying a rising CF would undermine the growing view that wind is actually a moribund and subsidy addicted dead end. 

So there is a lot to play for by the wind turbine aficionados. Especially as today if you look at UK offshore wind turbine data it does look like the CF for later offshore wind farms in the UK is going up.

So is this due to an improving dynamic and forward looking technology?

Or is there something else going on here? Is this simply a “fix” - a manipulated figure. More smoke and mirrors to defend a stagnating technology?

While many factors ultimately determine the output of a wind turbine, the maximum output from a wind turbine is mostly determined by the the diameter of its rotor, the hub height and its location.

Yet the published Maximum Capacity (and so the calculated CF) of a wind turbine is determined from the size of the generator NOT from size of the rotor. Yet in reality the size of the attached generator is really a secondary limiter. It is rarely (if ever) run at maximum output and so makes little or no difference to the actual generation capability of the turbine.

The generator spends almost all of its life being driven at one fifth to one third of its maximum output. With this level of headroom, the CF is wide open to manipulation. It can easily be increased by reducing the relative size of the generator to the turbine swept area so that the smaller generator is driven harder and so shows a higher CF without actually increasing annual output. (In fact if you decrease the generator size too far you may push up the CF yet reduce the total energy output over the year.)

So is this happening to UK offshore wind? Are newer turbines being de-rated to increase the CF which will create the illusion that the technology is advancing? Has the Wind Industry any other potential motives as well?

It appears so.

Take the Walney Offshore Wind Park run by Dong Energy in the UK.

Walney consists of two phases. Walney One was commissioned in 2011 and Walney Two was finally commissioned in 2012. Both are now fully operational.

Walney One and Walney Two have 51 turbines each. All the turbines are rated at 3.6MW Maximum Capacity. But the turbine models are different.

Walney One uses Siemens SWT-3.6-107 turbines. These are 137m high, with a swept area of 9000m2 which gives a area/power density of 2.4 square meters per KW

The second tranche Walney Two uses Siemens SWT-3.6-120 turbines. These are 150m high, have a swept area of 11,300 square meters and a area/power density of 3.14 square meters per KW.

Essentially, while they both have the same size generators, Walney Two has bigger turbines.

Unsurprisingly, Walney Two has declared a higher capacity factor than Walney One. But given the quite large difference on swept area, the difference in CF is strangely small.

While the area power density differs by 30% the CF in the last year differs by less than 5%

If you normalize the turbine generator size on the area/power density of the Walney One turbines, (i.e so Walney Two would have an area/power density of 2.4 sqm/KW) then the Walney Two turbines should be rated and fitted with at least a  4.7MW generator.

If this was the size of generator attached to the Walney Two turbines then the capacity factor for last year (based on the 4.7MW generator size) for Walney Two actually decreases to a lowly 34%.

So then you have to ask: Why are these bigger turbines at Walney Two (in reality) being worked significantly less hard than their Walney One cousins? Why are they trading down the magnitude of the increased Capacity Factor?

Here I believe we have the second hidden agenda item associated with de-rating these turbines.

There have been long term and apparently intractable generic reliability problems with offshore wind turbines especially when under significant load. (see earlier post Here) So the trick to making your turbines avoid (example) catastrophic and immensely expensive gear box failure is to de-rate them and run them as far below their capability as is economically and practically possible. Even though the operator is paid around £150 per MWh, losing a gearbox will make a big dent in their profitability.

So for the wind industry, quietly fitting smaller generators to your turbines is a win-win. It falsely promotes the impression that turbine capacity factor has magically increased, while at the same time allowing them to de-rate these larger turbines and run them less hard so reducing costly repair and maintenance.

What this highlights is that the “maximum capacity” (based on generator size) as promoted by the wind industry is actually a fictitious value and bears little relationship to turbine capability or size. Calculating the effectiveness of wind turbines on this false flag is disingenuous.

So next time you hear some pro-wind zealot breathlessly announce that capacity factors are going up to 50% (and beyond) just ask them what the area/power value for this wondrous advance in turbine design is. I suspect they will look at you blankly.

Tell them that if they want to prove wind turbine capacity factor is significantly improving they need to compare LIKE with LIKE. But warn them, that if they do actually compare like with like, their magical improvements will most likely completely disappear. If not go backwards.

Wind Turbine Design, Cube Laws, Efficiency and Cock Ups

Well, I have to 'fess up to having made an error regarding the output characteristics of modern day Industrial Wind Turbines.

A silly mistake at that.

But possibly a mistake that also reveals some interesting possibilities with wind turbines. Especially related to reducing their size, noise and increasing useful power output.

Crack Pottery? Possibly. But I've not been at the cider yet. (honest)

First, in order for this post to make sense, let me summarise some things that ARE true.

• The energy in the wind is a cube of the speed. In other words if you double the wind speed – wind contains 8 x energy. Halve wind speed- wind contains one eighth the energy.

• The theoretical maximum amount of this raw wind energy that can be harvested is 59.3% (Betz's Law)

• In reality the most efficient turbines manage about 45% (at a wind speed of around 7-8 m/s).

All of the above are correct. (Or I really am in trouble!)

My mistake in some earlier posts was to assume the efficiency of a wind turbine was roughly constant across the operational wind speed range (up to maximum output). 

Sadly this is nowhere near true.

In reality the efficiency (or how much energy the wind turbine can actually suck out of the wind) drops like a stone as the wind speed increases.

For most industrial wind turbines the highest efficiency (at around a wind speed of 7m/s) is about 45%. But as the wind speed increases, the efficiency falls to around 10% at a 90% loading.

The overall effect of this is to roughly linearise the power output to the wind speed. So instead of getting eight times the power out when you double the wind speed you only get double the power out. The rest is spilled.

So what does this matter if the thing is only as efficient as a 19^th century steam engine when confronted with a high wind?

It matters a lot.

Way back in 2002 at the Lee Ranch wind turbine research facility in New Mexico, it was discovered that 50% of the annual energy output of a wind turbine was delivered in 15% of the time. 

My own analysis done back in 2011 showed that for a three month period the whole UK wind turbine fleet delivered 50% of its energy in 25% of the time. But remember that was for the whole distributed fleet. 

It would be reasonable to assume that for a single facility, the Lee Ranch figures are roughly correct for the UK too. Also, there is no reason to think any design change to wind turbines since 2002 will have significantly affected these Lee Ranch findings.

In order to harvest the 50% of the energy that is smeared out over 85% of the year you have to compromise the turbines efficiency at higher wind speeds. The result today is an enormous unreliable monster.

So, for a moment, let us forget about the grindingly low 50% of energy generation that gets smeared over 85% of the year. Let us concentrate on the other 50% that arrives in 15% of the time (currently at an efficiency of a measly 10-15%).

For arguments sake, let us design a turbine that may not cut in until the wind speed is 12 or 14 m/s but then delivers an efficiency of 40%. It will (MWhr for MWhr) be very much smaller, simpler and more robust than a conventional turbine. 

OK it will only operate for 15% of the time and it is truly intermittent. But all wind is intermittent. Remember a conventional turbines output during 85% of the year is pretty derisory anyway. Often it is so low that it might as well not be there.

So, build smaller more efficient turbines. Crucially, in order to make these turbines more efficient, they only operate at higher wind speeds. We then rely on gas backup for the rest. More predictable, less environmental impact and more reliable (due to narrower operating domain). 

Tell me where I'm wrong. (Seriously - I may well be)

Of course this is still all window dressing. This (and the rest of RE) is just Care Bear fluff. Nuclear plant (with some gas) is the ONLY viable option to cut GHG and air pollution.  

But I hope that this is at least “interesting” fluff.

Wrecking the Sea Bed with Offshore Wind (Part 1)

Just off the World Heritage Jurassic coastline there are plans for a large offshore wind farm called Navitus Bay. A consultation process ended last year. Most of the referenced data used in the following few posts has been dug out of the CDROM produced for this. An online link to the main document I use is HERE and on the CDROM it is PEI3_Ch2_NavitusBayWindParkProject.pdf

As Offshore windfarms go, there is nothing remarkable about Navitus Bay. Most of the data in the following few posts, shocking as it is, will equally apply to similar schemes elsewhere in the country.

But before I start, I feel I need to emphasise how poor offshore wind farms are at generating electricity. We need to keep this in mind when we look at the massive environmental damage done by their construction.

So first of all let us cut through some of the propaganda.

The first fantasy figure that gets promoted is the maximum output rating – a figure that is rarely (if ever) reached. Navitus Bay gets promoted as a 1GW+ plant. Or about the same capability as Sizewell B. Which is frankly, absurd.

There is an enormous difference between the maximum rating and the actual averaged yearly output (the Capacity Factor or CF). The documentation for this project optimistically touts a Capacity Factor of 35% or an annual averaged rating of around 350MW.

The actual national offshore CF from 2008 to 2012 is recorded by DECC 

(xls file Here)

Using the DECC recommended "unchanged configuration" table, an offshore geographically averaged CF of 35% has only ever been achieved once. But remember, Navitus Bay is near Bournemouth. This is not the Irish Sea. Navitus Bay will inevitably be performing at the lower end of the average. Those few per cent matter. If the final CF turns out to be 28% and not 35% then the averaged power rating will have been overstated by 25%. 

Even then, like all wind turbinery the typical daily output will be significantly less than the Capacity Factor. This is because the Capacity Factor gets inflated by unpredictable short duration high energy events. 

So bear in mind that while this is physically a large project, in reality, the final result would be a SMALL intermittent power plant.

In the next few posts I'll solely deal with the environmental damage done to the sea bed by offshore wind farms. Damage you will not be able to see. But damage that will take hundreds and maybe thousands of years to heal. And all for a puny amount of electricity, a vacuous feel good fashion statement and of course, lots and lots of money.

Tomorrow I start with undersea cabling and the required trenching ploughing and general trashing of the sea bed that goes with it. So how much undersea cabling am I talking about? Try 300 miles worth. And the trenches? how about up to 2 metres deep and 10 meters wide... (Its on this Link)

Why Wind Turbine Capacity Factor Matters

My criticism yesterday of the Dorset Renewable Energy Strategy (DRES) focussed on the inflated Capacity Factor values used for wind turbines in a Dorset environment.

Why does this matter so much?

The standard Wind industry response to a  criticism  of a particular Capacity Factor (CF) is that you can increase the Capacity Factor by simply decreasing the size of the generator attached to the turbine. Like many of the wind industries statements this is, on a simplistic level, true. But they carefully avoid mentioning the affect this would have on the turbine output.

If you decreased the size of the generator on a given diameter turbine in a particular location  then you could increase the Capacity Factor. Unfortunately though, you would also significantly decrease the amount of energy generated by the thing over a year. There is an ever worsening trade off where the energy generation falls away as the generator size is decreased to force up the capacity factor.

This is simply because the energy in the the wind obeys a cube law. 2 x wind speed -> 8 x energy. So by decreasing the size of the generator you reduce the opportunity to exploit infrequent short term high wind events that actually produce most of the electricity generated.

The sad fact about wind turbines is that for most (60%) of their operational life they are either producing no electricity or an amount that is well below their annual Capacity Factor. When they do produce large amounts of energy is is at random and unpredictable times and essentially in relatively short bursts.

However, wind turbine Capacity Factors do provide an effective method of comparing relative productivity between wind turbines in different locations. But that is all.

Wind power is unique in being the only major power generation method that when operational, has a typical output that is significantly below its Capacity Factor. Consequently wind turbine CF inflates the perceived ability of turbines to produce power when compared with other generation methods.

Comparing wind CF with any "on demand" CF ( like the DRES laughably does with your gas boiler) is totally absurd.

Let us come back to Dorset. Why has there not been a rush to build turbines here before now? Why have they been built mainly in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Northern England?

The simple reason is that the wind speed is lower down south. The capacity factor for a given turbine is consequently lower and the southern turbines are actually even more dependant on rare high wind events to big up their CF.

Take two identical turbines in England. One in Workington (2009 CF 32% - the best in England) and a one in Dorset where the CF is going to be around 21% at best. The energy produced by the Workington turbine is 1.5 times as much as that produced by a Dorset turbine. It is also double that of the infamous Reading turbine.

All create similar environmental damage and yet all make a profit.

A turbine with a low Capacity Factor is by definition less productive compared to its peers. However such is the largesse of the ROC subsidy that even a turbine with a capacity factor of 15%
will make a healthy profit.

If the ROC subsidy was cut, many turbines in the UK would become unviable overnight. Cut it out completey and at least 90% would be shut down.

Nothing is going to get better about this.

There is no magic fix to increase the wind speed. There is no wondrous widget being designed that will allow installed wind turbines to generate more electricity.

The turbines and their operators are wholly dependent on the ROC (in perpetuity) to make a profit. Without it, all but a few are doomed.

As they get older they will get more unreliable and their CF will actually fall. Eventually, one day, sanity will return and the governemnt will be forced to cut the ROC.

Then you will see wind farms being sold on - and on - and on. Until one day they will mysteriously cease to operate.

When the bailiffs turn up we will find the final owner is a company operating out of a post office box in Belise.

We the taxpayers, will end up paying to have them pulled down.

Dorset Renewable Energy Strategy Seeks Endorsement

The Dorset Renewable Strategy Update received a mauling when it was first released for Public scrutiny. Particularly it was lambasted for its doctrinaire enthusiasm for covering Dorset with anything up to 360 huge and ineffective wind turbines. (the so-called "realistic" scenario was for 180)

The DEG (now renamed the Dorset Energy Partnership) have supposedly reworked this document. But really little has changed. Even the errors are still there. (more on that later). This reworked version has been released only to selected groups for "endorsement". I have yet to find any publicity for it anywhere for the general public.

So what about the errors?

I will limit myself to the section that is supposedly explaining Capacity Factors, otherwise this post would go on for ever. Below are the correct figures for UK Capacity Factors, taken from the RESTAT Site Here (Renewable Energy Statistics - Dept Energy and Climate Change - see bottom of linked page titled Load Factors there are a set of excel spreadsheets)

The Dorset Renewable Energy Strategy (DRES) is Here See Section 1.5 page 6

 First we have the 30% Capacity Factor Myth
 [quote]
 "wind power technology has a capacity factor of 0.3, or 30%"
 [quote]

 This is WRONG. At best, making such a statement shows a lack of basic research. At worst it is a deliberate attempt at misinformation.

Notice that from the DECC figures, the average CF for the whole of the UK has NEVER even reached 30% let alone become a typical average. For England it is worse. The 10 year rolling CF is less than 25%. The South West (i.e. including Dorset) it is even lower (23.5%) and has dipped to 17.7% in 2010. This document is supposedly about Dorset - right?.

This is not a matter of just  a "couple of per cent".

A 30% CF generator, over a year, will produce 150% of the energy of a 20% CF generator. So essentially this incorrect DRES statement inflates the energy generation we would expect from a Dorset wind turbine by around to 50%. (from high to low the SW CF is inflated by between 17% and 69%)

Some UK turbines DO make it to 30% - but only about 7% of the English fleet manage it. Even then, none are in the South West.

93% of the English turbine fleet have a CF below 30%.  Actually over 70% fail to even hit 25% nationally.  (See earlier post and prof. Jefferson report link Here).

The South West comes third from bottom of a very dismal English CF league.

 The table 1.5.1 in the DRES then uses the UK national CF average of 27%. At least that is an improvement on the mis-truth directly above it in section 1.5, but this is the UK average NOT the English average,  let alone the (worse) South West figure.

Again the figure is WRONG and grossly inflated - especially when related to Dorset.

As an aside, this table also states the off-shore CF as 35%. This is WRONG. In 2008 (the windiest year in the last 12) offshore NEARLY made it to 35% (34.9%). That is as high as it has ever got. Mostly  it has been around the late 20%'s to early 30%'s. Solar PV CF is given as 10% when it is more like 6 -8% in the UK. Then there is biomass and sewage gas. Laudible as these thermal plants are, they are still thermal plant. Even a  new CCGT plant would have difficulty getting a CF over 80% so, with no references,  the quoted 90% CF looks like a bit of extra and unnecessary guilding.

 2. Then we have "Full Power" myth:
 [quote]
 "a wind turbine will typically be generating electricity for 80% of the time, but will only be generating at full power for a smaller % of time, say 10- 15%."
 [quote]
 These are the power output curves for a Nordex turbine (P graph) and a GE (formerally Enron) 1.5MW turbine.

 A turbine only produces full power when the wind reaches about 12 m/s -  Beaufort Scale Force 6-7. A Force 8 is a full Gale.

 This is a graph of typical UK wind speed distribution over time from Here

Can anyone tell me when and how we manage to  get 10-15% at full power out of this? (i.e. 0.12 at 12m/s?)

Now the Bit that is almost (but not quite) a Myth

[quote]
"producing power for 80% of the time"
[quote]

There is a grain of truth in this - although it is a very small grain and that grain relates mostly to windy areas. It is almost certainly inflated and untrue for less windy areas - like Dorset.

But the real problem with this statement is that it obfuscates the simple and wholly damning fact that wind turbines operate at considerably below their CF for MOST of the time. This is because they only produce significant amounts of power during periods of high wind. MOST of the time they are producing very little (if any) power. This is accentuated in low wind areas - like Dorset.

This section in the DRES on Capacity Factors is  totally dissociated from the true figures you would expect in Dorset. The section grossly inflates the capabilities of Wind turbines that would operate in this area and so promotes potentially incorrect assumptions on the viability and practicality of building turbines in Dorset.

Essentially these figures in the DRES obscure the true worth (or lack of it) of potential Dorset Wind farms.

The DEP analysis of the data appears to extend solely to what they are told by their peers in RenewablesUK.

Any formal Strategy, especially a strategy that could promote a massive level of industrialisation of a rural area MUST be based on accurate figures and MUST remain impartial.  Unfortunately this document fails on both counts.

Yet it is supposedly good enough for "endorsement".

It will be interesting to see whether our councillors allow themselves to get railroaded by this travesty.

A Wind Turbine Capacity Factor Near You.

Billothewisp has decided to have a little competition to see which parts of the UK had the highest and lowest Wind Turbine capacity factors in 2010. Then we can see what the carbon savings are, particularly for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset..

Take this document  ( Here ). It is part of a document set called DUKES. (God! how Chris Huhne must hate having to publish this stuff)

In particular take this table.

Clearly the CF winner is (at a paltry 23.9%) is Northern Ireland.

Also very clearly, the CF loser is (at a wholly pathetic 17.7%)  is The South West of England.

It also shows that the "wonder" of offshore windpower only managed a CF of 29.6%.

Hmmm. There is something wrong here isn't there?

RenewablesUK, the wind industry trade association drone on and on  about the overall capacity factor being about 30%.

But last year not even off-shore managed the illusionary 30% CF. Dismally, not a single on-shore area came anywhere close to 25% let alone 30%.

If you believe in these things, then I expect you think that even though the output may be crap, they still help reduce carbon emissions

Unfortunately the truth is somewhat less rosy.

Billothewisp has to quote another governmental/academic document to offer some clarity as to exactly what carbon saving will be made.

The document was actually brought to my attention by a Guardian article last week written by Polly Curtis.

This Guardian article itself was the usual half-baked pro-wind  "investigation", and lacked even a semblance of even handedness. (See this comically one-sided  "Reality Check" ).

But it did refer to a very interesting report by the UKERC concerning wind turbine intermittency.

The document is available here -  The Intermittency Report

The Intermittency Report points out that due to their intermittent output, wind turbines need carbon emitting backup.

Because this backup is is trying to track the wind and compensate for the turbine vagaries, it is running inefficiently at sub optimal output.

The extra carbon emissions from this inefficient operation statistically gets compensated  by the wind turbine - but only when the collective turbine output reaches  a CF of about 20%.

So, if you have a capacity factor of 30% you are in saving carbon emissions..

But, that means that turbines in places like the South-West, (CF of 17.7%),  do not even cover the inefficiency they force on their carbon based backup generators. This carbon based backup generation  emits more carbon due to having to backup these ineffective turbines than it would if they didn't exist and was providing the power on its own.

In the South West, more CO2 is emitted not less. All thanks to the pitifully ineffective wind turbines.

These turbines cost carbon while producing intermittent expensive and unreliable energy.

You could actually reduce carbon emissions by shutting down all the South-West's turbines. (rather than paying them a subsidy).

Even for offshore wind, the carbon savings are pitifully small and horrendously expensive..

Particularly, for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset, the most environmentally sensible thing to do is exactly what the local councils have voted for - rejection.

Unfortunately the lure of the filthy lucre means that both of the corporations involved are going to appeal against the democratic decisions of the democratically elected local councils.

It is going to be the usual sad scenario  of money, power and greed versus local democracy.

The cost in national resources and finance, along with the environmental damage so outweigh any possible environmental gain  that we would be massively better off both financially and environmentally by consigning the whole white elephant wind turbine fleet  to the dustbin of history.

Debunking the Myths

OK. This is a long post. To sweeten the task there is a windtoons cartoon at the end. No cheating.

Perhaps the most obscene aspect to the whole of the wind turbine fiasco is the way the carpet-baggers make up the "facts" to fit their own tawdry little aims. Especially when the truth is somewhat inconvenient. Wide eyed they then go into rant mode in an attempt browbeat everyone into believing their propaganda.

Take this site HERE for example. It is funded by the EU. But look at the bottom of any web page and notice it proudly states it is "co-ordinated by the EWEA" That is the European Wind Energy Association in case you did not know.

To me that sounds a bit like like having NHS Direct run by Glaxo-Smith-Kline-Beecham. Although to be fair to GSKB, I think they would be far more honourable than the average carpet-bagging wind-turbine cartel. But I digress.

On this site they have that favourite set of web pages you find on any of the carpet-bagging websites these days, proudly labelled  "Myths". Evidently our carpet-bagging friends want to enlighten the public by "Debunking the Myths" and show us all how wind energy is not only cheap reliable and non-intermittent but will probably cure cancer and teach you child to read as well.

What you actually get is the usual sad self serving deception and hypocrisy one has come to expect from the bureaucratic elite that runs this farce. When Sir Robert Armstrong used the phase "Economical with the truth" during the spy catcher trial of 1986 he really had no idea how the wind industry would take the meaning of the phase to a much higher level.

So let us look at the first myth they want to debunk. The myth which we all so mistakenly believe i.e.
"Wind power is expensive". Their answer to this "myth" is: (exactly as written:)

[quote]
Wind power ... can compete with other power generation options at good sites.
[unquote]

Now I suspect that a good site to the average carpet-bagger is anywhere they have got planning permission. To the rest of us I suspect a good site would be a windy site. One where, say, the turbine output would meet their often hyped 30% average capacity factor.

Now as you know there are some clever blokes about who love to debunk the debunk. One is called Professor Jefferson who did some research on the whole of the English turbine fleet that was operational for all of 2009 (See pdf Here).

He found that an annual 30% capacity factor was only reached by 7.6% of the turbine fleet. While 74% of the fleet failed to even reach 25% capacity factor. In fact the same percentage (7.6%) of turbines failed to manage 10% as managed to reach 30%.

So, the first deceit here in our "Debunking the Myths" is the "good site" deceit.

If you limited Wind turbines to only "good sites", and assuming that means a site that reaches the often quoted "30%" capacity factor then perhaps they could compete. They forget to mention that this would junk 92% of the turbine fleet in England straight away. Clearly MOST (almost all)  wind turbine power generation cannot compete with other power generation.

But it gets worse. They want to elaborate. (Ugh!)

First off they state the bleeding obvious
[quote]
Wind cannot compete with the cost of producing electricity from an existing power plant that has already been depreciated and paid for by taxpayers or electricity consumers.
[unquote]


Uh yes I would go along with that. Unfortunately though wind will never be free of its subsidy. It needs it to survive. If you did away with the ROC all wind farms would close down over night. Consequently wind will never be able to compete on a level playing field. It will always be cash hungry and require subsidy.

Then they contradict their first statement about how competitive wind is and admit that even at "good windy sites" is is not fully competitive, opting for a half way house "increasingly competitive".

[quote]
At good windy sites, however, it is increasingly competitive with other new-build generation technologies, especially given the dramatic rise in oil and gas prices. Oil, which influences the price of gas, has increased from an average of $14 in 1998 (in real terms) to around $100 in 2008.
[unquote]

Whatever you think about fracking we do now know that in the USA gas is now trading at a 50% discount to Europe. So even the spiteful little hope of other energy source prices  rising so high they make wind competitive is history.

But that's just the start. I could go on... and on... But you would get bored as would I.

When you hear about Wind turbine carpet baggers and their brown nosing friends ranting on about "Debunking the Myths" you know that what they really mean to do is ply you with their own deceptive propaganda and half truths.

Always listen to the arguments then ask yourself what is in it for them.

With Professor Jefferson, the CPRE, the John Muir Trust, Country Guardian and many others the answer is a desire to protect countryside and the people who live there.

With our deceptive band of turbine carpet-baggers the answer is money - your money.

Anyway after that rather depressing analysis lets finish with another excellent cartoon from windtoons.com

Wind Turbines: The 30% Capacity Factor Myth

I don't know about you, but I am getting really tired of large corporate bodies continually peddling half-truths and even outright lies in order to service their own greed.

Take the wind industry for example. Especially with the way they try to big up the ludicrous ineffectiveness of their money machines.

Truly, if it was not for the fact that they get paid (at least) twice for their intermittent and unreliable production of electricity, these ugly white elephants would be abandoned and left to rot.

Whenever the wind industry talks about the capacity factor (that's the actual averaged output over a year compared to the maximum turbine rating) the wind industry always try and pretend that this capacity factor is 30%.

While this may sound low, it is actually a massive exaggeration on the real figures.

Unfortunately, the wind industry have repeated the lie so many times it is often taken as" a given" by organisations that should know better.

So what is the capacity factor for on-shore wind turbines?

Luckily there are people like Professor Michael Jefferson who has has done an analysis of the exaggerated claims of the wind industry.

His presentation is available Here

While his presentation truly demolishes the mythical 30%, it is just one of the many false claims he debunks. His presentation is well worth a read.

Look at this for 2009: (taken from Professor Jeffersons presentation)

In 2009, the real capacity factor for on-shore turbines was 21% NOT 30% Only 7.5% achieved the mythical 30% capacity factor. In other words 92.5% of on-shore turbines in 2009 failed to reach the 30% capacity factor that is promoted by the wind industry. Remember, since 2009, it has got even less windy.

Even in 2008, which was an abnormally windy year,  over 81% of on-shore turbines failed to chalk up a  30% capacity factor. In fact in 2008, the windiest year in recent history, the real on-shore average capacity factor was 23%.

So when is the wind industry going to stop telling lies?
When are they going to confess that the real output from these monstrous money making machines is much less then the figures they ritually push?

If you are waiting for the truth from the wind industry, I wouldn't hold your breath.

But even this farcically low capacity factor hides the true hideously ineffectiveness of these white elephants.

Always remember when comparing capacity factors of generating equipment that wind power is intermittent. With wind, most of the energy arrives in infrequent, irregular and unpredictable bursts. Most of the time their actual output is much less than even the real dismally low capacity factor.

But more on this in a future post.

The Wind Turbine in Reading

The Daily Mail was in typical indignant mode when it reported (HERE) "Is this the most useless wind turbine?" But I think their report could had been a little more thorough.

With a quick look through the Renewable Energy Foundation database on wind turbine output (HERE) it quickly becomes evident that while the output from the Reading turbine is derisory, it is far from being the worst performing turbine. At least the Daily Mail pointed out that this  thing gets a ROC subsidy of £130,000 while producing only £100,000 worth electricity. (total payout £230,000). But the rest of the figures they present, shocking as they are, disguise the truly terrible statistics surrounding the whole of the wind power industry.

I suppose these up front figures look so bad the Daily Mail has simply not dug any deeper. If they did ( and it is not difficult) they would find that the actual situation is far, far worse.

The main area of the Mail's indignation is that for this particular turbine at Green Park in Reading, the Capacity Factor for 2010 was only 15%. But accepting this figure on face value neglects the true awfulness of the situation. If they had paid attention the the nature of wind power they would have found that this turbine would have failed to even get close to this pathetic output MOST of the time.

The day to day figures for this individual turbine, like most others, are hard to come by. But we know from the NETA data  (HERE) that nationally half the energy from wind is generated in less than 25% of the time (See earlier Post Here). This leaves the other half to cover 75%  of the time. From figures from the Le Ranch Wind farm in the USA we see that, on a single site basis this gets further scewed to 15% and 85%  (Lee Ranch synopsis half way down this Wikipedia page)

Even if you use the UK national figures this means that the typical  (i.e. the most common output)  from this turbine  falls to 10%.If you use the (probably more applicable) Le Ranch figures this typical output falls to less than 9%.

But even that fails to show how 40% the electricity will arrive when it is unneeded (i.e. at night) and that the output will be at this dismal 9% (or less) for one third of the time. But however lowly the output, or unneeded it may be, the electricity generated  is guaranteed a full market price plus the massive ROC subsidy.

High wind, or low wind, night or day, the Fat Cats in the wind industry are always smiling. Forget about bankers bonuses. Look at the money (your money) these people are raking in.

Every pound coin that people spend on electricity has its own little carbon footprint. Money has to be earned. In earning money resources are used. Using this hard earned cash to fund massively expensive and hopelessly inefficient wind generated electricity is not only foolish and wasteful but is also counter productive.