Yes these windmills that are generating , seemingly at low cost, clean energy.
Or are they?
How many of the currently installed windfarms are achieving 30% of their designed capacity?
What are the actual economics of these things?
Is the cost per kilowatt hour reasonable?
Was the planning permission obtained in an above board manner?
Are subsidies being paid?
Who is paying them?
How much do they amount to in £/kwh?
Will they stop?
I think answers to these questions are crucial and should be understood by all.
It is seriously alleged that this so called "green energy" is in fact cost wise a black hole and is being heavily subsidized and furthermore very few wind farms are remotely achieving a 30% of design capacity which is considered acceptable for an installation of this type.
A quick reply to the subsidy query.
Prof. Ian Fells, one of the world’s leading experts on renewable energy, states that behind the building of windfarms is a gold rush, created by a government struggling to meet its own renewable energy targets. It has led to developers racing to build turbines with little care for the environment. The real profit comes from the sale of renewable obligations certificates (ROC s), that ingenious hidden subsidy. A wind farmer is allowed to create one ROC for every 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity generated, potentially 2628 ROCs each year for each I MW turbine installed using a load factor of 30% for onshore wind. eg A 4 MW wind farm over 25 years and assuming one ROC is worth £50.The subsidy of £4x25x50 x2628= £13,140,000.
Certificates can be sold to the big electricity suppliers, who need them to prove to the government that some of their electricity comes from renewable sources.
Comment: This 'HIDDEN SUBSIDY' termed a levy by developers is paid for by the consumers.
Can anyone refute the claim that more energy can be generated if half the old watermills were put back into action as electricity generators than is actually produced by all the proposed wind farms? A quick calculation suggests that the claim is valid. The original article also claimed that a major obstacle was the paperwork needed. I have seen the file on one abandoned attempt and it was certainly a weighty folder displaying a treasure-trove of bureaucratic insanity that I had to admit was hilarious in spite of the serious implications. If I understood one bit correctly the water board was even allowed to charge for the water passing through the turbine as if it was used.
We are not talking huge subsidies here just removing an obstacle course.
If you want free energy the moon gives it to us twice daily.
Theres a lot of water lifted with each tide. You dont need a dam and reservoir for hydroelectric power. Plenty of large bays that could be walled in to harness tidal power.
2004 Planning for Wind Energy A workshop for the North East Region, supported by Government and Industry THIS WAS ONE OF A SERIES OF REGIONAL CONFERENCES FOR COUNCILLORS AND LOCAL PLANNERS
A New Industry for Britain:
Government Policy and Commitment to Renewable Energy Dr Cameron Stewart, Deputy Director, DTI Energy Group.
Dr Stewart presented the Energy White Paper, published in February last year, the most positive statement on renewable energy by a UK Government. The Government has also set targets for renewable energy, which the regions have an obligation to meet.
Comment: Did not the Energy White Paper EWP stress reducing consumption through efficiency and conservation measures, also development of primarily marine renewables, offshore wind wave and tidal power? (Extract from my response to PPS22 consultation)
Although i can not claim to know the full details of whether big wind turbine are viable.
I can see the benefits of small scale systems around 5kW. I personally would love to install one, but when you consider that they cost in the region of £15,000 to install, and that this is the size you would need to become any where near self sufficent.
I do realise that there are considerably lower watt systems, but most of these do not qualify for any grant and do not produce very much electric and you would still need to be "on grid". Some of the smaller ones (I understand such as Divid's) have to be attached to the house, which for me is impractical, and is reported to be damaging to the house structure due to vibration.
I does beg the question though of why the current grant has just been cut again! although more money has been allocated to clear sykes, less is available for each household come on Green David stand up, get a sound bite on this. Increase the level's for people who want to be green.
Based on my current usuage of electric and gas it would take me 30 years to repay the cost of becomeing self sufficent in elctric energy, by the way I already use small panels for powering out house lighting and electric fencing for my Pigs and Chickens.
As someone has coined recently its not easy being green
Lizabeth, an article for you in the latest edition (#1184) of Private Eye ('In the Back'). Unfortunately, the article is NOT available online, the title is:
Highlands gets a new wind farm – courtesy of a convicted forger
I learned quite a lot and that, if the Severn Barrage ever happens it's potential is huge (8.7Gw)
However there many problems. One of them is objections from the environmental lobby. There will be the constant need for
dredging and expensive mainternance.
Also and probably very significantly is the will and cost of doing it. In latter years Britain doesn't do big projects well (have you noticed? Wembley, Millenium Dome... Do you have faith Coe and Livingstone will deliver the Olympics? The exception seems to be Terminal 5)
Well anyway... hey Tidal power, Way to go. Less imposing than the damn windmills anyway.
The beauty of tidal is it just happens, no need for it to be sunny or windy, twice a day regular as clockwork. Turbines as the tide comes in, turbines as the tide goes out.
It does not need to be land based either. Mind you a barrier across the channel would have served two purposes if it carried a roadway on top.
But as you say we don't do big engineering anymore. Gone is the pioneering spirit. Could have created a lot of jobs but they would not have been civil servants so gov would not approve.
Well jonji terminal 5 is the air industry not government that's why they want to clip its wings. It shows them up all the time. It consistently offers the customer more for less money not less for more.
Some related information on Brown, Barker and BWEA for interest.
Will Brown favour economics at the expense of the environment? The Government is proposing sweeping changes to the planning system based on The Barker Review review, a review with a strong economic bias. and one which the wind Industry sees as the key to wind energy development*
Gordon Brown confirmed in a speech to the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) on 15 May that the Planning White Paper will be published on Monday 21 May.Brown told the CBI that, 'an effective and efficient planning system is for investment, and following the reports by Kate Barker and Rod Eddington, we will next Monday publish our Planning and then next Wednesday Energy White Paper'
Planning reform provides key to wind energy delivery 5/12/06 BWEA today welcomed the Barker Review’s findings and recommendations........
Comment:I worry as to how many consultations leading to Papers such as the PWP and the EWP are people really aware of?
Here is one I didn't do earlier as I missed it!
It is the climate change PPS1 supplement,a material planning consideration. stresses BWEA ,who urge planning authoriries to implement its recommendations as soon as possible.
The PPS1 can be found on line at communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1505140
Tidal Energy.
No need for Tidal barrages they are out of date technology now.
Best approach is a simple turbine in the fast tidal streams, deep offshore is good but estuarine sites can be useful.
They turn slowly so no impact on fish etc. But shipping and fishing nets must avoid them. Ideal in SSSI protected areas.
Eventual cost expected to be about the same as offshore wind, but, power source is reliable, so 100% utilization, except for mech outages.
Engineering still at pilot stage and some bugs to be sorted.
UK has massive tidal resources enough to power the whole country.
Problems:
Lack of government funding support,
Terrible planning & approval system. At least 7 seperate approvals and licences have to be granted and in some areas there may be more.
But the system is far more realistic and cost effective than wind or wave.
2 Things, You can bet that these proposals and white papers are going to be a huge surprize to everybody. Nobody has seen them and we know Brown keeps things close to his chest.
Secondly I am not so sure that Tidal Barrages are no longer the way but certainly the advantages of just having free floating turbines in a stream is evident.
The difficulty is always going to be coping with the reaction of Sea Water on the turbines gives electrolysis and the fouling that occurs.
But this is where we can trust to the human spirit's ingenuity. Just hope the cost can be kept down to make them practical. (Without dirty tricks and huge subsidies)
No problem with reaction to salt water, the Material Scientists have sorted that.
The fouling issues as far as organics are concerned are sorted, waterborne debris (silt) is a design/engineering issue.
If you think about the construction issues it is obvious that just installing the generating capacity without a great big damn, is a much better and environmentally friendly approach.
There have been trials with tethered free floating turbines but best results have been achieved with bottom mounted units.
Installation & maintenance costs are expected to be similar to offshore wind when the technology matures, but output considerably higher, closer to 98%, than the current 30% of installed capacity we get from wind.
Glynne,Jonjii
Some information to show how the situation has been cleverly manipulated.
A leaflet distributed by NAREC at their Blyth launch in Feb 2005, refers to a speech by the PM, Environment the next steps. It was selective and did not convey the full message. They would not let me go but did send the 'hand outs' at my request.
“Green technologies are on the verge of becoming one of the next waves in the knowledge economy revolution. The global market for environmental goods and services is projected to rise to £440 billion by 2010. Shell estimates that 50% of the world's energy needs could be met by renewables by 2050. Wind power is already a £1.5 billion industry. I want Britain to be a leading player in this coming green industrial revolution. PM Environment the next steps.
Comment: The paragraph from which the above was extracted follows. Note the reference to offshore wind, wave-energy and tidal power, that are not mentioned above. I believe it thus served to promote wind above other technologies.
But if we are actually to halt the process we need to be much more radical. In particular we need to put business, technology and environmental protection in harness together. Green technologies are on the verge of becoming one of the next waves in the knowledge economy revolution.The global market for environmental goods and services is projected to rise to £440 billion by 2010. Shell estimates that 50% of the world's energy needs could be met by renewables by 2050. Wind power is already a £1.5 billion industry. By 2010 the global solar market could be worth up to £150 billion.I want Britain to be a leading player in this coming green industrial revolution.
We have many strengths to draw on. Some of the best marine renewable resources in the world -offshore wind, wave energy and tidal power. A strong science base, supporting world-class research in biomass generators, micro technologies such as small wind and gas turbines, domestic CHP based on Stirling engines, fuel cells and other technologies for the storage of energy. We have led the way in integrating environmental and economic goals within a liberalised electricity market. And we are leading the thinking in Europe on how to remove the regulatory barriers to development of renewables I believe the role of Government is to accelerate the development and take up of these new technologies until self-sustaining markets take over.
The Government's programme for incentivising renewables will create a new market worth over £500 million through the Renewables Obligation, Climate Change Levy exemptions and the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation. We have already announced £100 million to support offshore wind and energy crops. The complete speech by the PM is at www.number10.gov.uk/
Wind is at best a stop gap, - it only serves to off load fossil fueled generators when the wind is blowing.
Mature Tidal power with enough embedded capacity to make an effective contribution to the UK energy supply is 40 years away.
We should go CC gas (18 months), while we build nuclear (10 years) to bridge the gap.
In the mean time, wind can off load fossil as much as practicable.
Hopefully of interest to all and particularly to Jonjii's first blog on this topic. Apolgies for the unavoidable delay and the fact that I may not have time to respond to other queries.
Some questions he asked I have copied below as others have I believe been answered.
"Was the planning permission obtained in an above board manner?"
NO,as I understand the term. The councils will argue that it is in line with Planning Policy on Renewable Energy. So it may be,but is the policy PPS 22 and its Companion Guide 'above board'?
Are subsidies being paid?
YES ROCs EXCESSIVE ACCORDING TO OFGEM
Who is paying them?
WE,THE CONSUMER
Will they stop?"
WITHOUT THEM E-ON HAS SAID THEY WOULD NOT BE BUILDING WINDFARMS
Sorry but it is impossible to record in a few sentences ten years of research into this democratic defIcit,hence my website at http://www.wind-farm.co.uk There have been so many so called Consultations,it is becoming unsustainable to respond to all. In any case who really takes notice of issues they do not want in the limelight
DTI website seems to have most consultations on their website.In answer to the question on whether they will stop, visit page 22
http://www.dti.gov.uk/files/file34470.pdf
Now I must write two letters.
First,an answer to the then Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks to correct the facts his advisors gave him on 'wind-farms' in the North East of England.
Second, a request to the PM not to walk away from the famous
'consented' wind power station at Walkway Segdefield
but to assist his constituents in this infamous proposal
before he finally leaves them.
Walkway and the currently proposed Butterwick,described as an extension to Walkway, could provide over the lifetime of the wind power station (Installed Capacity 36 MW) about £118 million pounds in subsidy from ROCs*
*ROC prices fluctuate and this is based on £50 per ROC and Load Factor (LF) OF 30% Remember ROCs can be sold to big energy suppliers who need them to show some of their electricity comes from renewable sources!
Hope this helps a little.
Ii is all out there but oh "what a tangled web we weave when we practice to deceive"
How ironic that on the day they blew up the cooling towers at Chapelcross they started talking again about a tidal barrage across the Severn. Ironic, because I can remember just after Chapelcross was built there was much talk about a Solway tidal barrage to take the west coast motorway. It would create a huge lake into which Chapelcross and 3 or 4 other nuclear power stations would discharge warm water and change the climate to create a holiday playground and fruit-growing area.
I've heard whispers that they may build a new nuclear facility on the Chapelcross site.
Congratulations Lizabeth. Just looked at your site about wind farms. We clearly have a dubiously implimented policy based on a dubiously founded requirement.
The whole environmental global warming thing is based on a similar dishonesty. It is infinitely more difficult to quantify natural emissions but I challenge any of their supporters to list all the projects monitoring underwater volcanic sources which are about 4/5 of the total as would be expected. List all the projects monitoring energy output and gasses from benign sources like hot springs in Iceland and New Zealand. The list of omissions is endless but is dismised in one sentence in policy documents. I am beginning to see why from your revelations about the procedures for wind farm approval. Money talks loudly and ordinary people aren't heard.
Hi Roverdc, I thought it wouldn't be long before you re-joined the GW dedate ;-)
I have no idea if there are any projects specifically measuring the heat output from geothermal sources, I'll try to find out. But surface radiation from geothermal, man-made and re-emitted solar sources can easily be measured using IR satellite sensing, and I think it's unlikely that if there is, as you are suggesting, a huge contribution from geothermal sources, the climate scientists would have either failed to notice it or denied it's existence.
Roverdc: I challenge any of their supporters to list all the projects monitoring underwater volcanic sources
It turns out that there has been quite a bit of research into the energy output of geothermal processes. Here is a flavour of the hundreds of published papers on the subject:
Impact of geothermal heating on the global ocean circulation. Adcroft et al - Geophys. Res. Lett, 2001. This refers to the geothermal energy source as "This trickle of heat, which is due to the slow cooling of the solid earth, is estimated to have a typical value of 50mW m-2 on abyssal plains and up to 200mW m-2 on mid-ocean ridges" 50mW m-2 is about 0.01% of the 390W m-2 continuously radiated by the earth's surface as a result of absorbed solar radiation.
Heat flow and geothermal processes in Iceland. Flovenz & Saemundsson - Tectonophysics, 1993
The geothermal heating of the abyssal subarctic Pacific ocean. Joyce et al - Deep-sea research. Part A. Oceanographic research papers, 1986
Thermal infrared satellite measurements of volcanic activity at Stromboli and Vulcano. Gaonac'h et al - J Geophys Res, 1994
Geothermal Heat Flow in the Gulfs of California and Aden. Von Herzen - Science, 1963. This one also quotes the world-wide mean geothermal heat flux as 50mW m-2.
Circulation in fractures, hot springs, and convective heat transport on mid-ocean ridge crests. Lowell - Geophys. JR Astron. Soc, 1975
Practical evaluation of steady heat discharge from dormant active volcanoes: case study of Vulcarolo. Aubert - J. Volcanology and Geothermal Research, 1999
Variations in the thermal output of the subglacial Grímsvötn caldera, Iceland. Björnsson & Guõmundsson - Geophys Res Lett, 1993. This one finds that the total heat output from this volcano from 1922 to 1991 was 8.1 × 10^18J, equivalent to about 4x10^9W. The radiative forcing due to human emissions of greenhouse gases is about 1W m-2 or 5x10^14W over the whole earth. Therefore it would need more than 100,000 such volcanoes to be continuously active to equal the warming effect of man-made GHGs.
Ocean, energy flows in. RX Huang - Encyclopedia of Energy, 2004. This one looks at heat flux in the world's oceans and finds that the geothermal input is 32x10^12W, just 0.06% of the 52x10^15W of solar radiation absorbed by the oceans.
Conclusions:
1. There have been lots of studies of geothermal heat emissions.
2. Geothermal heat emissions are tiny in comparison with solar radiation and the effects of man-made GHGs.
So you can carry on deceiving yourself that there is some kind of conspiracy concealing a significant geothermal contribution to global warming if you want, but I am satisfied that you are totally wrong.
Wow, I have just sent a long reply on the debating global warmming thread and my mind will not begin to assimilate this tonight.. Providor how do you find the time?
Providor
Geothermal heat emissions, Solar Radiation, GHG's as a contribution to global heat input.
Though I missread GHG's as MM global heat production.
Agree with Jonjii well done on the list of papersand supporting comments.
Busy ploughing through this EWP and the PWP, the Energy and the Planning white papers.
Time consuming but an essential task with my interest in both planning and energy.
I note in chapter 8 at 8.5 the following
"Planning is consistently one of the top six concerns for inward investors in the UK.A 2006 report by Ernst and Young on the relative attractiveness of countries for investment in renewables found that the UK’s position had fallen because of concerns about planning issues"
I have previously read (on an official website) we had become a less attractive country for investment due to lack of investment in solar power.
FOR INFORMATION. Al Gore's, 'An Incredible Truth' is available on DVD but the disc with the packing suitable for recycling cost £15 more!
All secondary schools in the UK have been sent free copies of the DVD (I guess the cheaper version for economic reasons)
I wonder if the public schools, colleges and Universities will be showing it. I believe parents should be invited to a free showing too.
Glynne: Geothermal heat emissions, Solar Radiation, GHG's as a contribution to global heat input.
Have a look at the energy balance diagram on the first page of this document.
It doesn't include geothermal sources, presumably because they are so insignificant in terms of the energy balance. Two of the papers I cited give the world-wide mean geothermal heat flux as 50mW m-2. That's milli Watts, compared with incoming solar radiation of 342 Watts per square meter.
You have to be a bit careful what you mean by "heat input". The greenhouse effect keeps the planet comfortably warm, but is not a heat source, any more than your duvet is. The only significant heat source is the sun.
You have just proved my point about most of the research being done for other purposes and the results misapplied by omission.
If you cannot see that then clearly we will never agree. I just do not wish to be bound by actions determined by this scientific abuse.
You have just proved my point about most of the research being done for other purposes and the results misapplied by omission.
Eh? What "other purposes"? What are you talking about?
What I have shown, in response to your assertion that no research has been done into geothermal heat inputs into the climate system, is that (a) you are wrong - lots of papers have been published on this, and (b) as an energy source geothermal activity is utterly and totally insignificant in the context of climate change. Why don't you try to address that instead of just repeatedly coming up with yet more vague riddles and unsupported allegations of "scientific abuse"?
You are so right,I am a sceptic
The present planning situation for wind power,particularly on shore. developments appears to be the result of lobbying by the wind industry rather than a true acknowledgement of the emerging scientific and mathematical facts regarding the technology. I wonder if the technology offered what it promised would the methodology being used to promote it need to be so undemocratic and so unacceptable and so apparently biased.
Al Gore's film I do have reservations about but need more time before I come to a conclusion. I am concerned as to the way it found its way into the UK. He introduces himself
" I was the next President of the United States."
I have always believd in balance, otherwise how do you make an educated decision on anything.
'THE DOOR TOWARDS CHANGE ALWAYS OPENS FROM WITHIN' (Carl Rogers I believe)
Whether we smoke,shoot,hunt,accept green taxes,have wind turbines etc etc should be a democratic right not Big Brother telling us.
Need time to digest the outcome of the Energy Review Consultation. The Wind industry wanted more subsidy for offshore wind whilst protecting the onshore subsidy. Have your cake and eat it it seems.
Will report back as soon as possible.
I remain, sceptic, nimby* hypocrite** at all times searching for the truth.
*Sir Max Hastings definition,'what should and should not be done in my back yard' not the pejorative term used by many politicians
**Hypocrite according to a Minister if the press is correct in their quote. "Anyone who supports renewables but not onshore wind is a hypocrite"
“….banding of the RO to offer differentiated levels of support to different renewable technologies... Alongside this White Paper, we are launching a consultation document on the specific bands we propose to introduce"
Comment Onshore wind remains unchanged, one ROC per MWh despite the adverse comments of the Auditor General and the HoC Public Accounts Committee
Most other technologies will get more than one ROC per MWh.
There will be a consultation on the following proposal: -
Table 5.3.1 Proposed banding regime [for the Renewable obligation RO]
Sewage gas; landfill gas; co firing of non-energy crop (regular) biomass 0.25 ROCs/MWh
Onshore wind; hydro-electric; co-firing of energy crops; energy from waste with combined heat and power; other not specified 1.0 ROCs/MWh
Wave; tidal-stream; advanced conversion technologies (gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion); dedicated biomass burning energy crops (with or without CHP); dedicated regular biomass with CHP; solar photovoltaics; geothermal 2.0 ROCs/MWh
2 points.
1/
Thanks for the link Providor.
I was simply trying to get a handle on the total heat input to the planet, from the three main sources, man, geological, solar.
Has anyone done any simple calcs just looking at the variability of the U value of the atmosphere based on measured input and surface condition values, and a simple estimate for the albedo?
wrong post but never mind.
2/
Lizibeth - Hi, I have some concerns with your stance.
I agree that wind farms can be unsightly and can spoil the scenery, and a lot of people are very upset by that.
To some extent I sympathise with your concern about planning issues.
Small scale wind is economically and technically rubbish, and not a viable home energy source, except in very special cases.
Wind energy is a global industry, and in many countries where it is being implemented there are no subsidies, yet there is significant investment.
I'm not sure what the subsidy picture is in Europe but wind is being built large scale there.
The UK's development in this area is small, but rapidly increasing, compared to other countries.
Modern turbines are not noisy.
They can affect radar but I understand work is progressing to deal with that issue. While there are reports of bird kills, on the sites I have visited I have seen little sign of this. certainly considerably less than road kill.
There is no long term major ecological damage to the site and when the turbines are taken away, it is only the removal of the foundations and access roads that will affect the area.
They do provide a carbon free source of energy, wind is the only current major non carbon energy source quickly and cheaply available in the UK and an important way of reducing our power generation carbon emissions.
(I am disappointed that development of other sources is so low on the governments agenda.)
The ROC subsidy is simply a way encouraging implementation and funding the installation cost. It provides the owner with a payback in a reasonable time frame, compared to the extended period renewable investment normally takes.
This grant, if you like, is made because carbon free generation is seen as good news by the government and to be supported.
As you know the major difference between fossil fuel and renewable costs is that with fossil fuel the capital costs are insignificant and the major long term cost is that of fuel. Hence main costs are paid directly out of income and it is only the minor capital cost that is carried forward.
With renewables the capital implementation costs are very high the on going costs are simply those of maintenance.
So almost the total cost of the project has to be paid up front.
For renewables a simple payback model for estimating profitability is inadequate, and a more complex model based on discounting and annuitisation is needed.
Because of the variability of production, a major input to the model has to be the cost of standby. This cost is variable and depends on the type and efficiency of the standby generation. For instance a Rankin cycle coal fired power station on standby will cost a lot more than a quick start gas turbine generator.
Wind energy is site variable and individual estimates of output are based on the life cycle of the turbine not on 1 years operation. Hence current output figures must be treated with great skepticism.
Wind is an important stop gap carbon free energy source, but it is only a stop gap, because its output is unreliable and variable, it will be superseded and no longer a viable option in the foreseeable future.
Glynne,
I am not so sure about the justification of making it a sweet deal to build a wind farm by handing out huge subsidies.
The building of any thing involves some risk and capital cost. You said that the Capital cost of a Coal or gas fired station was negligible I query that.. There are huge capital costs involved.... nothing though to the cost of putting up a new safe breeder reactor type N plant we will soon see some of being built here. (I am confident).
So the beauty of a wind turbine is that the capital is spent and once up no fuel is required... just a fairly low maintenance cost and from the time it is connected to the grid it is generating as long as the wind is blowing.
The economics should be that it will repay itself and give about a 30% return over 20 years or so.
As far as I can see Lizabeth is debunking this... the subsidies mean that the repayment time is much shorter and so it is a very very sweet deal for the owners... (and will get sweeter as the subsidies continue).
What is more critical is that wind turbine farms are expected to generate about 30% of the time... that would make them economic and the planning approval process is meant to be assured of that.
Lizabeth's study showed that only 2 of the 10 farms she has studied are even remotely approaching that generation level... the others are far less than that but the owners/operators are going to get paid whatever so that they have no risk... there is no downside so they could in fact put these farms up anywhere, in the most wind sheltered spots on these islands and they would still benefit economically.
My contention is that if that is the way we wish to go, so be it... but these subsidies have to be paid for and the tax payers are footing this bill, not the Electricity consumers.
Do the tax payers know and approve? I question that.
Secondly and probably the investors in the Nuclear Power Stations are also going to be looking for similar types of deals to sweeten their having to invest vast vast sums for up to 10 years before 1kw of energy is ever fed into the grid.
If we are going to do it for the wind guys are we going to do it for Nuclear industry?
I am grateful that individuals, like Lizabeth, make the effort and put in the time to robustly challenge such applications. She has proven her case, I believe.
It is long overdue for DC to comment on her points - he should make the trip to see her and tape the debate. This woman has sacrificed her life and personal assets to be heard.
I was simply trying to get a handle on the total heat input to the planet, from the three main sources, man, geological, solar.
Well the diagram in the IPCC FAQ document cited above gives the solar input as 342W m-2.
The geothermal input appears to be around 0.05W m-2 (see previous comment above).
I can't seem to find a reference for the direct heating of the atmosphere due to human activity, but I think we can get in the right ball-park by simply looking at global energy consumption. If we assume that all the energy we "consume" eventually finishes up as waste heat going into the atmosphere, then the global figure is 15x10^12W (reference). Dividing this by the surface area of the Earth gives us an average input of 0.03W m-2, i.e. even less than the geothermal input. Assuming that solar, geothermal and human are the only sources, we can express the relative contributions as:
solar 99.977%, geothermal 0.015%, human 0.009%
Quote:
Has anyone done any simple calcs just looking at the variability of the U value of the atmosphere based on measured input and surface condition values, and a simple estimate for the albedo?
I'm not sure U-value is an appropriate measure of atmospheric heat transfer - U-value is a measure of thermal transmittance and is usually used to quantify heat losses from buildings, which are mainly due to conduction through the building fabric. Heat transfer in the atmosphere is almost entirely radiative and convective. I don't know quite what it is you're looking for, but it may help you to consider a simple model of the atmosphere, in which you can play about with the principal thermodynamic variables of the climate system to get a qualitative feel for things like the greenhouse effect, albedo and radiative forcing.
Incidentally this also serves to illustrate how climate modelling is based on fundamental physical principals and how even a very simple representation of the atmosphere including only a few of the variables can produce results which are not dissimilar from real-world values.
If I've completely missed the point of your question Glynne please try asking again in different terms!
You said that the Capital cost of a Coal or gas fired station was negligible I query that.. There are huge capital costs involved....
The capital cost for a fossil fuel fired power station is negligible compared to the fuel, operating and maintenance cost over the life of the plant.
OK the capital cost will be of the order of £10's of millions, but the total cost over the operating lifetime is orders of magnitude greater than that.
The point is that fuel and op/maint costs are paid directly out of revenue. The capital cost out of operating profit over the first few years.
A CHP plant I was involved with repaid capital investment of some £20 Million in around 2 years.
Quote:
So the beauty of a wind turbine is that the capital is spent and once up no fuel is required... just a fairly low maintenance cost and from the time it is connected to the grid it is generating as long as the wind is blowing
Yes that is right, the other point is that maintenance of a wind turbine is easier, the whole array does not have to be taken out for overhaul just a single turbine. A complete change out of a generator and bearings can be done in a day, at relatively low cost by a couple of men with a crane.
Consider the work involved in a maintenance overhaul of a Rankin cycle power plant. 100 + men, large very expensive specialist equipment. Just the work on the boilers, involve a considerable and expensive effort, cleaning, crack detection, inspecting, testing, we are talking serious heavy metal bashing engineering.
Wind turbines are a new emerging technology.
The economics in the early days (five or so years ago) when the technology was very immature have proved to be poor and likely to be less than 30% over the life of the project.
The technology has been developing and mechanical failures have taken their toll.
Now the technology is much more mature and reliability has improved. Modern large turbines are likely on average comfortably meet the 30% return over a 20 year life.
However we are looking at an estimated output of a dynamic climate driven power source, one cannot take a single year or even 2 or 3 years performance as a realist measure of expected operating life performance, without examining in detail the full operating data and history over that period.
Plant performance will be site specific.
The subsidies that have been given, are simply to encourage development and that has happened.
I would expect now that these subsidies will be reduced and the money freed up put into subsidising the next and more difficult to develop renewable generating systems, maybe tidal Power.
Quote:
My contention is that if that is the way we wish to go, so be it... but these subsidies have to be paid for and the tax payers are footing this bill, not the Electricity consumers.
Well we have to stop using fossil fuels and this is a way forward, as I have said wind is just a stop gap, not the final solution, but it was quick and relatively easy.
There are issues of visual impact etc. I have great sympathy with those who feel strongly about that.
But if we accept that these devices will have a relatively short life 50 or so years, and when they are removed there will be no ecological damage, I think the price is worth paying.
I support subsidies on emerging non carbon generating systems, providing those subsidies are withdrawn at the appropriate time.
That means I strongly agree with government subsidy of nuclear power. Further I don't consider that position to be subjective.
If we look at the issues raised in this post, and the post on debating climate change, it is obvious that we have to move to a carbon free energy system.
That is possible but requires the support and investment from government, because the market will not do it on the basis of capital return.
The alternative is that our children will have vastly diminished energy availability, and the quality of their life will be substantially reduced. Back to that of our ancestors before King Coal perhaps.
Interestingly enough one of Marr's guests this morning was the Chief Executive of that French company that has many nuclear stations operating in France...
He seemed to be saying that he would be able to build and operate these economically with no subsidy from the government.. I am delighted to hear it.
Glynne I am not against the wind turbines and fully accept them as a way.
What I am against is sleaze, distortion and deceipt.
It appears there has been a lot of that.
As I said Are the tax payers aware how much they have paid and are still paying for these that are still not producing anything like their promissed (at the planning stage) capacity and I object to the kind of open ended subsidy which means the incentive becomes "Hey, lets build a wind farm... we cannot lose because if the wind doesn't blow we still get paid and we are assisted to circumvent any Nimby type objection"
And with this new planning bill the Nimby's have no chance whatever anymore.
This is definitly on the wrong post but we've started!
Thanks for the link to the simple model, I can use some of the concepts there.
What I am looking at is producing a very simple model based on a slightly different basis.
Treating the world as a ball with a skin gas. Using basic energy transfer equations, convection Q = UADT and Radiation Q = AECT4, ignoring conduction, and inputting some value for albedo, try to construct a model that will define the energy transfer rate through the gas skin
For the gas skin the Stephan-Boltzmann equation Q = AECT4 because of various factors, is difficult to establish.
The model will estimate that as a variable that balances the model.
What I am trying to see is whether a simple model of this sort, can show changes in the atmosphere radiative capacity, whether that is relatively constant, and other factors such as man's thermal input have a measurable effect.
Perhaps not likely, just asking questions.
The model will assume that the side of the ball facing the sun is receiving solar energy, the side facing away will be radiating energy from the surface of the gas skin.
For simplicity the globe will be modelled as a disc with a gas skin on each side, one side dark the other facing the sun.
Using annual average (perhaps even longer)data should take care of short term variables.
Once the model is up and running, result analysis will indicate where error bounds mean that more detailed equations and data is needed.
Hi Jonjii
Missed Marr this morning, I am not surprised by the stance of the French CE, I think the new N power plants are now developed sufficiently to stand alone commercially.
The N problem in the UK is political and emotional, The Greens have done a good job. We may need subsidies to get the ball rolling. I don't have a problem with that.
But I think the greens should be penaly fined to pay for it, after all the cost is their fault.
The subsidies are partly a way of encouraging developers to take risks, and I don't think it has been secret, in fact the subsidies for renewable developments have been a feature of government statements over several years.
I agree sleaze, distortion and deception is bad news.
But is it all that, the proposers of a new project with no track record are going to give a mid line estimate for expected performance.
Problem is that to go for this, they have to be optimists, and they got it wrong.
The subsidies should now be phased out, they have done the job, they need now to be transferred to other schemes.
The rest is I'm afraid politics, and some of it smells.
As far as the planning changes are concerned, because of my concerns over the changes we have to make, I can understand, but not necessarily agree, with why they are being proposed.
Better to be open, than set up the sort of distortions and deceptions that the old system used to get things through. and are a cause of much of lizabeth's concern.
The Green Lobby in the UK is strong, negative and rarely offer a realistic way forward.
The Greens seem to want to quash any attempt to advance while I believe the way the human has thrived is that they have, through ingenuity and persistance in trying to achieve perfection, not too mention the age old profit motive have managed to advance to the stage where we all have broadband at home etc.
But yes Let us have it out up front.
The N debate is one that we must have and have on our terms and be positive about... The negative emotions all harken back to the CND days but they are misplaced.
Thank you all for your comments on global warming and ideas for reducing carbon emissions. However this is almost now cut and dried and the best, perhaps the only, way to make any impression on government is to read the Energy White Paper EWP and respond to the consultations listed. http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html Extract "Some of the measures in this White Paper require further public consultation Today we are launching consultations on nuclear power, the Renewables Obligation and guidance on the 1965 Gas Act. If you would like to take part in the nuclear consultation, see the Future of Nuclear Power website. We will launch further consultations in the coming months. For more information on these, please see the Consultations page."
Commment This document is 342 pages long and costs £40 postage and packing extra. Events leading to this many are unaware of but there is still a chance to have your say.
The Planning White Paper PWP is a document 220 pages long and cheaper at £32.50. As with the EWP there is opportunity to contribute to the consultations but will the government take notice of the electorate or attempt as usual to use verbosity in an attempt to baffle our brains?
The Planning White Paper PWP is available for download at http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1510503 It aims to fast-track massive and damaging new development It will reduce the right of local people to object to schemes that threaten their communities, so what has happened since? Stephen Byers in his speech on the Planning Green Paper (26/07/01) said the system then would give communities the right to express their views My aim now is simply, and always has been, to alert the wider public to facts and events relating to the current proposals for the planning system in general and renewable energy in particular.
The consumer pays.
House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts DTI HC 413 September 2005 Extract
The Renewables Obligation(RO) has the effect of transferring substantial sums from consumers to the renewables industry.- By 2010 the cost of the RO which does not appear on electricity bills and is not explained to the consumer is expected to reach £1 billion per annum (at 2002 prices). It is the most expensive of the Government’s instruments to reduce carbon dioxide under the cross cutting Climate Change Programme.This subsidy is not subject to Parliamentary scrutiny and Government should make arrangements for annual Parliamentary scrutiny and the amounts involved be reported
Page 90 of http://www.wind-farm.co.uk/force10comp.pdf
First a confession, in my typical dissident way I like wind farms but in the right place. This one is a crime against humanity. Please join the protest.
Allt Dearg Wind Farm: a Landscape, Visual & Wildlife Disaster Above Loch's Fyne & Coalisport Argyll; under 5km from the nearest Golden Eagle nest and within an important dispersion area for immature Golden Eagles
Despite very serious objections from Scottish Natural Heritage concerning the proposals huge landscape, visual and wildlife impact, npower renewables are still pursuing their planning application for Allt Dear wind farm above The Knapdale National Scenic Area. AWF understand the application will be decided upon over the summer and this is our last chance to raise the level of objections which already exceed 1100. If you have not done so, we ask you to consider objecting and /or to encourage others to object to this truly appalling wind farm application.
For full information and to object in under one minute using our simplified online form.
Please visit:
stopalltdearg.comPlease join the protest.
Nuclear power 'must be on agenda' - Blair
Publisher: Pam Caulfield 23/05/2007 - 13:05:49 PM
Blair insists nuclear power is the way forward Nuclear power must be on the agenda if Britain is to have secure energy supplies and reduce carbon emissions, Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted today.
Mr Blair said the Government was boosting renewable energy "significantly" but wind farms would not be able to plug the energy deficit in the future. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell accused the PM of disregarding concerns about risk, cost and toxic waste in relation to nuclear power.
The question time exchanges came ahead of a Commons statement by Industry Secretary Alistair Darling on the Government's Energy White Paper.
Mr Blair warned against rejecting nuclear for purely ideological reasons - particularly when many other countries were adopting the opposite view. "If we want to have secure energy supplies and reduce CO2 emissions, we have got to put the issue of nuclear power on the agenda," he argued.
He challenged detractors to explain how, as Britain's energy self-sufficiency dramatically reduced, renewables would plug "the huge deficit" left if nuclear power was rejected.
Sir Menzies persisted: "Why are you so committed to nuclear power in a way which suggests you disregard the issue of risk and cost and toxic waste?
"Where is the investment in wave, wind and tidal power and clean coal technology that would give us a secure, non-nuclear future?"
Mr Blair said the Government was boosting renewable energy significantly."
But he warned: "Let's be absolutely clear about this.
"We are not going to be able to make up through wind farms all the deficit on nuclear power.
"We are just not going to be able to do it."
Mr Blair also argued: "We have had nuclear power in this country for over half a century without the problems you draw attention to."
Moreover, there were currently 70 to 80 proposals around the world for new nuclear power stations.
"That is for a perfectly sensible reason; every country around the world is looking at these two problems: securing energy supply with sufficient diversity and reducing CO2 emissions.
Comment
Why then as Roverdc points out are we destroying our heritsge and people's quality of life?
ALLT DEARG is one of hundreds of wind farms proposed in the UK.
Yet they are certainly not working as promised in the north east of England, so why are we building them?
The Energy White Paper suggests an increase of 50% in the ROCs subsidy for offshore.Is this the answer/ will it curtail the onshore developments?
WE NEED ALL TO REPLY TO THE CONSULTATION AND HAVE OUR SAY
Can anyone explain the objections to nuclear to me. The French already have nuclear power stations close enough to the UK for any effect of radiation in the event of a disaster so we already have that risk. Chernobyl showed how far contamination can spread. There are plenty of sources of radio active material in Russia for any terrorist requirements so we already have that one as well. Why do we elect to have the risks but not the benefits?
Please do not bother with the one that we should set an example, that's self righteous claptrap.
Time is running out. please respond to the Planning White Paper and the Energy White Paper and have your say, whatever that may be. Links are on an earlier blog. Otherwise all your discussion,the wider debate needed, will be wasted
I doubt that two yeras ago the PM would have dared to say "We are not going to be able to make up through wind farms all the deficit on nuclear power".
My issue is and always has been the methods used to promote wind power.
Now we have the figures from the operational wind farms I believe the PM has done his sums and hence his statement.
I cannot understand why we allow 'foreign' developers to build wind farms in the UK, whilst they are currently operating and proposing new nuclear power stations.
I look back in anger as I try to apportion the blame for the curse almost upon us.Councillors, Planners,Wind Energy Developers,Foe, Greenpeace, Environmental groups throughout the UK, ONE, GO-NE, TNEI, NEA, RTPI, NEREG, NAREC,
Government or even the Prime Minister.
Who is really to blame? I believe I now have the answer.
I must point out that I alone am responsible for writing Force10/Companion Guide. Neither family nor any organisations of which I am a member have had any input.
As for apportioning blame, I can only say that I blame myself. The reason being, that aware first hand of the apparent dirty tricks played at local levels, the cons and the mendacity, I did not openly record those facts earlier. Having agonised long and hard as to whether I should do so I realised that in the interest of democracy I no longer had a choice. Hence the emergence of Force 10 Companion Guide, The New Lambton Wyrm.
In 2001, I climbed Mount Kinabalu, to raise money for the heart foundation. Prior to that National Wind Power (NWP) said they would have sponsored me had I not been coming back since I had caused them enough trouble. Yet I have sought only the truth and will continue to do so.
I have heard at several National Conferences that if current guidelines for building Nuclear Plant had been in operation at the time, Chernobyl would not have been built.
In fact the cry of wind or nuclear seems to emanate from the Wind Industry Greenpeace and FOE.
Yet in 2001 British Energy Chairman Robin Jeffrey said” I‘m delighted that British Energy is a partner in this venture*-the UK’s biggest generator getting involved in the country’s biggest wind farm (600 MW on the Isle of Lewis, off the west coast of Scotland). But what’s so important is that it fits in so well with our vision of the future-with commercial wind power and nuclear energy as natural partners combating global warming.
British Energy owns and operates the UK’s eight most modern nuclear power stations with a combined capacity of 9,600MW. *British Energy’s partner in this venture is AMEC.
Whatever is done I ask we have our say and Government takes notice of our contributions to the consultations.
A brief explanation of my dilemma As the methods used to promote wind energy devlopment has become so convoluted. I wish to explain CPRE stance so that I will feel free to conclude my experiences and observations covering ten years of delusion and deception.
The following extract is from the campaigns section of the Campaign to Protect Rural England CPRE website cpre.org.uk
CPRE believes that wind turbines have a potential role to play in helping us reduce the amount of carbon dioxide generated by electricity production. But it is a myth to assume that more wind turbines mean that the threat of climate change can be tackled adequately.
We need to use less energy
We generate carbon emissions through a wide range of energy uses — with transport and heating making the largest contributions. Unless we start to reduce our demand for energy, we will be unable to keep our carbon dioxide emissions at a constant level, let alone make the big reductions required to prevent massive climate change. We cannot build our way out of climate change.
Energy conservation and the energy mix
We need energy policies that:
· give the strongest possible encouragement to energy conservation and efficiency to reduce overall consumption
· promote a mix of renewables, including offshore development of wind energy, provided any environmental impacts — such as the impacts on coastal scenery and beautiful seascapes — are properly addressed
· value and protect the countryside for its beauty, tranquillity and diversity.
CPRE’s view – the impact of wind turbines on the countryside
CPRE will vigorously oppose proposals for major wind turbine development in and adjacent to areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks where these would be damaging to the landscape. We will consider all cases on their merits and stand up for the wider countryside outside designated areas. CPRE will support wind development proposals where they are appropriately located.
Comment. The fight, High Moor to High Court, a landmark decision, and the delusion and deception of the past ten years is on wind-farm.co.uk “The Democratic Deficit”
I now feel I should be able to conclude my experiences and observations without detriment to CPRE whose record in land us planning is unsurpassed.
Extract from CPRE website
"The Barker Review of planning ran in parallel with Nicholas Stern’s review of the economics of climate change and Rod Eddington’s review of transport. All three were published shortly before the Chancellor’s 2006 Pre-Budget Report and taken into account in it. They are likely to be major influences over policy in their respective fields for years to come especially if Gordon Brown, who co-commissioned all three, becomes Prime Minister."
CPRE believes that wind turbines have a potential role to play in helping us reduce the amount of carbon dioxide generated by electricity production. But it is a myth to assume that more wind turbines mean that the threat of climate change can be tackled adequately
This is fundamentally correct, wind power generation off loads fossil fuel generators(FFG's), more wind turbines off load more FFG's, but does not replace them.
Quote:
We generate carbon emissions through a wide range of energy uses — with transport and heating making the largest contributions.
This is misleading and typical green lobby misinformation.
Transport & heating are not making the largest contributions
The facts can be found buried in this report
UK Energy & CO" emissions Projections July 2006.
This data is an extract taken from table 5 – UEP26 Central scenario emissions by source by sector (Mtc)
UEP 26 -------- Act-----FavGas--FavCoal
----------------2000----2010----2010
Power Station---43.1----42.5----44.1
Refineries------4.9-----5.7-----5.7
Residential-----23.2----20.3----19.8
Services--------8.2-----5.9-----5.9
Industry--------35.3----32.6----32.5
Road Transport--32.0----32.6----32.6
Off Road--------1.4-----1.4-----1.5
Other Transport-2.5-----2.3-----2.3
LUC~~~~~~~~-0.1~~~~-0.5~~~~-0.5
Total---------- 148.6--142.9----143.0
Sorry difficult to get formatting right
It shows clearly that Power Generation is by far the largest UK contributor to CO2 emissions.
We have the technology to eliminate CO2 emissions from power generation and we should be moving rapidly to achieve that.
Wind is simply a stopgap to offload those very inefficient and polluting power stations.
Wind will only have a life of some 30 -50 years and will be replaced as more reliable renewable sources come on line.
When the turbines go, the landscape will return to what it was before they came. There will be no lasting damage to the environment.
What you say about energy efficiency is of course true.
But replacing FFG's is the easy bit. As is making our homes more efficient.
The big issue is transport, the way we live, our society, is based on transport.
It will take years to develop systems and change our way of life to reduce our dependence on transport.
Anything we do in the short term will be tinkering.
We need to do what we know we can - That will give us at least a 33% reduction fairly easily.
Glynne
Thanks for the reply. You take issue with the comment that transport and heating are making the largest contributions...
That is not something I said but CPRE remit. I felt obliged to post it, considering my personal stance based on facts. That is why I wrote Force 10 and its Companion Guide covering a decade of delusion ,deception and misinformation of the highest order.
The EWP consultation I have mentioned and is where you can and should have your say,as we are all entitled to but sadly not many are aware of its existence.I must spend time responding to the EWP consultation as time is running out and debating on this website is not enough.
"Reduction of CO2 emissions and other pollutants seem lost in the race for regional targets, mainly onshore wind. A real catch 22 as until wind turbines are built, we cannot prove whether wind turbines are reducing CO2 emissions as expected."
They are certainly not in the North East of England! As for noise ,your earlier blog, there are many issues currently recorded of noise problems and a DTI Noise Working Group is looking at the potential problems of Aerodynamic Modulation.AM
Our society, is based on transport as you say, more efficient engines with lower emissions will help but public transport will not replace private motoring.
