Insects and a new Silent Spring

There is a hidden on-going man-made environmental catastrophe taking place today.  It rarely gets mentioned. If does get mentioned the cause is deliberately misrepresented. Mostly though, it is ignored. Swept under the carpet. In the hope that nobody will notice.

This calamity directly leads to the destruction of 1.2 trillion flying insects each year in Germany alone. A calamity that could lead to a massive and potentially irreversible decline in agriculture and wildlife.

The 1.2 trillion lost flying insects is a tiny part of the overall German insect population. But it is most certainly not insignificant. By comparison it equates to about one third of the entire migrating insect population in southern England.

The crucial aspect of these 1.2 trillion insect losses are that they are flying and migrating insects. They are mostly at the adult stage and are going to breed. Predatory losses among insect larvae and young adults are usually well in excess of 90%.  Trivialising the loss of these 1.2 trillion adult insects by comparing their number to the overall insect count (as some do) is foolish.

If you impact the relatively small numbers that actually reach the breeding stage, you will potentially cause a population collapse. Not only in the insects themselves, but later within the insect predators. The main insect predators are birds and other arthropods (mainly spiders) so don't be surprised when they start disappearing too.

This annual loss has been happening over a decadel time-scale. This catastrophe works a little like compound interest in reverse. Initially the effect is small. But the predators continue to eat. Until that is, they themselves are unable to find enough food. So as each year goes by, the effect builds on itself.

Today in some parts of Germany the flying insect population has collapsed by 75%. Where there is one flying insect today, in 2000 there were four.

When you have a situation like this you expect to see a smoking gun.  Some change that has been made within this short timescale. A change that correlates with the decline. Something that already has a track record in causing insect death. Then surely it would be sensible to highlight it as the potential cause.

You only ever miss seeing such a murder weapon if it is being hidden from you. Or alternatively, your cognitive dissonance insists that one of your cherished icons could never cause such wanton destruction.

Both of these options seem to be in play today.

It is true not all of the insect population decline may be caused by this single but lethal mechanism. But there seems little doubt that it makes all other possibilities (aka Climate Change, insecticides, wet weather, traffic) pale by comparison. Here’s a table of possibilities and their calculated impact. Notice the big bar labelled “Unknown”. So big in fact that it has its own scale.

So it looks like our smoking gun is "Unknown". But what has arrived since 1990? Further more what is known to destroy insects en-masse? In fact what is known to destroy insects in such numbers that the insect DNA residue smeared over its surfaces can inhibit its operation? What has grown in number as the insect population has declined?

So before I announce the murderous methodology of this wanton  man-made destruction let me first link you to two peer reviewed scientific papers both published in prominent and respected scientific journals. As well as that I'll first link in a Nature article from 2001. All the graphs/images on this post are taken from the peer reviewed papers.

Why am I doing this first?

Because what I am about to tell you will possibly cause you a great deal distress. I don't want you to discard this this information simply because it seriously challenges your world view. Here they are: (notice the oldest dates back to 2001 – this has been known about for a long time – and covered up)

• Corten (2001) - Insects can halve wind-turbine power
• Hallman et al (2017) - More than 75 percent decline over 27 years in total flying insect biomass in protected areas
• Trieb (2018) - Interference of Flying Insects and Wind Parks (original link - broken?)
• Trieb (2018) - Interference of Flying Insects and Wind Parks (new link - download)
•  
• (NEW! 2022) Diet analysis of bats killed at wind turbines suggests large-scale losses of trophic interactions

So, the titles of the papers possibly tipped you off regarding the mechanism that is destroying wildlife on such a grand scale. But if you missed it, the smoking gun appears to be:

The wind turbine.

Or rather the 30,000 wind turbines that scar the face of German countryside. This is what they do:

The murderous effect of wind turbines on insect populations has been known about for at least twenty years. Nothing has been done. In fact the problem has been obfuscated, ignored and otherwise covered up by the wind industry.

I first blogged about it nearly seven years ago HERE . But back then I had no idea how bad the problem was.

But it gets worse.

It appears the greatest danger wind turbines present to insect populations is when the wind is low and the turbines are in effect idling. They will be producing little or nothing except the slaughter of billions of insects a day.

So why are they turning? Why have they not been braked?

Vanity.

The wind turbine lobby love to pretend that wind turbines are producing energy even in low winds. What they do not tell you is that the amount produced in low wind is so pitifully small it might as well not be generated at all. It is most certainly not worth decimating the worlds insect populations on which the whole eco-structure of the world depends.

An immediate imperative to mitigate this evolving insect cataclysm is for wind turbines to be stopped when the wind speed is low. This needs to be done NOW.

Then we really need to take a long hard look at these fashionable yet massively counter-productive and sub-optimal  “green” energy mechanisms.

This insect murdering wind turbine calamity could (and possibly already has) cause irreversible damage to both the larger environment along with agriculture and biodiversity.

Please read the papers (especially the one by Trieb) They may be dry but they are vital if we are going to recover from this calamity

On a personal note I would like to say that I don’t scare easily. I generally view end-of-the-world or cataclysmic viewpoints with disdain.

But I find Trieb's paper alarming. What makes it so alarming is that it is a worthy, peer reviewed and momentous paper. There is no hidden agenda. No half-truths. No obfuscations. In fact I could well imagine that Trieb has taken an enormous amount of flak from vested interests already.

Yet Treib's paper is not only being ignored it is being stonewalled and denied without any form of valid refutation.

To use a phase: We need to listen to the science. Then we need to discard the wishful thinking.

Particularly we urgently need to listen to THIS science and listen to it whether we like it or not. There is no excuse to ignore this.

In low winds these fatuous fashion statements must be stopped from turning.

We must stop this evolving insect catastrophe.

Before it is too late.

Domestic Electricity Prices & Wind Turbine Subsidies

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

The original post is HERE.

European Electricity Prices in 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the new table of European electricity prices.

European Electricity Prices 2019

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

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

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

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

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

So why is this?

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

No.

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

Is nuclear adding to the cost?

No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

So just think:

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t think you will be amused.

The End of the LIne? OK. I Lied.

Much as BilloTheWisp has enjoyed his year long retirement from blogging he has now forced me (the minion who writes this stuff) to start up again.

A lot has changed since April 2018 and actually, a great deal has changed for the better.

Globally literacy is up, child mortality is down and the number living in $1.00 a day poverty is at an all time low. There is the odd sparkle of common sense being spoken about nuclear power too.

Even in the UK things are looking good.

After all, the unemployment figures have resolutely refused to go up. In fact they actually went down - and in style.

Now we have the lowest unemployment for 45 years. In fact if you look at the graph you will see that joining the EU (or EEC as it then was) correlates with a rise in unemployment that was maintained for 45 years.

Correlation does not (of course) mean causation.

Though in this case I bet it did.

Here's a year old graph from the BBC (I don't think they are too keen on updating it anymore as the rate is now 3.8% which hardly fits with their propaganda)

But we've still not left the contemptible EU.  So, I'm just going to have to write a few hurty words about why that is from time to time..

But we are not going to be just limited to the nauseous EU.

After-all there is the latest pompous scientifically illiterate farce calling itself  "Extinction Rebellion" to poke fun at.

Truly this is a grouping that so resembles 1950's UFO fanatics and associated doomsday cults I am going to have enormous fun.

I'll also be blogging about the writing and scientific analysis of one of my heroes. The sadly deceased Hans Rosling. If you want to read a great book that levels the field against doom-mongering, read  "Factfulness by Hans Rosling"

Energy policy? Of course! That includes (Ugh!...) Wind Turbines and other childish fashion statements. As well as energy systems that actually work properly.

I intend diversifying into local UK government which is really in deep trouble in the UK. I'll hopefully show how small partys (like the SDP) can reverse the decline.

Other than that - Crime. It's rise or its fall and/or reasons for it and for (in places) its absence.

So There ya go. A Hotch Potch. A veritable smorgasbord of delight.

I have (at least) written the first forty titles... Now I just need to tap the keys in a semblance of order to fill them out. (A task so trivial any minion can do it)

I contemplated moving this to a bespoke site but for the moment I'll just see if this old blogspot manages to wake itself from the dead.

If it does - Great! If not - I'll move it.

No Zombies allowed.

Is there Something (Else) Wrong with Wind Power?

We all know wind power is intermittent. I thought I would take a look at how predictable windpower intermittency is and how accurate wind power output predictions are.

In the process I think I have tripped over a new issue regarding wind generation (but more on that later).

The bmreports site (HERE) has a section on wind generation and shows a graph of an original output prediction, a more recent and accurate revised prediction and also the actual out-turn.

The original forecast value is done 41 hours before the start of the forecasted day. The revised forecast is done 4 hours before the start of the forecasted day. The predictions use weather forecast data for the known wind farm locations and factor in a range of other parameters. These are sophisticated predictions and are probably as good as they get.

Here is a few example snap shots taken in the last month from the bmreports site.

But as well as this continuously updated graph, bmreports also publish the same 3 day data as an xml file. I've collected the xml files for one month. (Annoyingly I missed two days so these have been left out. But even so I think this is quite a good data set.)

Above is a graph of this data showing the final revised prediction done 4 hours before the start of the predicted day (red) and the final out-turn (blue).

(I've left out the original prediction as for obvious reasons, it was more in error of the final out-turn and so added little to the graph). Note: Actual metered capacity is actually 8972MW so the graph is unduly kind stopping at 8000.)

The first thing that can be seen is that the out-turn is often (not occasionally) in significant variance with the predictions. The graphs may be the same shape but the values at any one point in time are often significantly different. Clearly, any system with a large wind component that relied completely on even a near term forecast (and without spinning reserve) would soon end up in deep trouble.

So whatever the pro-wind zealots preach on Twitter, the problem with lack of wind power predictability has not gone away. Neither has its intermittency.

But potentially the example bmreports graphs (as well as mine) also show another problem. 

Notice in the above graphs how on the occasions the wind output rises above about 30% capacity (3000MW), during the rise, the out-turn lags the predictions and the maximum out-turn is significantly less than either of the predictions. 

It is as if a large proportion of wind turbines exposed to a rising wind and high wind periods are being feathered (or throttled back) for some reason during these periods.

At lower wind speeds there are still periods of great discrepancy between prediction and output but the tracking between prediction and output does appear more coherent. (Remember this forecast was done 4 hours before start of predicted day!)

Wind energy companies only get paid when they are generating. So why would they throttle back their turbines in high winds?

And the answer to that I believe is good old repair and maintenance.

For almost any machine, if you run it lightly it lasts longer. Take a car. The harder you drive a car the more wear and tear it suffers. Just about all rotating machinery obey this simple rule – including wind turbines.

We know that there is a severe generic problem with wind turbine gearbox reliability. (See This Post - The Ghost in the Gearbox and Post - More Ghosts in the Gearbox )

I would suspect that it has been found that if the loading on a wind turbine gets above a certain value the wear rate and maintenance/repair cost will be far more than the return from the extra energy generation.

So maybe operators are unilaterally and quietly deciding that when the wind gets too changeable or too strong, the turbines will be run at reduced output compared to what they are supposed to be capable of.

Wind turbines are capital intensive. If you suffer a catastrophic failure you will ruin the huge and guaranteed profit (subsidy included) your turbines can make. Do it too many times and you may end up going bust. Better to ignore the whole reasoning, propaganda and hype associated with why the thing was built in the first place and go for the low hanging fruit.

Remember most windfarms have a 25 year subsidy regime locked in place. It's a nice little earner. Operators are going to do whatever it takes to maximise the financial gain over this period and if that includes reducing output to make their gearboxes and other expensive components last a bit longer then they will do it. The abatement of Carbon Dioxide can go to hell.

This, of course, makes an even bigger mockery of the often hyped “Installed Capacity” figure than it already is. It also shows how the unreliability of these machines impacts the supposed reason they were built.

It means that wind power is perhaps even more useless and under-achieving than first thought.

I cannot prove the operators are intentionally throttling back their turbines to reduce their maintenance bills. 

But I bet I'm right.

Wind Turbines: More Ghosts in the Gearbox

There is a wall of silence from the wind industry regarding wind turbine reliability. But once in a while data seeps out through the wall to the general public. A little bit of new seepage has just come to my notice.

The last time I blogged about wind turbine reliability was after I had come across an obscure department within the USA government National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) called the Gearbox Reliability Collective (GRC). The purpose of this U.S. government sponsored department is to address the appalling and largely hidden reliability problems with wind turbines, particularly gearboxes.

The GRC has their own website here: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/grc/ 

My first post on the GRC is On This Link 

The GRC is not alone. Clearly there are several European agencies and groups working on this problem too. Unfortunately information on them is very obscure. I am unaware of any public access to their data other than when it is mentioned by the GRC.

What has just caught my attention is a 2013 paper from the GRC. The  paper is titled: 

Report on Wind Turbine Subsystem Reliability ─ A Survey of Various Databases.

The paper is on this link: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/59111.pdf

If you look at the linked document above you will find a survey of many wind turbine failure databases held in Europe and the USA.

As far as I can ascertain there is no public access to any of this data except to that presented in this paper. If I am wrong I would be grateful for any links – I have found none.

The figures from Europe in this survey stop short of fully quantifying failure rates. They do though hint at a failure rate increase for larger turbines and crucially, also for direct drive turbines.

We also have the USA data in the same document. Some of the USA data goes right up to 2013. This American data is far more open and definitive. It gives failure rates for all major components not just the gearboxes.

Here is the table (see page 31) relating to expected annual gearbox and generator failure rates for on-shore turbines.

The NREL reckons for gearboxes this averages out at 5% per year for the first ten years. Notice that in year 5 it hits 10%. 

Whatever way you cut it statistically around about 50% of turbines will suffer a gearbox failure within 10 years. Remember this is for properly maintained, serviced and generally “looked after” turbines.

But also remember – that is ONLY the gearbox. The generator is “slightly” more reliable coming out at an average failure rate of 3.5% per year or 35% over ten years.

So for an onshore turbine in the USA the chances of a properly serviced and maintained turbine failing due to gearbox or generator issues within 10 years is 85%.

If you include the other potential failure areas (say the blades - failure rate quoted at 2% per annum) then statistically, it is almost surely that a properly maintained and serviced wind turbine will suffer a major failure within 10 years. It looks like most failures will occur in year 5 or 7.

All rotating machinery can (and will) break down. But wind turbines are operating in a chaotically changing and hostile environment (offshore turbines even more so). A gas plant by comparison is operating in a closely controlled and regulated environment. So per Megawatt-Hour, the wind turbine will require much more maintenance.

The energy return from a wind turbine is simply inadequate to pay for the very high demands placed on maintenance and repair. As the machine gets older more maintenance and repair will be required. Eventually the point will be reached (7-10 years?) where the maintenance/repair bills exceed the returns.

The often hyped 25 year life span for a wind turbine would appear to be hopelessly optimistic.

Currently the only way round this problem is to hugely increase the price of the electricity generated by the machine from day one. This is essentially what the current government subsidies do.

But one day the subsidies will have to fall. When this happens, or as the turbines get older and more unreliable, the wind farms will end up being be sold on - and on.

The new owners will be ever more dubious organisations. Eventually the turbines will be run until they suffer the final major failure that renders the turbine beyond economic repair. Then they will be abandoned.

When the last one fails and the payments stop, the bailiffs will arrive to claim the “guaranteed” decommissioning fund. But by then the main company office will be a post box in Belize and the decommissioning fund will be long gone.

Remember almost all of the data in the above paper is for on-shore turbines.

When you go offshore the maintainability and reliability falls off a cliff. The consequent subsidies sky-rocket.

But more on that in another post.

Wind and Solar Renewables:- The German Experience

This is about a shocking German report from RWI Essen – the leading German economic research institution

The link to the report (in English) is  Here
The English version of the RWI-Essen website is Here
The wikipedia page on RWI Essen is Here

Why is this foreign report important to us?

In the UK we are at a point of crisis regarding future electrical energy generation. Decisions that should have been made 20 years ago have been avoided.  Arguably, whatever is now decided comes too late. Nothing short of a miracle will now prevent power cuts within the next 10 - 15 years. But unbelievably there are still people in government who, either for reasons of self interest or political advantage, still seek to pursue the current insane renewables agenda. If these people are allowed to prevail then the power cuts, economic dislocation and the consequential casualty list will be considerably worse.

Politicians, green zealots and other assorted wishful thinkers have there heads firmly buried in the sand. In Germany it has been even worse. That is why this German report is so important.

As part of the unending Green propaganda, we continually  bombarded with how Germany have embraced wind and solar. It is well worth cutting though the bullshit and picking up on exactly what the real experience is.

The above RWI-Essen document is a highly reputable study regarding renewables in Germany. This report is now three years old. Nothing has improved. It is (even for me) a shocking expose of the cost and waste of the German experience. I'll quote a few items from it below, but perhaps the concluding paragraph from the executive summary say it all.

[quote]
Although Germany’s promotion of renewable energies is commonly portrayed in
the media as setting a “shining example in providing a harvest for the world” (The
Guardian 2007), we would instead regard the country’s experience as a cautionary
tale of massively expensive environmental and energy policy that is devoid of economic
and environmental benefits.
[unquote]

From the Abstract:

[quote]
To the contrary, the government’s support mechanisms have in many respects subverted these incentives, resulting in massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security.
[unquote]

Some more quotes from the Executive Summary

[quote]
Currently, the feed-in tariff for PV is more than eight times higher than the wholesale
electricity price at the power exchange and more than four times the feed-in
tariff paid for electricity produced by on-shore wind turbines.
Even on-shore wind, widely regarded as a mature technology, requires feed-in
tariffs that exceed the per-kWh cost of conventional electricity by up to 300% to
remain competitive.
[unquote]

[quote]
In the end, Germany’s PV promotion has become a subsidization regime that, on a
per-worker basis, has reached a level that far exceeds average wages, with per worker
subsidies as high as 175,000 € (US $ 240,000).
It is most likely that whatever jobs are created by renewable energy promotion
would vanish as soon as government support is terminated, leaving only Germany’s
export sector to benefit from the possible continuation of renewables support in
other countries such as the US.
[unquote]

[quote]
Claims about technological innovation benefits of Germany’s first-actor status are
unsupportable. In fact, the regime appears to be counter productive in that respect,
stifling innovation by encouraging producers to lock into existing technologies.
[unquote]

Clearly, the German experience should serve us as a dire warning rather than an example. Already their energy prices are only second to Denmark. Luckily (so far) for Germany, their industrial base built up from the second world war has enabled them to indulge in this fiasco.  Only a fool would take us down the same debilitating path.

Unfortunately we have no shortage of fools in Westminster.

Defending East Stoke

Billothewisp has been in pastures new for a while. Pastures remote enough to completely defeat my trusty 3G dongle, even my mobile barely got a signal.

So I've missed the start of the East Stoke (Alaska Wind farm) planning appeal. So rather belatedly, may I wish the good people of East Stoke all the best in defending their village.

If there is justice in the planning system then the ruling of the Purbeck District Council planning department, the Council and the wishes of the people of East Stoke will prevail, and this travesty of an application for an industrial wind turbine complex will be thrown out (again).

East Stoke is a small rural village.

It is certainly no place for any form of Industrial complex. Let alone an industrial complex with four buildings the height of Salisbury Cathedral.

Why is Wind Power So Expensive?

Billothewisp is having trouble keeping up with this.

Today another devastating report on the hopelessness of wind power has been published.
 (Why is Wind Power So Expensive? - See Here ).

To be honest I have only managed to spend about an hour on it but it is very hard hitting. It actually questions some of my prepositions - and I oppose wind turbines!

This document has been published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

I know some of my more disparaging readers will instantly dismiss this report because it is published by what is regarded as a right wing think-tank. But they need to look past the mere publisher and see who the author is. Namely one Professor Gordon Hughs.

So who the Hell is Gordon Hughs?

Here is his Bio:

Dr Gordon Hughes is a Professor of Economics at the University of Edinburgh where he teaches courses in the economics of natural Resources and Public economics. He was a senior adviser on energy and environmental policy at the World Bank until 2001. He has advised governments on the design and implementation of environmental policies and was responsible for some of the World Bank’s most important environmental guidelines.

Not exactly an ignoramus then.

Professor Hughs is somebody, I would imagine, who really would not have to take his socks off to count above ten.

Somebody one would expect to have the highest integrity.

RenewablesUK have yet to pass judgement on Professor Gordon Hughs.

Of course, Gordon Hughs may be a crank, an axe murdering psychopath, or even in the pay of some fabulously dark international conspiracy to do something or the other.

I am sure RenewablesUK can come up with something derogatory. Just give them a few days.

But still, Professor Hughs is awfully good with figures.

What my turbinista loving readers should do before closing their minds and shutting out the (very) nasty truths expounded upon in this report, is do the dangerous thing - read the report.

Look at the figures presented. Read the explanations of the technologies. Go through the the explanations of the subidies and how debilitating they are.

Maybe, you could go onto reading the the four independent reports I outlined in my last post ( See Here ). But, hey, one report would be a start.

So have a good (or maybe a very unpleasant) read. At the very least owe it to your community to give it a fair hearing.

Feel free to recommend back a contrary report for me to read. Though actually, you may well find I have read it already.  I really do try to address this issue from a position of informed opinion rather than from simply one side. But please feel free to recommend away.

You never know - maybe you can influence me.

Of course, if you are fair minded, then there is also the chance that I may influence you.

ROC and Roll Rip-offs

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

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

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

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

Unfortunately the truth is very far from the hype.

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

Dream on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Wind Farm Robbery Revisited

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My original piece on the Great Wind Farm Robbery is HERE

A Letter that Demands Action

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

The following letter was signed by 101 MPs

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

The Telegraph article is ( HERE ).

Here is the letter and signatories:

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,

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

Bankers Pull the Plug on Scottish Wind

It seems that the banking fraternity are beginning to get a little worried about sticking their snouts in the Scottish wind turbine trough.
(See Windpower Monthly article Here)

Up until now it has been easy money for both the bankers and their wind turbine operator clients. They have been backed by all political parties, with politicians fawning at their feet.

The media has fallen over themselves (especially the BBC) to promote and propagandise on their behalf.

Anyone standing against them has been villified and despised but more usually, just ignored.

But now something is stirring. Something unpleasantly related the truth about how much this joke technology is costing us and how ineffective it is.

Honourable and informed organisations like the John Muir Trust, and the Renewable Energy Foundation, as well as highly regarded engineers are diligently questioning the current madness.
(See This Post)

If (and when) the sh*t hits the fan, the last thing the greedy bankers want on the balance sheet is a large quantity of ineffective wind turbines that no-one is subsidising any more.

The first line on that balance sheet concerns Scotland.

Now if dear old Alec Salmond gets his way and Scotland goes independent then Scotland is going to have to pay the onerous ROC subsidy. This subsidy for off-shore turbines triples the final cost of the electricity generated. On-shore is slightly less eye wateringly expensive, merely doubling the cost.

However, this potential £4bn outlay leaves Alac Salmond unphased. The master plan is to get the despised English to pay or (I quote from the above link) "then there would be a severe danger of the lights going off in England"

Oh dear, Oh Dear.

Alec Salmond obviously places a great deal of  faith in the English sticking to the ludicrous "renewables" targets that have been stupidly set by the last UK government.

But of course, there won't be a UK government if Scotland goes independent.

As the UK is doing very well towards meeting its Kyoto CO2 reduction targets (much better than either Germany or Denmark) I would find it hardly surprising if this bit of UK governmental "renewable obligation" stupidity were to be quietly swept under the carpet and forgotten about.

Now tie that in to the enormous gas field found under Lanacashire and the fact we have 85 years worth of nuclear fuel stockpiled.

We can, using both the new gas and nuclear, replace coal completely. This would cut our carbon emissions massively more than could ever be achieved by wind turbines. (That is, of course, assuming wind turbines actually ever manage to cut carbon emissions in the first place).

The "renewables" feeding frenzy becomes a busted flush.

Whatever you think about the greedy bankers, one thing you can be sure of is that they will protect their bottom line. They are not going to indulge in any dreamworld, English hating Nirvana that could in all likely-hood prevent them getting their massive bonuses.

Bankers are greedy, averacious, cowardly and uncaring.

But they are not stupid.

Scale and Proportion

Nelsons Column is 51 meters high. Even in London amid a sea of concrete and high rise buildings Nelson's column still dominates the local area.

Which is fine.

It was designed like that at the behest of the local population. It was a tribute to a national hero.

However, impressive as it is, it neither generates noise nor does it move. It is a monument. A stationary tribute to a great man - 51meters high.

Here it is.. to get some scale from it  - look at the relative size of the people at the base.

Remember this monument is only 51 metres high. Now imagine it twice as tall. Then add another half a column. Until you get about 125 meters. Two and a half times the height of Nelsons column. Then, instead of having the thing in the concrete environment of London, stick in the countryside, preferably up on a ridge so it dominates the whole county.

But don't stop there add another 4 or 5 all the same height, in a line. Not oppressive enough for you?

OK - lets get them to make unpleasant pulsating noise called amplitude modulation. Finally, in case nobody has noticed them, place a large rotating rotor on each one.

Practically speaking, they will (just like Nelsons column) be pretty damn useless for generating electricity.

Remember though, each of these things is two and a half times the height of Nelsons Column above.

 Imagine four of those within 800 yards (or less) of your back door.

If you are going to build these enormous and hopelessly ineffective wind turbines and especially of you reckon they are harmless and "majestic" why not build them in London?

Say, next to Nelsons Column. Or perhaps in Hyde Park. Maybe put a few down the sides of the Mall.

But no. Of course that would never happen. It is much easier to impose them on the countryside. Blight the lives of the yokels. Dare I suggest that if they were to be built in London it would not be long before they came to an untimely (though very welcome) demise.

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.

Kyoto, Quotas and Fashion Statements.

Well, it looks like the UK is the bad boy again. We are not meeting our renewables target.

All you grubby little Englanders - hang your heads in shame. Here is the offending graph. (see The EU Energy Portal )

But the funny thing is, that on the same website just a bit further up the page is a neat little bar graph related to progress towards the Kyoto protocol. Whatever you think of Kyoto it was at least aimed at reducing emissions and gave some figures.
Here is the graph.

Now in this graph, far from being the nasty bully-boy bad-guys pumping the filth out into the atmosphere, grubby little England is actually one of the golden halo'd nations that have not only reduced emmissions, but have actually reduced them more than their allocated quota.

Even our Eco-zealot friends in Germany have not managed to do so well. But now, of course, our German friends have also shut down all their nuclear power plants and started burning coal like it is going out of fashion. I expect that very soon they will be slipping into the bad boy red sector. In fact they are likely to join their eco friends in Denmark who are spectacularly under target.

Then there is Spain.

Oh dear Oh dear.

Although Spain ranks as number 3 in the European wind turbine league they are also number 3 from the bottom of the Kyoto table. Bad Bad Bad.

Now, of course there are a couple of little issues here. Not all the Kyoto targets are the same. The UK's target was 12.5%. Germany bigged theirs up to 18% and Denmark did the most grandstanding by stating that they would cut their emissions by no less than 21%. Spain though was actually allowed to increase their emissions by 15%

Big words from Germany. Even bigger words from Denmark.

Or was it just hot air?

Obviously, we need to compare like with like.

So let us use the UK as the benchmark and compare how our European pals are really doing.

So, the base line is the UK. We have exceeded our target reduction by 7.63%. As our target was 12.5%, that makes about a real cut of over 20%

Our German friends, (remember this was before they shut down their nuclear power) had a target of 18% and exceeded their target by 1.52%. So their real cut is 19.5%

Demark did the most grandstanding at Kyoto and took the applause for promising to cut emissions by 21% (Huhhah!) but they have missed their target by no less than 16.42%. Whoops! That is a real cut then of less than 5% OUCH!

But then we come to Spain.

Oh Dear Oh Dear.

Spain was allowed to increase their emissions by 15%. But they still missed their target by 22.35% So compared to us un-green nasty little Englanders, the Spanish have made a real cut of...

Well, there is no cut, real or otherwise.

Their emissions have increased by nearly a third. Doh!

Now let us look at the relevence of these two targets.

The "renewables" target has been put in place to meet (among other targets) the 2012 Kyoto quota's.

Germany has the largest number of wind turbines in Europe, Spain comes a close second. Denmark has by far the highest per capita fleet of turbines anywhere in the world.

But all to no avail. While they may have all grandstanded at Kyoto about how green they were, and while they have foolishly wasted billions on intermittent, unreliable and ultimately ineffective wind turbines, they have, on a real comparison failed to even match the UK cuts, let alone meet their bigged up targets.

There is one year left to run for Kyoto. I'll be interested to see if they pay the fines for missing the "legally binding" Kyoto targets.

Neodymium and Wind Turbines

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

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

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

This is what happens when the bearings fail.

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

But at what cost?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cold Feet in Turbine Heaven.

On the 12th July the government published its latest white paper of energy reform The Electricity Market Reform Paper 2011 Here

Although this white paper cements in an absurd commitment to a massive expansion and deployment of wind turbines, the bankers and investors are getting cold feet.

They are blaming this on what they say is a lack of clarity in the white paper. (As described in "The Scotsman" Here)

But there is more to the bankers prevarication, as noted in the above article:

[quote]
That was partly due to regulatory uncertainty, he said, but funding for wind farms was also being impacted by low average wind speeds over the last couple of years, which has depressed rates of return on existing projects.
[unquote]

Maybe the bankers have started paying more attention to data indicating a reduction in wind speed across the UK. As described in a paper by Wind Turbine enthusiasts Garrad Hassan.
(see Billothewisp post "Wind Speed In Decline: A Blip or a Trend?").

Maybe now they can see that even with their huge subsidies, erratically performing turbines may not be the sure investment bet they were once thought to be.

Whatever the bankers think, one thing is sure, nobody in government would now risk the wrath of the electorate by giving the bankers a guarantee on any continuation of the currently flawed ROC scheme let alone an increase. If they want a cast iron guarantee on what is really very risky high return investment, they are going to be dissapointed. (at last)

What if these grubby little investors attempt to blackmail us by threatening to take their "green" investments elsewhere?

Billothewisp has two words to say to them

Bye Bye.

The Great ROC Rip Off

A worked costing example for a 4 turbine Industrial Wind Turbine Plant. This is a little rough and ready in places but it is not far off centre.

Factors: 

1. Turbine size 2.5MW
2. Capacity Factor (CF) examples 15% 20%, 25%, 30%
3. Average Trading value of each ROC certificate (1 MW) £50.00 (an under-estimate) See ROC trading last 3 months Here
4. Trading value supply of 1MW/Hr £45 taken as a rough average of NETA buy/sell price 14/07/11 see graph below:

For those who don't know, the Capacity factor is the actual percentage of the boiler plate rating that the turbine really generates. So a CF of 25% on a turbine means it only really (on average) produces a quarter of the turbines supposed rating. The national average last year was 22%

 Electricity generated per year:

15% CF = 8760 x 0.15 x 2.5 x 4 = 13140 MW/hr
20% CF = 8760 x 0.2  x 2.5 x 4 = 17520 MW/hr
25% CF = 8760 x 0.25 x 2.5 x 4 = 21900 MW/hr
30% CF = 8760 x 0.30 x 2.5 x 4 = 26280 MW/hr

Payment for generation at £45 per MW/hr

CF 15% £591300
CF 20% £788400
CF 25% £985500
CF 30% £1182600

ROC Income based on £50 per ROC certificate (1 MW/hr)

15% CF £657000
20% CF £876000
25% CF £1095000
30% CF £1314000

So total annual income per year for each of the above CFs

15%  CF £1,248300
20%  CF £1,664400
25%  CF £2,080500
30%  CF £2,496600

Turbine cost: around £750,000 per MW + £150,000 Installation = £900K per MW installed

So our 4 turbine site costs 2.5 x 4 x £900K = £9M

Maintenance, extended warranty and repair, about £150 per day per turbine all in. Plus rent to the landowner and other sundries. Say £250K per year all in.

Capital loan at 7.5% for £9M = 675K year (diminishing) plus capital repayment 10M/25 = £400K per year.

Initial total annual outlay = 250K + 675K + 400K = £1.325M. diminishing as loan is repaid to around 650K after 25 years..

So, on those figures a CF of 15-16% is just viable. But this is only because of the ROC subsidy.

If you excluded the ROC even a CF of 30% (less than 8% of UK turbines achieve this) is bordering on non viability.

But because of the ROC, anything above about 16% is financially viable - even in the short term. With 15% CF capital repayment could be offset against future profits, so even a dismal 15% CF would be attractive.

All because of the ludicrous generosity of the ROC.

I hope that explains why these things are being built in wholly inappropriate areas. As long as the Capacity Factor is a pathetic 15% or more then the generators are onto a nice little earner, irrespective of the damage they do to local communities in building their white elephants.

This is not going to get any better. Nothing is going to happen next year or even in ten years which will alter the laws of physics so these white elephants can actually contribute without being propped up by massive subsidies from the consumer.

We are stuck with this for 25 years.

But if our little carpet bagger friends have turbines running at last years average of 22% CF then they are raking it in. But only because of the ROC. Without the ROC the things are wholly unviable.

If the ROC was withdrawn tomorrow, I would bet that nigh on every wind turbine in the land would be scrapped within 6 months.

Junk Energy in its "purest" form.