Fiddling Wind Turbine Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You know it makes sense.

Love & Kisses
Billothewisp

Rotten to the Core

You would have thought that after the cash for questions scandal and the the expenses outrage, our Dear Leaders would have learned that Joe Public gets a bit pissed off about MP's fiddling the system.

But No. These arrogant, self serving buffoons are at it again.

Tim Yeo MP is Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee. A role that demands even handedness and a level of technical competence. My last post was about how technically unsuitable he is for such a role. But really that is simply the tip of the iceberg.

The biggest scandal about Mr Yeo chairmanship is that he is in the pay of the renewables industry.
( See Here ) and ( Here )

Tim Yeo, The Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee is also the  President of the Renewable Energy Association ("The voice of the renewables industry in the UK" or so they say) and has directorships with an assortment of renewable energy companies that rake in about £140,000 a year.

Can you imagine the hullaballo that would erupt if the Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee was found to be a in the pay by (say) BP, Centrica and British Coal? Or that he was (say) president of the Oil & Gas UK? (the UK oil and gas trade body)

You can almost taste the rightous indignation that would spurt forth from the wind industry cartel. Actually I would be outraged too, just as I am about his current real "arrangments".

There is an old saying about who pays the piper calls the tune.  But whatever, it is a nice little earner for Mr Yeo all the same.

So is this outrage restricted to one morally challenged member of our ruling elite?

Dream on. ( See Here )

John Selwyn Gummer, now Lord Deben is now Chairman of the Climate Change Committe (CCC) he is also chairman of a company ( Forewind ) which plans to build hundreds of ultra subsidised offshore turbines. But Selwyn Gummer is a busy bloke, he also chairs a lobbying consultancy with a speciality in advising clients how to make money out of Global warming.

The logo of the CCC is "independent advisers to the UK Government on tackling and preparing for climate change".

Are they having a laugh or what?

So is that it? Two dodgy members of the Great and Good? Sorry no. It isn't. This article ( Here )  finds another THREE members of the CCC with questionable allegiences.

Then of course we have Cameron, who personally recommended Gummer for the post. His father in law rakes in around 300,000 a year by hosting a wind farm.

Cleggs wife is a director of a wind energy company.

It goes on and on.

Even after the fiddles, outrages and pocket lining of the last two decades our MP's are still falling over themselves to rake in the cash at the expense of their moral obligation to even handedness and the electorate..

No wonder Public confience in our political establishment is at an all time low.

Tim Yeo, Contraception and Energy Policy

It appears the Tory MP Tim Yeo has several nice little earners supplimenting his MP salary. ( See Here ) ( And Here ) He is paid considerable amounts of money for what appear to be nominal work load commitments to a number of renewable energy companies and trade bodies. Bearing in mind how self serving and morally challenged our MP's tend to be, it is unsurprising that he see's no clash of interests in also being the  Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee as well.

Dear old Tim is also an avid supporter of on-shore wind farms. Avid that is, until one is threatened to be imposed on his own turf, then all of a sudden the thing is "inappropriate". Do I detect the whiff of hypocrisy?

That is perhaps unsurprising as he was also an enthusiastic supporter of John Major's "Back to Basics" speech while also being the father of four children by three women, one of which he was married to.

But never mind. I'm not really interested in the whether Tim Yeo knows how to use a condom or not, and I am quite sure there are much worse examples of sexual proclavity within our noble leaders. But I am quite interested in exploring how technically competent he is. After all this is all about how our country will meet the technical challenges related energy supply for probably the next fifty years.

Now I know I being a little naive here, but I would have thought that someone occupying such a crucial technical position would be - well, an Engineer. Or a numerate scientist. A medic would suffice. But really, it would have to be someone who could claim several years of numerate technical competence. Someone who could see through the bullshit.

So, what qualifications for such a role has our swampie hero got? A Doctorate in Power Engineering? Maybe at least a degree in a numerate discipline. But I'm not obsessed by pieces of paper, has he alternatively got long term design experience in a technical subject?

Tim Yeo went to Cambridge. So far - so good. I know some awsomely capable engineers who went to Cambridge.

So what was it? Physics? Mechanical Engineering maybe? Sadly No. Tim Yeo, the man who is essentially in charge of guiding the technical development of our energy policy has a degree in....

History.

Yes folks, the technical direction of our national energy policy in in the hands of a self serving hypocrite with a degree in history.

God help us all.

Doing the Right Thing by St Mabena

Billothewisp just blogged a poem regarding the potential desecration of a small village in North Cornwall. The poem was first published in St Mabyn Village News

I picked up on this some weeks ago and I have for various reasons been inactive for a while.
Tonight I was pleasantly surprised to find that the applicants for this Turbine have decided not to proceed. ( See Here )

Billothewisp would like to congratulate the ex-applicants. The wind turbine gold-rush must be hard to resist. It is good to find people who put their community before that of a Judas payment, however lucrative.

Morally, the wind turbine scam is inexcusable. At least, when the enquiries into this outrage start (and they will) the applicants in this case can legitimately claim they put their community before profit. They put personal honour before filthy lucre.

Good on them. Perhaps true environmentalists do exist.

St Mabena and the Beast

St Mabena and the Beast  

Stands tall Mabena`s proud church tower
Presiding o`er the village hours.
Congregation`s songs of praise,
Peals of bells its rafters raise.
Within its walls the history kept,
Births and Christenings, Marriage, Deaths.

Cross brooding, mystical, untamed Moor.
From Camel`s mouth and far from shore,
Trusted landmark, welcome beacon
Guiding those safe haven seeking.
Though now it seems in future time
You`ll bow to a cash cow wind turbine.
So bid your Parish congregation
Say NO to this Beast`s application.
(A poem by Derek Sturch)

Reproduced from the St Mabyn Village News

Good luck to the people of St Mabyn in their gallant fight against this travesty.

love and kisses
Billothewisp

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)

East Stoke: Greed 4, Democracy 0

Some bad news has been handed to my friends in East Stoke.

The East Stoke Wind turbine appeal has been approved. The local council had refused planning for four huge but pitifully ineffective turbines. The rich multinational appealed. The end result was that the  government appointed apparachtik overruled the local council. Infinergy get to build their four useless money making machines right in the heart of ancient Purbeck. 

To top it off, Joe Public gets to pay the ROC subsidy to line the coffers of Dutch multinational KOOP (who own Infinergy). In return Infinergy will provide a small, intermittent and laughably ineffective source of electricity. But, as long as nobody cuts the ROC subsidy, it will be a nice little earner for our Dutch cousins.

Even though the appeal steamrollered the local democratic decision, I think we should congratulate DART, Dorset CPRE, the people of Purbeck and particularly East Stoke who so gallantly fought this travesty. Many Dorset families are today out of pocket because they personally helped fund the legal defence against this appeal. They could do no more. Their defence of Purbeck has gone way beyond what anyone should reasonably expect from any community. 

But really, the odds were always stacked against them. All over the country there are literally thousands of East Stokes all battling an unequal and unfair fight against greed and stupidity.

This crime against East Stoke forms a just a small part of what will probably be one of the greatest scandals of the 21st century.

Where do the people of Dorset and East Stoke go from here? I don't know. No doubt when the dust settles a strategy will emerge. But this hard fought battle against the rape and pillage of Dorset should be acknowledged and congratulated. Equally we should lament this latest greed fuelled assault on rural England and local democracy.

Fracking, Emissions and Energy Prices

Gas produces 60% less CO2 emissions than coal. It is also intrinsincally more versatile and far, far less costly to human society. The price of gas in the USA (due to an newly adopted extraction technique called fracking) is collapsing. This is the price of gas in the USA over the last year.
(Forbes article HERE - with graph for prev year from when you read this)

This is the graph on the day of the post

In fact due to a massive adoption of fracking, the USA has managed to markedly reduce it's carbon emmissions while simultaneously rebuilding it's economy. The USA is now, for the first time in 100 years a net exporter of hydrocarbons. They have made great strides to the American Holy Grail of energy independence. The USA is actually winning back industry due to it's low energy cost. The reduction in emission due to the adoption of gas for energy generation has buried any possible so-called "renewable" contribution in the noise.

Today, wind obsessed Europe, politically populated by fracking denialists languishes in perpetual economic crisis. Even Germany, which has been the biggest benificiery from the Euro Zone, (to the cost of just about every other Euro Zone member) suffers with a huge energy price penalty compared to USA. Although Germany at least, has managed to grow its economy,
it is significantly less than the USA. Just to rub salt into the wound the Germans are busily building Lignite burning coal power stations to replace their perfectly good (but highly unfashionable) nuclear plant. Emissions can go only one way.

Fracking can possibly provide us in the UK with similar cheap energy independence. It could provide us with the necessary backstop until someone in government gets enough balls to build the necessary nuclear infrastructure.

But until someone in authority actually gets up off their arse and starts getting a proper and detailed analysis of the fracking potential in the UK we will continue sliding down the slippery slope to where in a few years time there WILL be power cuts.

Looking at the bunch of comedians that pass for a government in this country, I think it is time we all started stocking up on candles.

So Who Supports Nuclear Now?

It is interesting to see exactly who has has changed their opinion on nuclear power.
(h/t to bravenewclimate HERE )

Here a subset from the Brave New Climate post. The BNC post is much more extensive than this but it includes many prominent people who are not seen as particularly "environmental".

I thought it might be interesting to dig the environmentalists and respected scientists out of the noise. (tell me if I missed anyone from the BNC post)

Why this subset? Simply because today many who see themselves as "environmentalists" are by default, anti-nuclear. They close their minds and blankly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that nuclear energy can ever be anything other than the demon of their nightmares.

They don't ever bother with looking at data. Their minds are closed.

Maybe the names below may trigger one or two of them to re-examine their position. After all, the luminaries below changed their position based on the evidence. Maybe their example may get others to examine their position and base their position on scientific fact rather than narrow minded hysteria or what they have been told to think.

Some of these folk are well known, other less so. All are influential and independently minded.

George Monbiot - World renowned environmental Journalist used to be rabidly anti nuclear. Started to see things differently in 2009 then became publicly (and vocally) supportative of nuclear in 2011.

Patrick Moore  Co-Founder of Greenpeace. (not the fat guy who studies the moon) I gather he is generally regarded as persona non grata by our green zealot friends now. Pro nuclear 2003.

Stephen Tindale Former Director of Greenpeace. About as popular with Greenpeace today
as Patrick Moore is. Pro nuclear 2009

Hugh Montifiore one of the founders of Friends of the Earth, FOE evidently regard him with
distinct unfriendliness today ( pro nuclear 2004)

Chris Goodall Green party activist, parliamentary candidate and author. Probably a ex-Green party activist by now.

Stewart Brand  Author of "Whole earth Catalog"

Mark Lynas author "Six degrees"

Chris Smith former Labour party chairman of the Environment Agency.

Prof James Lovelock FRS. Renowned environmentalist. Author giaia hypothesis

Prof David McKay FRS  renowned Physicist and author Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air.

Dr James Hansen world famous climatologist

Prof Barry Brook renowned environmental scientist.

Jared Diamond scientist and author

So how many have gone the other way? i.e. pro/neutral to anti?

According to the BNC there appears to be only one ...

Prof Ian Lowe President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, although he reckons he changed his opinion back in the 1970's so personally I don't think that counts.

A Fitting Place for a Wind Turbine

That is (of course) - In the ditch

(full story here: In The Journal )

To be fair, the thing is just as useless in the ditch as it would be if erected, but at least in the ditch it has a lower profile.

Sadly, this is not going to stop the desecration of Northumberland with these huge ugly, ineffective and eye wateringly subsidised fashion statements.

It should though, be quite entertaining to see how they get it out of the ditch.

Either way, it is going to be expensive. I expect the crane hire boys are already booking their Caribbean holidays on the fees they will get.

One thing the average carpet bagger must appreciate is that Northumberlanders really like to ensure people know how they feel. Espcially after they see their democratic decisions steamrollered by organisations that can (and do) buy their way through the law.

So some naughty Northumberland wag decided they would make things a little clearer to the parasites.

Graffitti is a criminal offence. While it seems that desecrating Northumberland and ripping off the whole country is perfectly acceptable.

Funny that isn't it?

Kiva Micro Finance for Free!

OK My grubby little Englanders, love or hate me, HERE is a a free gift. It is not actually a gift to you. But it gives you a chance to get a handle on how Kiva micro finance works.

It is rare to get a free lunch, especially from Billothewisp, even if that free lunch is for someone else.

So give it a go. If you can - let me know what happens - even if you back out. Seriously, I do not actually know what happens next. I expect you get to sign up with KIVA but also get to loan out $25 (for free) out of an anonymous donation.

You choose who gets the money, Nobody in our government, or their government gets a look in.

Also remember, this is a loan not a gift. Expect it to be repaid. So it is not even really a gift!

OK. It's a gimmick. A way of attracting people into Kiva Micro Finance. Kiva arranges person to person loans for poor but honorable people.

In my humble opinion, if we are ever to get away from the filthy immoral debilitating and corrupt methods that currently define what is laughably known as Foreign Aid then Kiva or Kiva like solutions are the only way.

So do your own Foreign Aid.

To hell with Cameron Clegg and Milliband and their failed "Globalisation". And to hell with the the rest of the ugly face of graft, greed, and global corruption that defines modern inter-governmental Foreign Aid..

Do it HERE and do it (this time) for free.

Remember, this is not "charity" or a "gift" or a "donation".

This is a face-to-face short term loan to decent hard working people. But just this time, you get to finance  the loan for nothing.

Missed the link?  HERE it is!!

(post posting Note - Yes I finally did the sensible thing and clicked it myself to see what it looked like. here's a tip ...click on the link at the bottom of the featured load applicant, then you can see the rest of potential loanees. This is not just for one particular applicant! Front page on this offer could be better!)

The Myth of Wind Power Distribution.

Sometime back I came across the pie chart below on the REF website. This chart is formed from the analysis of OfGem wind power data for December 2010. ( Link HERE )

Nearly 50% of UK wind generated power in that month was produced by just 16 wind farms. Almost all of those were the stupedously expensive offshore variety. The other half was left to the remaining 268 wind farms across the country.

Remember, December 2010 was the month that notoriously showed wind power up for what it was, unreliable,  intermittent and failing to deliver. This pie chart also clearly nails the wind industry propaganda lie of energy distribution.

Not much distribution here is there? (Not much power either!)

Actually though there is nothing wildly unusual about this graph. A turbine built in a windy site (there are a few) will produce much more energy than the ones (i.e. most of them) built
simply to cash in on the subsidy scheme (ROC).

Over a year, very few on-shore wind farms would actually produce enough energy to be regarded as anywhere near self sustaining without the current massive subsidy known as the ROC.

These poor performing wind farms are all locked into the subsidy system for ever. There is no possibility that they can ever compete without the crutch of the ROC. Yet because of the ROC, the owners turn profits even from the utterly, desperate poor performers.

Meanwhile the very few turbines running with a Capacity Factor of about 30% are raking it in.
Instead of potentially breaking even, they are hugely and scandalously profitable - all at the expense of the consumer.

Nothing will ever get better about this. The poor performers will remain so. The good performers will continue to be grossly overpaid.

Wind turbines are capital intensive. The cost of running one of the few turbines that could just about compete, is much the same as the cost of running one of the very many dogs. Even Renewables UK used the caveat of "a good windy site" when it describes on-shore turbines as "becoming increasingly competitive". Clearly then, from both the above pie chart and even the words from RenewablesUK, if it is not a good windy site then (without the ROC) the turbines are uncompetitive. De Facto.

Nearly all on-shore turbines in the UK and especially England and the South West are uneconomic without subsidy and will always remain so.

But because of the ROC, there are huge profits to be made from on-shore wind. Profits that are usually distributed among the rich, the landed gentry, the politically aware and large faceless corporations. They all gain at the expense of the average consumer.

The wilful abuse of ROC by building turbines that can never hope to be free of subsidy is little more than a rich mans version of benefit fraud. It is a dirty little con trick that robs the deserving and stunts innovation while lining the pockets of people many would regard as fraudsters.

It is time it was stopped.

If You Tolerate This Then Your Children Will Be Next

The obscene and depraved actions of a section of the immigrant community in Rochdale, who have been involved in gang raping vulnerable children has disgusted and appalled just about everybody in the land whatever their background.  I'm not going to address the  leniency of their sentences, but Thoughts Of John does a good job about that HERE.

But what I want to address now is the apparent craven appeasemnet to the self righteous god of political correctness that prevented this obscenity from being stopped in its tracks way back in 2002. (yes .. ten years ago) see Guardian Here and Telegraph Here

It would appear that from 2002 to today, the authorities have been less concerned about the abduction, rape and brutalisation of vulnerable children than they were about offending the harridan demands of a group of immigrants who have no wish or intent of adopting the basic moral concepts that epitomise this group of countries known as the UK.

I am not particularly religious, but one outstanding image from Christiantity is how Pontius Pilate washed his hands and so betrayed an innocent man rather than offend the political correctness of his day.

It would appear that today we have many Pontius Pilates, all willing to betray the innocent to appease the harridan cries from the persecutors.

This gangrenous boil must be lanced.
This must involve a public enquiry.

This inquiry must apportion blame where it is due, especially to those who were in high office and washed their hands for political expediency - or to meet a hidden agenda. The guilty are not only the rapists. But also includes those who when in government, for political expediency, have turned a blind eye and so aided and abetted these crimes.

In 1936 a Spanish Republican Civl war poster raged against crimes against children.

The bye line to this poster was later made famous by the great Welsh Rock band "The Manic Street Preachers"

The byeline was (of course)

"If You Tolerate this, Your children will be next".

Well, In Rochdale, it looks like it was tolerated.

And yes.

Our children, our poor vulnerable children in Rochdale, were next.

China Cools on Solar PV and Wind

It has been pointed out to me that China doesn't have many hippies. That's a shame. (I like hippies). The argument goes that, as there are a lack of hippies in this centrally planned bureaucratic dictatorship then their rapid adoption of wind and solar must be solely due to good sound green economic reasons.

Sadly there now appear to be some flaws with this argument.

True, last year the amount of deployed WTG's went up by a stonking 43%. Solar PV deployment actually tripled.

Impressive Eh?

Unfortuantely the Chinese prime minister has decided to ruin the illusion. In a recent, and utterly boring speech he sidelined future wind and solar deployment.

You can read ( The whole speech here ). Just make sure you remember to keep breathing.

Alternatively you can read ( Synopsis here )

It appears that while the installation of WTGs and Solar PV has been truly stupendous, the end result is that the average output of both technologies has fallen off a cliff.

The Chinese do not like failure. It looks bad. In future, the Chinese prime minister announced, progress in renewables will be focussed on hydro. Nuclear and coal will be given a higher priority.

Sadly this was bound to happen. The hopelessly optimistic ideal that you can actually just keep piling on marginal power sources like wind or solar PV, and it will somehow someway, come good, was doomed to failure.

If this is true for China, it is also true for the UK.

Maybe there is a lesson to learn here?

Wind Power: The Devil is in the Detail

 Take a look at this table from the USA Energy Information Administration (EIA). 

(Doc Link Here)

From a first glance it looks like the MW/Hr cost of on-shore wind is actually less than that for nuclear.

Meanwhile the price of off-shore wind is the same untenable basket case that it is over here.
This off-shore nightmare really needs no further discussion now. Maybe another day.

What about the on-shore figures?

The figures are full enough to give us a really good insight into the viability of wind turbine generators (WTG's) in the UK.

This table gives the levelised (or naked - no subsidy) costs and necessary charges.

It shows the obvious - that wind has no fuel costs.
It gives a viable price for each generation technology per MW/hr
It gives a price for the capital cost and running costs., including fuel where appropriate
Crucially it also gives the capacity factor needed for achieving this price MW/hr

This table is vitally important to understanding why almost all windpower in the UK is unviable without subsidy, and also why almost all on-shore as well as off-shore wind generation  in the UK is hugely more expensive than other generation technologies.

How come? It all comes down to the capacity factor (CF) used. Here it is a whopping 34%

We know from the table that almost all of the costs of running a turbine are fixed costs. This means that a WTG generating alot of electricity is going to have (as near as dammit) the same overall costs as a similar WTG generating much less.

Obviously the more productive turbine gets paid more. Remember - the running costs are fixed.

The amount of electricity generated over a year is directly related to the CF. Double the CF - double the amount of electricity generated. Half the CF then you halve the amount of electricity generated. Double the CF = double the income and vice sa versa.

We also know (from the table) the viable price for electricity MW/hr at the given capacity factor. (CF). After all, the whole point of this table is to provide price comparisons between generation technologies.

The table tells us that the system levelised cost for an on-shore wind turbine generator (WTG) per MW/hr to be viable  is $97 per MW/hr.

To achieve this price, according to the EIA, the WTG needs to operate with a CF of 34%

The costs are fixed. If the CF drops there is no fuel saving because there is no fuel. The potential loss of revenue has to be made up by increasing the cost per MW/hr.

If the WTG was to operate at 20% CF then the price needed to break-even rockets from $97 MW/hr to  $165 per MW/hr.

The rolling average UK CF is 27%. The English rolling CF is 25%. in the SouthWest this drops to 23%. East Stoke in Dorset, the CF would be about 20%. The Reading Turbine is around 15%. If I remember correctly, the highest individual on-shore English CF was in 2009 at Workington at 32%

Clearly without the double payment from the ROC subsidy there will be very few WTG's in the UK that are viable. Yet with the double payment even the utterly crap turbines can make a profit.

Nothing is going to get better about this.

There is no magic to increase the CF or wind speed. A turbine addicted to the ROC will always be addicted to the ROC

And you will pay for it.

Is Nuclear in Decline or Not?

A mantra may have no substance yet if it is asserted enough times, people start believing it. People are especially receptive if the mantra fits in with the pre-conceptions and beliefs.
On two comments (Here & Here) I recently recieved such a mantra. No doubt the author fully believes what he has written. He is not a liar. Just a receptive victim of misinformation.

This is what commentator said:
[quote]
I would just say you should make note of what is happening in reality - long-term global decline in nuclear energy, exponential growth in renewable energy. 
[unquote]
and
[quote]
Or you can just look at the reality of what is happening all over the world. Wind is growing at an exponential rate while nuclear power is in long-term decline. 
[unquote]

On the face of it, thanks to the propaganda, that sounds plausible. By chance I was doing some more research on Fukushima and I came across this.

Fukushima Impacts Global Nuclear Generation in 2011

In this article there was a graph (reproduced below). The rest of the article was an eye opener as well.

In fact since 1971 electrcal generation by nuclear (world-wide) has been on a continuous upward trend, with a small dip starting in 2007. This upward trend was restarted in 2010 but the Japanese and German shut downs have forced the 2011 figure down by 4%.

So, far from fading away over the years, nuclear electricity generation has been steaming ahead for the last forty years, and although it has levelled off for the past few years, it continues to do so. It is in fact about to resume this upward trend, and with a vengence.

New plant has been continuously coming on line. Even in 2011 (the year of Fukushima) there was an additional 4GW of new plant (at the average global nuclear capacity factor of 80% that is 3.2GW continuous) that incidentally is the equivalent of some 6400 2MW wind turbines (running at the average global wind turbine CF of 25%.), but of course, excludes the wind intermittency and gas backup the turbines require.

The Chinese have 25 nuclear plant in build. They did suspend issuing licences for a further three due to Fukushima but that has not stopped the others.

The global deployment rate of 5 new plants per year is about to double and should reach one per month by 2015. Others are leveraging their existing plant by upgrading their generation capacity.

In 2011 beside the panic in Japan and the hysteria in Germany only one nuclear plant shut down. That was Oldham - a clapped out Magnox reactor nearly 50 years old.

So, nuclear is very far from being in decline.

I could also argue that wind, while truly undergoing a very rapid expansion is hardly going up exponentially and is wholly driven by a long term unsustainable subsidy based culture. But maybe more on that in another post.

While our politicians dither or bend to hysteria (like they did in Germany) the rest of the world is embracing modern nuclear and shows no sign of retrenching, whatever the wind industry or the fashionable green cults like the WWF and Greenpeace like to say.

But sadly, for us in the UK, the future is less clear.

Unless someone in government gets a grip, there is the distinct possibility that in a few years the country that first pioneered nuclear generation (i.e. the UK) will be unable to provide its people with reliable and on-demand electricity.

The prospect of energy shortages and blackouts get closer by the day.

James Lovelock

Today it has been reported that one of the great environmentalists of the 20th century, James Lovelock, author of the Giaia Hypothesis, has changed his opinion on Global Warming.

While he still considers that that Global Warming is happening, he now has modified and moderated his viewpoint. He has expressed an opinion that his earlier cataclysmic views were wrong. ( See Here )

He will no doubt gather a great deal of flak from both sides of the global warming debate because of this change of opinion. But really we should be praising him for adopting a true scientific and evidence based approach to the subject. Lovelock is clearly someone who is willing to review and if necessary, change his opinion if the evidence demands such a change.

Lovelock has also gathered an enormous amount of hostility due to his considered opinion that nuclear power is a necessary and highly beneficial technology and should be embraced.

Clearly he is someone who is prepared to stand out from the crowd and be guided solely by the facts as he sees them - rather than the propaganda.

I have always respected Lovelock, even though I disagreed with Lovelock's original global warming viewpoint. But I am very pleased to find the considered opinion of such a famous scientist now roughly aligns with my humble lay-mans view. Any reader of this blog will also know I whole heartedly agree with his views on nuclear power.

But neither of these viewpoints are relevent to Lovelocks position as a true scientist. A true scientist, is one who is capable of reviewing and if necessary changing their opinion. They will also do this solely based on the available evidence, and irrespective of the baying and cat-calling of the surrounding mob.

Lovelock, much to the chagrin and hostility of those more politically motivated, has shown a beacon to us all.

That beacon though, has nothing to do with Global Warming or Nuclear Power.

But everything to do with evidence based science.

We should all take note.

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.

Burning Wind Turbines Revisited

While I was away in pastures new, I witnessed a rare and catastrophic failure of a motor vehicle. It caught fire. Luckily nobody was hurt but the car burned with spectacular vigour. I only noticed this catastrophic failure because of the smoke and flames.

If the forlorn Vauxhall Vectra had merely lost its cambelt so allowing the pistons to punch the valves through the cylinder head, or if the car had crashed and rolled and had been left on the hard shoulder I probably would not have noticed. But in either case the catastrophic failure would have been just  just as complete.

Less than one car in a thousand in a year catches fire due to mechanical/electrical failure. But I place bets that one in a hundred cars will suffer a non fire catastrophic failure that reduces them to scrap.

So for every accidental car fire, at least ten others suffer a non fire catastrophic failure that reduces them to junk.

That got me thinking about the celebrated explosion and burning of the Scottish turbine during the high winds in December 2011. ( See Daily Mail Here )

We know that a burning turbine is a fairly rare event though it is very far from unique. We also know that there is a severe and apparently intractable generic gearbox problem (See Here) which affects almost all turbines in current use.

In Scotland during the storm one turbine burned. So how many others quietly suffered some catastrophe, but without the drama of flames and burning wreckage?

When a car catches fire it is usually related to the fuel system dumping fuel onto the hot exhaust. In Wind turbines the only flammable liquids are the lubricants.

As a result, I would suggest that, the ratio of wind turbines catching fire to those merely suffering
a catastrophic failure is smaller than the same ratio for cars. That is what I would suspect anyway. (Anyone disagree? and why?)

For cars statistically, for every one that burns more than ten others catastrophically fail without the flames.  A ration of 1:10 (worst case)

For wind turbines a ratio of 1:20 possibly 1:30 would appear to be more appropriate. Maybe it is higher, say 1:50. Who knows? (nobody is telling)

So the (excuse the pun) the burning question is:

How many turbines got quietly taken out by the storm in December 2011?

 If this were cars, from one burning car you would suspect that 10 or more would have failed.

We know from ( Here ) that these large turbines have a really severe reliability problem with their gearboxes. I would therefore suggest that 20 possibly or 30 turbines suffered catastrophoc failure due this this one severe (though not unusual) storm.

This is of course supposition, but I do not think the operators are likely to be telling us any more information soon. So this analogy is as good as any.

The final thought on this is how many turbines would we lose if we had a 1987 severity storm?

Of course in the 1987 storm and other severe storms there was a great deal of damage to the electrical supply infrastructure as well. With this insane expansion of the wind turbine fleet, we are going to end up with hundreds upon hundreds of extra miles of extra grid to maintain. A great deal of this pyloning and cabling will be cutting across our open countryside and is going to be difficult to maintain at the best of times, let alone where large sections of the grid are knocked out.

So next time you see a burning turbine remember it is just be the tip of the iceberg.

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.

Doing the Right Thing (Not)

Early today, some poor soul in the planning department at Purbeck District Council made a mistake. They probably typed in the wrong reference number for some abandoned planning appeal. The mistake was soon picked up on and corrected.

But in the short time window where the wrong planning application was re-labelled as "Appeal Withdrawn", one of the many people who live in the shadow of Planning application - 6/2010/0082 (HERE)  noticed it had been changed on the website. Along with many other supporters of the people of East Stoke, I received an email.

Such is their concern, such is their dread.

The local people actually check the planning site on a daily basis in hope that Infinergy will do the decent thing and withdraw their appeal.

But no such luck. No such decency. No such respect for local democracy.

Just a typing error and a little bit of forlorn hope by the good people of East Stoke.

If you read this blog regularly, you know how I rage against the technically illiterate doctrinaire buffoons who prop up this wind turbine farce. Especially those who are willing to sell out their neighbours for their quasi-religious ideology and/or 30 pieces of silver.

You must know how I loathe the carpet bagging money sharks who will trample over anyone to get their hands on the filthy lucre known as the ROC.

Particularly, you know how I rale against wishful thinking. 

But today, wishful thinking or not, I will not be criticising my friends in East Stoke. Especially as they realistically assessed this as a probable PDC error in the first place.

But still, this morning they hoped against hope that Infinergy had actually done something moral. Something that showed respect for local democracy. Especially something that would have shown some regard for the people who live in the shadow of their ugly money making scheme.

But no. It was just some typing error at County Hall.

I do not expect anyone in East Stoke really believed that Infinergy would do the decent thing.

They were not wrong.

Although no doubt, they were dissapointed.

German Companies Dump UK Nuclear

RWE and EON have pulled out of building new nuclear plants in the UK. (See Telegraph Here)

It is perhaps unsurprising as both companies have been financially crippled by the German decision to shut down their nuclear plants. Both companies are faced with a massive drop in income as their German plants languish. This is the income they were relying on for the next 20+ years to pay for the investment in UK nuclear. Essentially RWE and EON say they now lack the cash for the up front investment in the UK nuclear facilities.

They will also have to pay out for early decommissioning of their German plant. So while the Horison consortium is obliged to keeping to its Finnish commitments for nuclear plant
they have found that legally they can pull out of the large up front commitment in the UK with virtual impunity.

While it is easy to see their financial reasoning, this clearly leaves a big hole in power supply for the UK. It also perhaps shows the stupidity of allowing strategic industries to fall into the clutches of foreign companies. Especially when their commitment to the UK is essentially controlled by a foreign government. (This incidentally applies to all generation technology not just nuclear)

So, we live in interesting times.

Maybe the Horison consortium will be picked up by EDF or others. Again foreign companies controlling our strategic industries.

Then maybe we could simply not build the nuclear plants.

We desperately need reliable, dependable and dispatchable power generation. We have already wasted far too much time and money on unviable an ineffective energy daydreams.

If we were to walk way from these two proposed nuclear sites the most likely outcome is that we would have to adopt the German post nuclear strategy and build more coal plant. Maybe with the potential of the Lancashire shale gas field we could build more gas instead.

Either way we slide backwards.

For the last 20 years we have been living in a dreamworld where strategic industrial investment has been dictated by the technically illiterate, ideological bigotry and wishful thinking.

Instead of relying of foreign companies, who are in turn controlled by foreign governments, maybe it is time we took responsibility and did it for ourselves.

You know - Just for a change - and before it is too late.

U.S.S Prince of Wales?

The two Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers, currently being built, were originally costed at £3.9 Billion. That was the proposed completion cost. There was a a potential small increase for the fitting of a catapult launching system if things went wrong with the JSF35 VSTOL aircraft.

The price is now £7 Billion and is likely to top out at £10 Billion. (Robert Peston Here)

That is a hell of alot of money for two new British ships. But it gets worse.

The Americans have consistently blocked access to aspects of the design of the (supposedly jointly designed) JSF F35 aircraft. These are the primary aircraft that these two carriers are supposed to operate.

It now appears that these carriers will also have an area for the sole use of US personnel, into which RN personnel will not be permitted. This on a supposedly UK sovereign ship. ( Telegraph Here )

Are these really going to be bona-fide British ships? Or are they really going to be mere proxies for the American navy. The current controversy over whether they will take the VSTOL version of the JSF35 or the conventionally launched version revolves around the fact that the USA will only operate the conventional variant.

It seems that the USA is quite keen to be able to deploy their own aircraft on these two British flagged carriers. Hence they are pushing hard to get the current VSTOL configuration changed.

There is also a possibility that the VSTOL version of the JSF35 will get cancelled under the feet of the RN. A situation reminiscent of the SkyBolt debacle in the early 60's.(Cabinet Papers Here)

There are a aspects of this I think we should all find really alarming.

1. Cost overrun. If you ordered a house extension for 30k and the end result was an extension costing 100K  you also found your neighbour had rights over occupancy would you be happy? Or would you call in the Fraud Squad?

2. National Sovereignty. However much the USA would like to have us as pet poodle, and however much certain sections o the UK administration love playing the lapdog, we really ensure that command and control of our national defence assets rests solely with the UK. We would be better off without either of these ships rather than merely being the "approved" operator for the real owner.

It would be an outrage if we ended up spending £10 billion simply to provide the USA with a diplomatic smoke screen so they can deploy their aircraft under the guise of the flag of convenience.

Of course an even bigger travesty would be that the owner of that flag of convenience would be us.

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.

FrackNation

Heres an opportunity to become an executive producer of a documentary (on a budget). Not only that it gives you the chance to bust a few myths about shale gas.

This proposed documentary on the realities of shale gas will not stop the misinformation and outright lies being propagated by its opponents.

But hey, it's a bloody good start. You can join the conspiracy HERE. (I'm in for $10.00)

Watch the trailer below (h/t to the The Filthy Engineer )

An Irish Lament

hat-tip to caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/

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.

Wind Power - Another Damning Report

RenewablesUK and the government have really thrown their toys out of the pram over the latest energy report by the AF Mercados engineering consultancy.  (  Title: Powerful Targets - Link Here* )

The original version of the report was originally due to be published by KPMG last year. Consequently it held a very high profile. But contents of the report were so explosive KPMG bottled out. The report was suppressed at the last moment.

According to KPMG this had nothing to do with any pressure from the government, RenewablesUK or their many wind farm clients. They said the report was so complex it was open to misinterpretation. Hmmm - thats believable (not).

The engineering firm who did the research for KPMG has decided to publish anyway.

According to the government and RenewablesUK (the wind industry trade body), AF Mercados produced a simplistic and shoddy report.

Bearing in mind AF Mercados is a large and highly respected international firm of consulting engineers - obviously with enough status to be hired by KPMG, that hardly seems likely does it?

Of course, if this was the only report detailing the absurd squandering of resources that epitomise wind power then we all may be forgiven for treating the report sceptically.

But this is very far from the first report.

Go back a few weeks. There was a damning report by Civitas ( Title: Electricity Costs. the Folly of Wind Power - Link Here.)  RenewablesUK, obviously lacking any reasoned defence of their position, blamed the report on "Cranks"

Then there was the report by Stuart Young Consulting for the environmental group the John Muir Trust (roughly a Scottish equivalent of the CPRE). ( Title: Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation - Link Here.) Scottish Renewables announced they had no confidence in the Stuart Young figures (no surprise there then)

Previous to these there was a report by Royal Academy of Engineers (Title: The Cost Of Generating Electricity - Link Here) which detailed the horrific cost associated with wind power compared to other generation techniques. It looks like the wind sector ignored this damning report completely and simply hoped it would go away.

Four separate and detailed reports by four independent and highly respected bodies.

Each independant report presents a damning vision of current government policy. Each report displays how hopelessly ineffective and how unaffordable wind turbines are.

They all display the wind industry as an industry gripped by a gold rush. An industry squandering our money and resources on what is little more than a fashion statement.

Have a good read.

-------
* if this link to the AF Consult document (hosted on "businessgreen") mysteriouly breaks, drop me a note and I'll make my copy available directly
------

Raspberry Pi

A great little SBC (single board computer) has been launched. It has had a long an arduos gestation lasting several years, but this little SBC  is a magnificent achievement. It has been designed and developed in Cambridge by the Raspberry Pi foundation.

See Here
RS Components Here
Farnell Here

You can get one for £25. (that's right - twenty five quid)

 So what? You may say. What is so special about just "another" computer. Believe me, this little SBC is far from being just another pile of electronics. It promises to revolutionise both the teaching and implementation of electronics/computing in our schools, colleges and industry.

You will be seeing it in schools within a year and then in home brewed products shortly afterwards. Where better to start than with the educational market? But that is merely the tip of the ice burg. Believe me this is not just a load of hype. This thing will fly.

But great as this is there is one downside that needs debating.

The talented and creative folk who created this breakthrough wanted to build the initial boards in this country. Good for them. But they couldn't.

The main reason?

The brick wall to getting these things made here revolved around the price of components.

 If they were built and fully assembled in China then there would be no import Tax when bringing them into this country.

But if they were built here, then the components would have been subject to import tax on entry and so would have pushed up the price of the finished boards to a much higher and unsustainable price.

 A case of tax breaks for the Chinese at the expense of UK industry.

 What a shame.

 But even so, this is a great achievement full of promise for the future.

I haven't been able to get one yet - they are sold out (grrrrr)

Bad Engineering and Premature Technology

Taken from "The Times" (letters to the Editor) today.....

[quote]
I am most worried by the billions of pounds being misinvested and lost as a consequence.

Look out to sea at the end of 2015 and see how many windmills are not turning and you will get my point: there are already 14,000 abandoned windmills onshore in the US.

Premature technology deployment is thoroughly bad engineering, and my taxes are subsidising it against my will and professional judgement.

Professor Michael Kelly 
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge
[unquote]


That just about says it all really.

The Ghost of Winfrith

Today it is hard to believe that just outside Winfrith, a small village in Dorset, there used to be one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced locations in the world. All there is now is a fading building, some rusty sidings and a halting and occasional de-commissioning exercise.

The decommisioning is run by RSRL, or to give it it's full name - Research Sites Restoration Ltd - See Here. The old Winfrith site is set among trees and is well back from the road. Today most drive past without even noticing it.

Winfrith was a nuclear  research facility but it never held a large reactor. The largest was a mere tiddler with a maximum power rating of 63 MW.

Even though this was designed specifically for research purposes it still provided a useful, regular and reliable output to the grid of 50MW.

While it was in operation, Winfrith was serviced by many small companies all based in the surrounding area. These companies were in turn serviced by other small companies providing everything from stainless steel to sandwiches.

Today the remains of the once dynamic industrial site between Winfrith and Wool, now renamed Dorset Green, is a mere shadow of its former self. Most of the jobs, along with the carbon free power generation from the Winfrith reactor are long gone.

It is interesting to compare the effectiveness of the 60 year old Winfrith research reactor to recent plans for so called "renewable" energy in Dorset.

Last year the Dorset Energy Group were bragging about a "reasonable scenario" of building 180 2MW turbines in Dorset. Frustratingly for the zealots in the DEG this number has evidently now been trimmed down, or at least obfuscated so not to frighten the locals.

Let's say the 100 turbines would now be their dream target.

We know that in 2010 the wind turbine capacity factor for the South West was a measly 17.7% (the lowest in the country). But let us round it up and say that these turbines would be over 10% better than their peers elsewhere in the South West.

That gives us a capacity factor of about 20%.

So the output of these 100 turbines would actually amount to 100 x 0.2 x 2 = 40MW.

These turbines would bring very few jobs and no technologically based business park. Virtually nothing would be added to the local economy. The only real local gains would be made by the already rich land owners who, to be fair, would make a killing.

These 100 turbines would utterly ruin the ancient county of Dorset. Every village would be blighted. Every viewpoint would be polluted.

All for 40MW.

Reduce the number of turbines and you also reduce the already ridiculously poor power output. So they get even more ineffective. Though collectively somewhat less ugly.

Now compare that to the old Winfrith site that provided many good jobs and singlehandedly provided the power equivalent to 120 huge wind turbines. Remember also that the tiny Winfrith reactor also provided consistent on-demand output unlike the intermittent and unpredictable wind turbine output.

Most of the people who designed Winfrith have not only retired but many have now died of old age. Yet 60 odd years ago they produced plentiful carbon free electricity that was, at the time, generated by the very leading edge of technology.

If you really wanted to reduce carbon emissions from coal and gas plant then even the old Winfrith research reactor would be a step forward from the wind turbine fiasco.

But today far more effective nuclear technology is available. Exciting new developments with MSR or LFTR technology promise massively plentiful yet utterly safe and secure power generation.

The next generation nuclear reactors will be developed by dynamic establishments - like Winfrith used to be.

Unfortunately Winfrith will no longer be one of them.