Report Questions Wind Power’s Ability to Deliver Electricity When Most Needed

cancel2 2022

Canceled
Stuart Young Consulting, with support from the John Muir Trust, has released a report studying the ability of wind power to make a significant contribution to the UK's energy supply. It concludes that the average power output of wind turbines across Scotland is well below the rates often claimed by industry and government.

Indeed, for numerous extended periods of time all the wind turbines in Scotland linked to the National Grid muster less than 20MW of energy - that's enough power for a mere 6,667 households to boil their kettles for a cup of tea.

Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, the U.K.’s leading wild land conservation charity, said: "This report is a real eye opener for anyone who's been wondering just how much power Scotland is getting from the fleet of wind turbines that have taken over many of our most beautiful mountains and hillsides. The answer appears to be not enough, and much less than is routinely claimed.”

Stuart Young, author of the report, said, “Over the two-year period studied in this report, the metered windfarms in the U.K. consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical. The intermittent nature of wind also gives rise to low wind coinciding with high energy demand. Sadly, wind power is not what it's cracked up to be and cannot contribute greatly to energy security in the UK."

Mr. Young said: "It was a surprise to find out just how disappointingly wind turbines perform in a supposedly wind-ridden country like Scotland. Based on the data, for one third of the time wind output is less than 10% of capacity, compared to the 30% that is commonly claimed.

At the end of the period studied, the connected capacity of wind power was over 2500MW so the expectation is that the wind network will produce, on average, 750MW of energy. In fact, it's delivering far less than everyone's expectations. The total wind capacity metered now is 3226MW but at 3a.m. on Monday 28th March, the total output was 9MW.”

The report, Analysis of UK Wind Generation, is the result of detailed analysis of windfarm output in Scotland over a 26-month period between November 2008 to December 2010 using data from the BMRS (Balancing Mechanism Reporting System). It's the first report of its kind, and drew on data freely available to the public. It challenges five common assertions made regularly by wind industry and the Scottish Government:

1. 'Wind turbines will generate on average 30% of their rated capacity over a year'
In fact, the average output from wind was 27.18% of metered capacity in 2009, 21.14% in 2010, and 24.08% between November 2008 and December 2010 inclusive.

2. 'The wind is always blowing somewhere'
On 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010, the total generation from the windfarms metered by National Grid was less than 20MW (a fraction of the 450MW expected from a capacity in excess of 1600 MW). These periods of low wind lasted an average of 4.5 hours.

3. 'Periods of widespread low wind are infrequent.'
Actually, low wind occurred every six days throughout the 26-month study period. The report finds that the average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20MW or less between November 2008 and December 2010 was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours.

4. 'The probability of very low wind output coinciding with peak electricity demand is slight.'
At each of the four highest peak demand points of 2010, wind output was extremely low at 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand.

5. 'Pumped storage hydro can fill the generation gap during prolonged low wind periods.'
The entire pumped storage hydro capacity in the UK can provide up to 2788MW for only 5 hours then it drops to 1060MW, and finally runs out of water after 22 hours.

Full report here: http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/Report_Analysis UK Wind_SYoung.pdf
 
Tom would like to project all of the UK's loser problems onto the US.

You are defintely the former, the type of Green that hasn't a clue about costs or impacts.

In debates over climate change, and in particular subsidies to renewable energy, there are
two kinds of green. First there are some environmental greens who view the problem as so
urgent that all measures that may have some impact on greenhouse gas emissions, whatever
their cost or their impact on the economy and employment, should be undertaken
immediately.

Then there are the fiscal greens, who, being cool to carbon taxes and cap-and-trade
systems that make polluters pay, favour massive public subsidies to themselves for
renewable energy projects, whatever their relative impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

These two groups are motivated by different kinds of green. The only point of convergence
between them is their support for massive subsidies to renewable energy such as wind
turbines.

This unholy alliance of these two kinds of greens (doomsdayers and rent seekers) makes for
very effective, if opportunistic, politics (as reflected in the Ontario government's Green
Energy Act), just as it makes for lousy public policy:

Politicians attempt to pick winners at our expense in a fast-moving technological
landscape, instead of creating a socially efficient set of incentives to which we can all
respond.

http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/6775/Wind-Power-Is-A-Complete-Disaster
.
 
You are defintely the former, the type of Green that hasn't a clue about costs or impacts.



http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/meteorology/6775/Wind-Power-Is-A-Complete-Disaster
.

Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions[SUP][1][/SUP] because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging[SUP][vague][/SUP] character of the shill's actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity. The origin of the term shill is uncertain; it may be an abbreviation of shillaber. The word originally denoted a carnival worker who pretended to be a member of the audience in an attempt to elicit interest in an attraction. Some sources trace the usage back to 1914.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3]

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Y
o[/URL]u are definitely the latter, the type who cares only about his own wallet.[/SUP]
 
The change to alternative energy sources is in it's infancy, mostly thanks to "conservatives" in this country, but with a few exceptions such as pricks like you.
Shut your lying mouth.

Unfortunately there are too many like you that are incapable of rational thought, choosing to rely on emotion instead.

:palm:
 
Last edited:
Shilling is illegal in many circumstances and in many jurisdictions[SUP][1][/SUP] because of the frequently fraudulent and damaging[SUP][vague][/SUP] character of the shill's actions. However, if a shill does not place uninformed parties at a risk of loss, but merely generates "buzz", the shill's actions may be legal. For example, a person planted in an audience to laugh and applaud when desired (see claque), or to participate in on-stage activities as a "random member of the audience", is a type of legal shill.[SUP][citation needed][/SUP]
"Shill" can also be used pejoratively to describe a critic who appears either all-too-eager to heap glowing praise upon mediocre offerings, or who acts as an apologist for glaring flaws. In this sense, they would be an implicit "shill" for the industry at large, possibly because their income is tied to its prosperity. The origin of the term shill is uncertain; it may be an abbreviation of shillaber. The word originally denoted a carnival worker who pretended to be a member of the audience in an attempt to elicit interest in an attraction. Some sources trace the usage back to 1914.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Y
ou are definitely the latter, the type who cares only about his own wallet.[/SUP]

You are just beyond pathetic, apparently anyone that advances well thought out and logical objections is just a stooge for the oil companies. You are much like a sensitive teenager - unable to admit to, face, and address its own faults and weaknesses, while lashing out at those who dare to point these out.
 
Last edited:
You are just beyond pathetic, apparently anyone that advances well thought out and logical objections is just a stooge for the oil companies. You are much like a sensitive teenager - unable to admit to, face, and address its own faults and weaknesses, while lashing out at those who dare to point these out.

Pointless to attempt a rational conversation with an irrational person.
 
Thats what he just said in Post 12, (though with more eloquence) ......don't you have something a little more original...?
 
The first stage in overcoming a defect is to recognise it first, glad to see that you have taken the first step. There is hope for you yet!

Tom, you have no idea what kind of "green" I am.
Your disdain for wind aside, you are a perfect shill for big oil.
How much are they paying you?
 

they've certainly reduced their need for fossil fuel generated power....

Iowa is a leading U.S. state in wind power generation with 18.8% of the state's electricity generation coming from wind in 2011.[1] With the completion of several projects in late 2011, wind power in Iowa has nearly 4400 megawatts (MW) of capacity, second only to Texas.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa

they have set a goal of 50%......
 
they've certainly reduced their need for fossil fuel generated power....



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Iowa

they have set a goal of 50%......

The point I was making is due to the erratic nature of wind power, backup supplies of fossil power need to be in place for the times when there is no wind.

[FONT=New York, serif]In 1998, Norway commissioned a study of wind power in Denmark and concluded that it has "serious environmental effects, insufficient production, and high production costs."

Denmark (population 5.3 million) has over 6,000 turbines that produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used in 2002. Yet no conventional power plant has been shut down. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. Most cannot simply be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises, and the quick ramping up and down of those that can be would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary "greenhouse" gas). So when the wind is blowing just right for the turbines, the power they generate is usually a surplus and sold to other countries at an extremely discounted price, or the turbines are simply shut off.

A writer in The Utilities Journal (David J. White, "Danish Wind: Too Good To Be True?," July 2004) found that 84% of western Denmark's wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss) in 2003, i.e., Denmark's glut of wind towers provided only 3.3% of the nation's electricity. According to The Wall Street Journal Europe, the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken reported that wind actually met only 1.7% of Denmark's total demand in 1999. (Besides the amount exported, this low figure may also reflect the actual net contribution. The large amount of electricity used by the turbines themselves is typically not accounted for in the usually cited output figures. Click here for information about electricity use in wind turbines.) In Weekendavisen (Nov. 4, 2005), Frede Vestergaard reported that Denmark as a whole exported 70.3% of its wind production in 2004.

Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported. And added to the Danish electric bill are the subsidies that support the private companies building the wind towers. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe. [Click here for a detailed and well referenced examination by Vic Mason.]

The head of Xcel Energy in the U.S., Wayne Brunetti, has said, "We're a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it's typically not available." Throughout Europe, wind turbines produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity. Yet both the British and the American Wind Energy Associations (BWEA and AWEA) plan for 30%. The figure in Denmark was 16.8% in 2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the output of the more than 6,000 turbines in Denmark was 0!). On-shore turbines in the U.K. produced at 24.1% of their capacity in 2003. The average in Germany for 1998-2003 was 14.7%. In the U.S., usable output (representing wind power's contribution to consumption, according to the Energy Information Agency) in 2002 was 12.7% of capacity (using the average between the AWEA's figures for installed capacity at the end of 2001 and 2002). In California, the average is 20%. The Searsburg plant in Vermont averages 21%, declining every year. This percentage is called the load factor or capacity factor. The rated generating capacity only occurs during 100% ideal conditions, typically a sustained wind speed over 30 mph. As the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. [Click here for more about the technicalities of wind as a power source, as well as energy consumption data. Click here for conversions between and explanations of energy units.]

In high winds, ironically, the turbines must be stopped because they are easily damaged. Build-up of dead bugs has been shown to halve the maximum power generated by a wind turbine, reducing the average power generated by 25% and more. Build-up of salt on off-shore turbine blades similarly has been shown to reduce the power generated by 20%-30%.

Eon Netz, the grid manager for about a third of Germany, discusses the technical problems of connecting large numbers of wind turbines [click here]: Electricity generation from wind fluctuates greatly, requiring additional reserves of "conventional" capacity to compensate; high-demand periods of cold and heat correspond to periods of low wind; only limited forecasting is possible for wind power; wind power needs a corresponding expansion of the high-voltage and extra-high-voltage grid infrastructure; and expansion of wind power makes the grid more unstable. [Click here for a good explanation of why wind-generated power can not usefully contribute to the grid and only causes greater problems, including the use of more "conventional" fuel.]

[/FONT]http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html[FONT=New York, serif]
[/FONT]
 
It wasn't really that long ago that people questioned how computers could benefit a household, of if TV could be anything more than a novelty item...
 
Back
Top