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.

Yet Another Damning Wind Power Report

Another detailed and peer reviewed report on the effectiveness of wind power has been recently published by the Adam Smith Institute. (h/t to @strumcrazy at twitter)

The report has been produced by an Engineer with a long history in the power generation industry including pumped hydro. It's data is unimpeachable and is based on reliable wind speed data obtained from airport meteorology stations. 

The summary is brutally factual and casts a long black shadow over all the vacuous hype over wind power recently seen in the UK.

The document is available Here

Here are some of those brutal facts. (but by no means all)

Over one year the UK model showed:

Power exceeds 90% of available power for only 17 hours

Power exceeds 80% of available power for 163 hours

Power is below 20% of available power for 3,448 hours (20 weeks)

Power is below 10% of available power for 1,519 hours (9 weeks)

The most common output of the entire theoretical 10GW UK wind turbine fleet is 800MW or 8%.

The probability that the wind fleet will produce full output is vanishingly small.

Long gaps in significant wind production occur in all seasons.

To cover these gaps would need energy storage equivalent to 15 Dinorwig size plants (incidentally Dinorwig cost £1.5Bn. It is also not far short of being geologically unique in the UK – Billo)

As we cannot build 15 Dinorwig's in the UK we could do what the German Energiewende is doing and build dirty Lignite burning coal plant instead as backup. ( that is not a serious suggestion by the way)

Of course, if this was just one paper, however scrupulously prepared, we may well be entitled to a level of skepticism about its findings.

But this is very far from the first.

In 2010 The famous Nature conservancy charity “The John Muir Trust” commissioned a report by Stuart Young Consulting. The John Muir Trust webpage on this report (with link) is Here The actual Paper on its own is Here

Stuart Young Consulting (using actual generation data) found the following:

Over a two year period (2008-10) The UK wind turbine fleet was:

• below 20% of capacity more than half the time
• below 10% of capacity over one third of the time
• below 2.5% capacity for the equivalent of one day in twelve
• below 1.25% capacity for the equivalent of just under one day a month

Again that is just a subset of the dismal performance they found.

Does it stop there? – No. Here are a few more reports:

Reports by:

Mercados Consulting – Powerful Targets (2012 originally suppressed by UK govt.) Link Here

Civitas – The Folly of Windpower (2012) Link Here

Prof. G Hughs Edinburgh University - Why Is Wind Power So Expensive? (2012) Link Here

The Royal Academy of Engineers – The Cost of Generating Electricity (2004) Link Here

Note that the oldest of these reports dates back some 10 years. This is not new knowledge but it has been comprehensively buried and suppressed by the wind industry and their political backers.

But as the saying goes: 

The truth will out.

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.

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?

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)

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.

The Wind Industry and Rotten Onions

When I first started this blog I had no plans for it to be dominated by the energy debate. But so far, and by a long margin, my most prolific output has centred on the utter disgrace that is wind power.

It is worthwhile (at least for me) to see how this blog has got subsumed by the energy debate. Perhaps it may also be of interest to those who rather amusingly think I am in the pay of some grand conspiracy against wind.

I came at this as a wind turbine virgin.

I had not bothered investigating the pros and cons of wind farms. I had no reason to. Like most people I had blindly assumed that wind energy was a viable and sensible option. After all, why was so much money being thrown at it otherwise?

Checking out the ability of wind farms to actually generate useful energy had frankly, never occurred to me. I had certainly never heard of ROCs. I just took it as a given. Probably just like most of the population.

Then one day (2009) I was driving to work through East Stoke. The local radio reported on how Infinergy had modified their proposal for a wind farm at East Stoke from six to four turbines. Breathlessly the reported said this four turbine industrial complex would generate 9.2 MW. I guffawed. Seriously. I thought the reporter had left a nought off.

So that night I thought I would have a gentle poke at the mathematical illiteracy of the reporter in my new blog. Just to ensure I got it right I Googled what it should be. Good job I did!

The reporter had not left off a nought. In fact the reporter had reported the maximum output. An output that would hardly ever be achieved. We now know that the averaged output over a year would be about 20% or 1.8MW. Or less that 0.5 MW for each huge turbine. (It is actually considerably worse than that, but I won't go into that now)

To say I was shocked was an understatement.

Ever since then it has been like peeling the layers off a rotten onion. Each time I exposed another rancid layer, I thought that it could not get any worse. But each time I have been dis-proven.

On closer examination virtually every pro wind statement proved, at best to be optimistic. At worst an outright lie.

I have not blogged for a while basically because I've got bored with it. Particularly, blogging about the Wind Farm Scam is a bit like continually clearing up sewage, it gets tedious and unpleasant.

Hence the break.

But (as has been pointed out to me!) I need to get back into it. I literally have stuff backed up I need to post on. The wind industry is still awash with graft and greed.

Perhaps most depressing of all this is how the dogmatic quasi-religious followers of the carpet baggers blindly ignore the facts, while chanting out the propaganda spewed out by their well heeled idols. Maybe they don't actually lie, maybe they are so soaked in their dogma that (in their minds) 2 + 2 really does equal 5

I have been entertained by the childish accusations from the zealots of being in the pay of "the global conspiracy" (or whatever), but hardly ever get meaningful challenges to any of the data I present.

So, to my friends ( and detractors) - I have not given up, and I certainly have not gone away.

I am just having a breather from poking a virtual stick into the filthy self serving mess that is the wind industry.

An Irish Lament

hat-tip to caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/

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.

Wind Speed in Decline: A Blip or a Trend?

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

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

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

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

Ouch!

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

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

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

Oh, such a quandary and who has the answer?

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

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

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

It is titled:

LONG-TERM WIND SPEED TRENDS IN NORTHWESTERN EUROPE

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

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

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

Here is what they found for the NAO

here is the Jenkinson Lamb result

Finally here is the Grosswetterlagen graph

Notice how they all roughly correlate.

Also notice the "blip" around 1995.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a waste.

Wind Turbines and Silver Spoons

I have some  questions for you my despised and disgruntled Little Englanders.

Say you had a nice little rowing boat. A fine little craft which you loved and loved you back. It loved you in a way that only boat owners (and their boats) can know.

Let us give our fine little craft an inspiring name.

Let us call her "Tellus Mater" - after the Roman goddess.  After all, this is not a Greek tragedy - even for Dioclese.

Lets say that on one terrible day, our fine little craft "Tellus Mater" sprung a leak. She started to sink. Remember, you love your little "Tellus Mater" and your little "Tellus Mater" loves you back. You would, no doubt be alarmed, panic stricken even.

But maybe you are also strapped for cash (like Billothewisp). There are mouths to feed, fires to stoke, bills to pay. Oh, so many demands! On such a little a budget!

Maybe you only have a tenner in your pocket. You need to buy a bailer for the boat but you need to feed the kids as well.

What do you do? (this is multiple choice so you don't have to take your socks off to answer it)

Do you:

1. Buy an effective bailer that you can rely on.

2. Spend your money on some really fashionable silver spoons.

OK that may seem somewhat bizarre. So lets us work up some model answers to both possibilities.

Answer 1:

With your effective bailer you save the boat. Then with the change left over buy some food for the kids. Job done. (Drama Queens need not apply).

or

Answer 2:

With your silver spoons in your hands you sneer your disdain about anyone who would buy anything as ugly as a proper bailer.

Unfortunately baling the boat out with your spoons proves difficult. They only bail tiny amounts of water and often they fail to bail out anything at all.

You pride and joy - the fine little boat "Tellus Mater" gets ever lower in the water.

You desperately buy more spoons and clutch more spoons in each hand. You paddle desperately at the water.

The man selling the spoons is very happy and tells you what a fine example you make and suggests ugly bailers should be banned.

You sneer at those around you who suggest that you really need a good bailer and the spoons are simply a waste of money and time. Eventually though, out of irritation, and seeing your spoons do not really work all that well, you heed their advice.

You take out a loan and buy a bailer as well.

Of course from then on most of the bailing gets done by the bailer, but every now and then when the conditions are <just> right you revert to using the spoons.

At last little "Tellus Mater" is saved.

The spoons are still wonderfully fashionable and you can grandstand to all those around you. You can tell them about how wonderful your spoons are and how they are the true saviour of "Tellus Mater" Meanwhile the despised bailer is chucked over the side.

The Grotty Yotties down from the city, sitting at anchor on their floating Eco Gin Palaces, hear your fine words and listen transfixed. They need silver spoons as well! A competition ensues.

Who has the most silver spoons?
Who is the most fashionable?

Ugly bailers are abandoned en-masse, just in case they ruin the new image.

The man selling the spoons is very, very happy. Your kids though are crying because they have gone unfed. (moan.. moan.. moan.. some people are always complaining)

Meanwhile, unseen by you and the Grotty Yotties the skies have darkened. A few spots of rain announce the coming storm.

All of the bailers have drifted away........


So my grubby little international band of compatriots what is the moral of this tale?

Well funnily enough the average sized bailer holds about 2 litres of the old briny, whereas a fashionable silver dessert spoon holds about 20 milli-litres of the same salt sea ocean.

The ratio then is about 100:1

Just by utter coincidence a modern nuclear power station is rated around 920MW whereas a shiny new fashionable  wind farm consisting of four of the very largest turbines is rated at just under 9.2MW (although really it only ever manages about 2MW).

Again we have a ratio of 100:1

So, in a tight spot, what do we choose? 

Ugly bailers or silver spoons?

Nuclear power or wind turbines?

Practicality or Fashion-ability?

Oh, Decisions. Decisions.