Parliament Votes to Abolish Wind Farm Subsidies

A Ten Minute Rule bill introduced by MP Nigel Adams to abolish subsidies to on-shore wind farms was passed by a small majority today in the UK Parliament. This means that the bill will go forward to a second reading on the 6^th March. ( See This Link )

The turn out for this vote was small with 67 supporting it and 65 opposing.

Where were the other 480 or so MPs? 

Your guess is as good as mine. 

But due to the nature of the bill I expect most of them decided that cowardice was the better part of valor.

While it would be very good news if this bill made it into law, at this stage this Ten Minute Rule bill is non binding. Ten Minute Rule bills are usually used to test the political water.

From the lack of the attendance at this debate, it appears the political water surrounding unpopular wind turbine subsidies is very, very cold.  

Hopefully though, the wind turbine Carpet Baggers will get the message Loud and Clear.

It is going to be abolition of subsidies first. 

Then we start talking about compensation for those so badly affected by these useless follies.

Wind, Bluster and Carbon Reduction

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

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

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

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

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

Now, what size power plant does that correspond to?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't figures like that just knock you out?

Fiddling Wind Turbine Images

I had to smile when I read a comment from a local windy on one of my posts accusing the local action group (DART) of inflating turbine image size on one of their flyers. ( Comment 5 on this post )

Here is part of what the windy's comment:
[quote]
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
[unquote]

Yes. I agree. But actually, I would bet that what the windy really meant was 4 times bigger than the propaganda images produced by their beloved developer .

As reported in ( This Article ), a prominent Scottish architect along with Stirling University has been conducting research into how various wind farm developers have been cleverly fiddling images to make their wind farms appear less intrusive.

Take these two example images taken from the same location (see the above article) that show the deception. Notice both images are the same width and you can see all of both images.

The top image uses a wide angle lens to give a panoramic view that is well outside the real  field of view of an observer. This is then presented as an image at close range, so then all of the panorama is seen by the observer. The consequence is that the turbines (and buildings for that matter) are reduced and appear much less consequential than in reality. The bottom image shows the view more realistically with a field of view similar to that of a real observer.

There are rules governing these photo montages, but there are loopholes. These loopholes are ruthlessly exploited by the carpet baggers, leading to results similar to that achieved in the top image.

Now, when I look at the example images above, to me, it looks like the bogus pro-wind like propaganda image presents the turbines at about a quarter size of the more realistic bottom photograph.

I don't know if the DART flyer actually did present the turbines a four times larger than the Infinergy images. I didn't see it. But if they did it looks like DART probably got it about right.

So maybe, in the future, perhaps my windie commentator should do as they suggested and "be horrified and sign the petition".

You know it makes sense.

Love & Kisses
Billothewisp

The April Wind Farm Robbery

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

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

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

This is about legalised extortion.

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

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

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

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

Here is the list of shame.

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

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

So how and what exactly happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get used to being screwed.

The carpet baggers will be back for more.

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

Wind Turbines: The Tide is Turning

The Klondike gold-rush to industrial wind generation continues, but the cracks are beginning to appear.

The most authoritative renewable energy body, the Renewable Energy Foundation has been scathing about onshore wind generation. It has also heavily criticised the catastrophically awful subsidy scheme that enables the greedy to cash in at the public's expense.

Here's are a couple of quotes and links to the fuller articles from the REF

[quote]
"Such figures confirm theoretical arguments that regardless of the size of the wind fleet the United Kingdom will never be able to reduce its conventional generation fleet below peak load plus a margin of approximately 10%"   (Link to full article here)

[quote: Dr John Constable, REF’s Director of Policy and Research]
“The government needs to face the facts: the Renewable Obligation is enormously costly to the consumer, and is delivering high profits to developers even for underperforming and environmentally damaging on-shore wind.”  (Link to full article here)

The time to stop all further on-shore industrial wind generation especially near homes is now. In Denmark there is now a blanket ban on all further on-shore industrial wind generation. In France the equivalent of the French BMA have directed that no turbine should be placed within 2Km of a dwelling. The data on the health affects of being forced to live on top of these things is building. I have read some of the initial peer reviewed work that has already been done. The authors credentials are impeccable. Their findings are devastating.

This will be a scandal.

In the future, those now buckling a knee to the avaricious developers and their stupidly naive supporters will have to publicly account for their acquiescence.

There will be a fuller post on the health effects and the research papers in a (near) future post. Believe me, initially I thought that damaging health affects were illusionary but now I have totally changed my mind. Nobody should be forced to live near these things. Especially as on shore industrial wind turbines are next to useless in generating electricity.

There are many groups around our country who are defending their homes and the countryside from a modern day rape and pillage by greedy developers. Tonight I wish them well and hope they taste success in the their fight for their homes and country this year.

Wind Power: The Reality Today.

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

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

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

He had seen this graph:

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

Then he read this.

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

Oh sorrow on sorrow!

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

11.3% of their much lauded boilerplate rating.

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

That is 3.8% of their boiler plate rating.

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

3.8% 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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