A new analysis of wind energy supplied to the UK National Grid in recent years has shown that wind farms produce significantly less electricity than had been thought, and that they cause more problems for the Grid than had been believed.
The report (28-page PDF/944 KB) was commissioned by conservation charity the John Muir Trust and carried out by consulting engineer Stuart Young. It measured electricity actually metered as being delivered to the National Grid.
[...]
It gets worse, too, as wind power frequently drops to almost nothing. It tends to do this quite often just when demand is at its early-evening peak:
At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.
And unfortunately the average capacity over time is pulled up significantly by brief windy periods. Wind output is actually below 20 per cent of maximum most of the time; it is below 10 per cent fully one-third of the time. Wind power needs a lot of thermal backup running most of the time to keep the lights on, but it also needs that backup to go away rapidly whenever the wind blows hard, or it won't deliver even 25 per cent of capacity.
Do they have telephones yet in the UK? There must be some way to get word to our own politicians.
h/t TimR
They have telephones, but you need to crank them during the early-evening peak.
Posted by: Duncan at April 9, 2011 3:15 PMI guess this explains why Denmark who jumped on the wind bandwagon earlier them most decided about a year back that they were not building any more 'giant fans' or was it because wind generation on a big national scale was the most expensive form of energy generation. Perhaps if the greenies had let the British government build a nuclear power plant a few years back the country wouldn't be in this impending crisis. The poor sods.
Posted by: Rob at April 9, 2011 3:16 PMWho would have thought?
Does McGuinty know and even more important, locally at least, does Sask Power know, or do they have their heads you know where?
Posted by: Ken (Kulak) at April 9, 2011 3:24 PMGraft is the lube that keeps spreading these
useless "green" machines to areas where they
are a complication rather than a benefit.
.
Suzuki lied - babies will die!
Extensive reliance on windfarms will create rolling blackouts because we cannot control the wind.
Headlines may read some day - Neonatal Unit shutdown due to lack of power, caused by a lull in wind.
Murphys law says the baby concieved while power off will be born 9 months later under same circumstances.
Never mind the babies dying in China where the metal required for producing super magnets is mined.
Posted by: DennisK at April 9, 2011 3:42 PMFunny. Scanning the article, I distinctly remember having read -exactly- the same analysis here at SDA on many occasions. Sometimes written by me. It wasn't hard to figure out, given a high-school level understanding of electricity, weather and having wired a couple cars and a house or two.
If an airbrush artist and a house painter/PT can figure out the major faults of the wind generator concept, but the government went ahead and spent billions doing it anyway, I think it is an inescapable conclusion that the government process which lead to the wind power decision was deeply -corrupt-, and the people doing the deciding were deeply corrupt as well.
They knew it couldn't work, and that it would cause massive damage to the power grid and therefore to Canadian society which is based on reliable electric power. Massive damage being the city of Toronto without power for a month or two because the windmills blew up every transformer and melted every power line that supplies the city. And they went ahead and -did-it-anyway-.
So now, all you guys and gals who think you wanna vote Christian Party or spoil your ballot because the CPC ain't conservative enough to suit you, or they didn't move fast enough on the gun registry, or whatever your beef is. Just consider for a moment the atrocious, heinous moral turpitude it takes to spend BILLIONS of tax dollars on a system which you -know- will destroy essential, life supporting infrastructure for millions of people in your own country. During a recession, to add insult to injury.
I challenge any Liberal supporter to do more than fling poo in defense of this national disgrace. Flame on.
Posted by: The Phantom at April 9, 2011 3:42 PMWe don't need no stinkin' Gore.
...-
"Clueless over global warming?
CBS News - Valerie Ross - Apr 8, 2011
Snowfall across 30 US States last week followed by the aftermath of the Groundhog Day blizzard shows snow from the Great Plains to New England.
UN Goal of Limiting Global Warming Is Nearly Impossible, Researchers Say Science Now
Climate models go cold National Post (registration)"
http://news.google.ca/
OTOH,
Mrs. Liberal Citoyen Kyoto Dionky:
"Dion's wife goes rogue?"
(G-M)
Related from your neighbours in Alberta.
http://lce.folc.ca/2011/04/08/altalinks-2011-report-to-communities/
And as Albertan we don't have to wait for a scientist to figure out how useless wind energy is we can observe that in near real time here.
http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market/Reports/CSDReportServlet
Had a customer at our retail window show me his picture of a constant 30 mph wind - the outlet from a high rise HVAC! He told me he could put a 1kW turbine out there.
He was a customer, so I didn't want to start an argument with him, but I got to thinking:
1 kWh in Texas = 15 cents
Assuming 24/7 availability, that's 24 * 365 *.015 = $1314 per year. He wants $10k for the install. I'll bet he gets the deal, as 9 year paybacks don't seem unreasonable to some. I'm willing to bet it never pays for itself.
Posted by: KevinB at April 9, 2011 5:31 PM"...and that they cause more problems for the Grid than had been believed."
My father as a HVDC transmission & electrode consulting engineer contributed to some wind power feasibility studies for the UK (in Ireland specifically I believe) over 10 years ago. This was all predicted, they just chose to ignore it.
Posted by: ChrisinMB at April 9, 2011 6:26 PMKevin, there's still a net loss in energy in the system, as the turbine will interfere with the exhaust of the HVAC. So yes, he can make a profit if he's selling all the electricity back to the grid at some hugely subsidized rate. If he's using it himself, his overall consumption will increase, because the losses in the HVAC motor will exceed greatly the production from the turbine.
Posted by: cgh at April 9, 2011 7:39 PMThe GE is feeling some bite...2011 Shareholder proposal #4 that demands disclosure (Re AGW fraud)
of GE's Business Risk (layes out the whole non-scientific issue well) has a company recommendation against the proposal..
(I can't find the On-line version of 2011Ge Annual meeting or Proxy Statements, I am reading from personal shareholder hard copy)
A Related Complaint:
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=ind_focus.story&STORY=/www/story/04-05-2007/0004560479&EDATE=THU+Apr+05+2007,+11:02+AM
and that they cause more problems for the Grid than had been believed.
None of this is any surprise to the Grid Control and Generation folks in Saskatchewan at SaskPower but as is typical, the guys on the ground with the actual experience are never consulted. Wind is a political option not a green one and we will pay dearly for any generation produced from it. Unfortunately the actual costs don't seem to get in the news much.
Posted by: wafer at April 9, 2011 8:14 PM"...the guys on the ground with the actual experience are never consulted. "
Often they are initially, but when findings aren't favorable other consultants are hired until the bureaucrats hear what they want. The unfavorable reports are quietly filed away never to seen or spoke of again.
Posted by: ChrisinMB at April 9, 2011 9:02 PMSlap Shot, I would be very interested to hear if that Shareholder Proposal 4 actually gets to the floor and is passed at the AGM.
Chrisin, all too true. When the Ontario government didn't like what the Ontario Power Authority's supply plan said, they buried the reports and terminated the Ontario Energy Board review process in 2008, replacing it with the Green Energy Act. Same thing that the Dippers did in the early '90s when they killed in mid-hearing Ontario Hydro's Demand-Supply Plan.
Posted by: cgh at April 9, 2011 9:29 PMSlap Shot, I would be very interested to hear if that Shareholder Proposal 4 actually gets to the floor and is passed at the AGM.
It will be voted on! It has been disclosed to every shareholder & GE Directer's.. Will it pass? That doesn't really matter to shareholders as GE can/will be the target of a Class Action if they fail to disclose the failure of AGW, and it's DOA.. How will GE prevent a total loss, dump
dump & dump...It always was a bottem line issue
Another classical and pricey example of the woodenheadedness of governments.
Posted by: rockyt at April 10, 2011 12:17 AMObviously the study did nit account for unicorn farts which, in actuality, balance the books quite nicely thank you.
Posted by: Tim in vt at April 10, 2011 12:46 AMGE Proxy 2011
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ge.com%2Far2010%2Fproxy.html&ei=0jmhTa-qEMLSgQfw9OzlBQ&usg=AFQjCNHQhITRZl8d3T4IUttMdUXupm7i5A
• Shareowner Proposal No. 4—Climate Change Risk Disclosure The National Center for Public Policy Research, 501 Capital Court, N.E., Suite 200, Washington, DC 20002, has notified us that its representative intends to present the following proposal at this year’s meeting:
Resolved: The shareholders request that the Board of Directors prepare by October 2011, at reasonable expense and omitting proprietary information, a report disclosing the business risk related to developments in the scientific, political, legislative and regulatory landscape regarding climate change.
Supporting Statement
In 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued interpretive guidance on disclosure requirements regarding developments relating to climate change. Codifying SEC guidance would fully comply with the candid disclosure of business risks that is embedded in SEC policy and it would serve in the best interest of the company and shareholders.
GE will be materially affected by developments concerning climate change. Demand for the company’s renewable energy products is significantly driven by government action based on the hypothesis that industrial activity principally through the emissions of greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.
Changes in the climate science and the prospects for related government action will affect our company.
The quality, integrity and accuracy of global warming science has been called into question:
Documents and emails released from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in late 2009 exposed vulnerabilities in the reliability and objectivity of key information provided to the United Nations’ influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
In 2010, the IPCC acknowledged its Nobel Prize-winning 2007 report on which significant government initiatives rely included inaccuracies and exaggerated claims based on questionable data sources.
Changes in the political landscape bring uncertainty to business plans based on government action on climate change:
GE relies on government action such as the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation to obtain certain financial advantages from climate change-related investments. A company document highlighting the importance of the legislation stated, “On climate change, we were able to work closely with key authors of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, recently passed by the House of Representatives. If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses.”
The pending transfer of the U.S. House of Representatives from Democrat to Republican control in January 2011 reduces the likelihood that any cap-and-trade legislation will be adopted by Congress. Failure of cap-and-trade to become law constitutes a business risk. Government fiscal considerations can affect business plans: Demand for the company’s renewable energy products is affected by government subsidies but this source of funding can suddenly be reduced or eliminated. For instance, budget deficits in European countries resulted in subsidy cuts for wind and solar energy, creating uncertainty for investors.
Shareholders need transparency and full disclosure to be able to fully evaluate the business risk associated with developments in the scientific, political, legislative and regulatory landscape regarding climate change.
Put simply a power grid is much like the root system of a tree....except it is distributing rather than gathering....
It involves large conductors from major generators to smaller and smaller conductors which branch of the the users....sometimes a bit difficult to control...the 1965 BIG BLACKOUT is an example.
Trying to insert a multitude of small, variable, disbursed, generators into this barely managable system is a recipe for disaster.
The usual glib answer to this is THE SMART GRID....yeah right...beam me up Scotty.
Posted by: sasquatch at April 10, 2011 2:22 PMA half-ton windmill blade landing on you is as deadly as a twelve sievert radiation dose.
Posted by: Geoarrge at April 11, 2011 1:07 AM