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.

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 Turbines: The Ghost in the Gearbox

I first came across this shocking industrial wind turbine (IWT) gearbox problem some time back and posted about it (Here) and originally (Here). The basis of these posts was this article (Here)

This long running problem is so serious that since 2007, the US Government has been coordinating research into it through the NREL. (More on that further down.)

By the looks of it nothing has got better, although there is a lot of industry spin claiming the fix is just over the hill. Some of it quite recent  (See Here)

So what is the problem and why is it kept so quiet?

Industrial Wind turbines (IWT's) have a generic, long standing and apparently intractible problem with gearbox reliability.

Many gearboxes need a rebuild within 5 -7 years instead of lasting 25 years as designed. Many suffer catastrophic failure within the 5-7 period or even earlier. Depending on the age of the turbine, a gear box failure may effectively write it off. Even when repaired, these gearbox failures are highly expensive and often take out the turbine for months.

Replacing the gearbox adds massively to the overall cost of the IWT. Manufacturers increase the cost to cover warranty repairs in the first 5 years. When out of warranty, the cost of a maintenance contract sky-rockets, eventually to a point where the operation of the IWT becomes untenable.

Why does this matter? After all it is the operators/manufacturers problem isn't it?

It matters because IWT's are capital intensive. That means that most of their operating cost is mostly soaked up in purchasing the thing - and maintaining it. If the IWT has a much shorter life (or a much higher maintenance cost) and so produces less money than anticipated, their ability to ever live without massive government subsidy becomes an even bigger illusion than it already is.

So, you may say, "It is only a technical glitch ...it 'll all come right in the end."

Well, maybe. But first of all this is a glitch that has lasted since the 1980's

Unfortunately the evidence suggests that nobody actually knows what to fix yet let alone how too fix it. So possibly the answer is - maybe not.

We need to get an idea of how bad this problem is but for obvious reasons the wind industry isn't telling and they are certainly not releasing any meaningful figures

But there are a number of alarming markers out there.

The  US Government (in association with the wind industry) formed a little known group called the "Gearbox Reliability Collaborative" (GRC) (See Here) ** The GRC is no less than a section of the USA government NREL. (That National Renewable Energy Laboratory).

** [2017 - This website is no longer publicly available and returns a 404. The advertising brochure for the GRC is still publicly available at This Link. It appears the research papers linked to below are also still available]

In other words the problem is so bad the US Government is having to tackle the problem.

The leading sentence on the GRC website blandly states...
[quote]
Premature gearbox failures have a significant impact on the cost of wind farm operations.
[unquote]

To quote from the latest finding report from GRC testing...(Here)
[quote]
Despite reasonable adherence to these accepted design practices, many wind turbine gearboxes do not achieve their design life goals of 20 years—most systems still require significant repair or overhaul well before the intended life is reached. 
[unquote]

These guys in the NRC are (to put it mildly) clever people. But they have been at this since 2007 and so far they are still, by all appearances, quantifying the problem. In otherwords on a scale of ten, the intractibility of the gearbox issue probably rates a nine.

The NREL does not allocate such significant resources lightly. This is a bad problem.

The GRC are trying to build a failure database as well as running a series of tests on prototype gearboxes. Unfortunately this failure database is not for public consumption and is subject to a strict NDA so we will probably never know the full facts.

Manufacturing members of the GRC can (and mostly do) remain anonymous. One exception is Vestas. While I have little time for any wind industry company at least Vestas appear to be willing to stand up and be identified rather than just pretend their is no problem like the rest.

Of course, while we do not have full access to the database we do have some access to data held within it from the research papers published by GRC

For example, from an early sample set from 2010 and This Paper  covering 37 failures we have this:

Notice that while this early table covers 37 failures there were many more problems found in the strip downs. It looks like the problem is poorly localised and is probably caused by a number of different issues.

So what is the point of this post?

Simply to show that the current fleet of IWTs (yes - whole fleet ) are really not fit for a production environment. They are still suffering intractible and major operational problems and are highly unlikely to ever be able to operate without a huge government subsidy. To suggest they have a lifespan of 25 years is laughable.

This is bad enough for land based turbines.

But anyone who suggests that we can successfully and economically place these things out in the North Sea and English Channel for long term energy generation, is in need of medication.

Prof David MacKay on the Laws of Physics

Prof David Mackay FRS is Regius Professor of Engineering in the Department of Engineering at the University of Cambridge and chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change.

He is also the author of  the famous (and free) "Sustainable Energy (Without the Hot Air)" . The whole book (12Megs) is available HERE

But he has also recorded a number of lectures on the viability and practicality of renewables, particularly he has focussed on the land areas needed to meet specific goals. These are goals that meet specific energy requirements. Here he is talking about systems that are other than window dressing or merely fashion statement technology.

My favourite quote is:- "I'm not anti renewables but I am pro arithmetic"

The recording is 18 minutes but is well worth a watch (unless you are a green dreamer that is)

Wind Power. The Scale of the Problem

Take one AP1000 nuclear power plant, output around 1150MW  (If you don't like nuclear substitute  a similar sized gas/coal plant if you like) Now lets compare that graphically with how many turbines and how much space is needed......

Excellent Animation. H/T to designer Gabrielle Hollis

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)

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.