Is wind energy green or cheap? You decide.
jazejas@googlemail.com wrote:
> windfarms are fast becoming popular sights around our lush country and
> i for one support them fully! they are an environmentally friendly way
> of creating free energy and as much as people think they are an eye
> sore to look at, well i think they are a feat of modern ingenuity.
By 2015, National Grid estimates that electricity generators will have to be
capable of supplying almost twice as much electricity than is needed to meet
projected UK demand. At a time when we are being told by the Government that
controlling C02 emissions is of paramount importance, 4.2% of the additional
capacity will be met by new coal-fired stations, and 17.4% by new CCGT
plants, and almost all of that extra conventional generating capacity will
be necessary simply because we're covering the countryside in wind turbines.
Investment in renewable sources of energy such a wind farms and the 'hot
standby' sources required to support them will push Britain's installed
power base from the existing 76 GW to 120 GW by 2014/15 according to figures
published by the UK energy distribution company. Yet during the renewable
expansion period, demand is only expected to grow by as little as 1.3% per
annum, from 61.4GW to 67.3 GW.
Is wind power really green?
Hardly. Intermittency is the problem; unfortunately the wind doesn't blow
all the time and that has predictable, if poorly publicised, consequences.
According to National Grid, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW of conventional
capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired
without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due
to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind
increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced
without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25GW of wind
only 5GW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be
retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity
that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy
production. It follows that the electricity market will need to maintain in
service a larger proportion of conventional generation capacity despite
reduced load factors.
No wonder we need to increase our installed generating capacity to
accommodate renewables. The net increase in capacity required to ensure
security of supply, according to the National Grid Seven Year Statement,
will be made up of the following:
a.. an increase of 13.9GW in CCGT (gas fired) capacity (17.4%);
b.. an increase of 6.2GW in onshore wind generation capacity (7.8%);
c.. an increase of 2.5GW in offshore wind generation capacity (3.2%);
d.. an increase of 3.3GW in coal generation capability (4.2%);
e.. an increase of 1.8GW in new import capability (2.3%)
f.. an increase of 402MW in Biomass capacity (0.5%);
g.. an increase of 108MW in Hydro capacity (0.1%); and
h.. a decrease of 1.45GW in Nuclear Magnox capacity (1.8%).
So that's in increase of 11% in our generating capacity to be provided by
wind farms, alongside an increase of 21.6% in 'conventional' sources of
capacity i.e. gas and coal. Does that make sense to you?
Is wind power cheap power?
No, frankly it isn't. It's not just me saying it. "Without the renewable
obligation certificates nobody would be building wind farms." (Paul Golby,
the chief executive of E.ON UK, Daily Telegraph 26/03/2005).
The Renewables Obligation (RO) is the Government's principal policy
instrument to encourage the development of the renewable electricity sector.
It is an indirect subsidy system drawing funds from consumer bills, and
passing them to renewable electricity generators. This currently amounts to
£1 billion a year, an amount which will have to rise significantly to fund
the construction and development of these wind farms. It is already
projected that by its conclusion in 2027 it will have totalled around £32
billion; a figure which could well be far too low.
Let's be clear about this. This is not the Government's money, it's yours
and mine. It's part of the increased price we pay for electricity; energy
prices artificially raised for that specific purpose, and it's given away to
the 'renewables' operators to subsidise what would otherwise be an
uneconomic form of generation .
The uncomfortable truth is that wind power is the most expensive form of
electricity generation.
The Royal Academy of Engineering has calculated that: the cost of
electricity generated by nuclear power (including the cost of
decommissioning) is 2.3p per KWh; coal-fired electricity costs 2.5p per KWh;
the cost of electricity generated by onshore wind is 5.4p per KWh; the cost
of electricity generated by offshore wind is 7.2p per KWh. In other words,
the cheapest form of wind power is two and a half times the cost of nuclear
or coal power, the first of which is a carbon free baseload energy source.
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 10:05:46 +0100
author: Falcon
|
