I've often thought that maybe the Kyoto Protocol could have been more aptly named the 'Don Quixote Protocol.' Why? Because 'Kyoto' sounds like 'Quixote' and, in the novel by Miguel de Cervantes, Quixote fought an imaginary enemy of giants that turned out to be windmills. Today, our imaginary enemy is 'big warming' driven by CO2 conjured up in computer models. One of the consequences of fighting this phantom menace is the UK's looming energy gap. Instead of windmills, we have wind turbines. This brings me to a new report by the Centre for Policy Studies entitled: 'Wind Chill'
The summary states:
Britain faces an energy gap of up 32 GW by 2015 as older coal and nuclear power stations are paid off. At the same time, Britain has made a binding commitment to deliver 15% of all its energy consumption from renewable energy sources by 2020.
Government policy is based on using wind power both to help close the energy gap and to meet its renewable energy targets
If the Government is to meet its renewables target, then the amount of electricity to be generated by wind farms
will have to increase by more than 20 times.
Expensive
This will be very expensive. Electricity generated by wind turbines already enjoys huge subsidies and tax breaks
through the Renewables Obligation scheme.
The Government has now accepted that the total costs of meeting the 2020 target will be £100 billion. This is the
equivalent of £4,000 for every household in the country.
WIND CHILL
The Royal Academy of Engineering has calculated that wind energy is two and a half times more expensive than other forms of electricity generation in the UK.
Unreliable
Wind generation does not provide a reliable supply of power. It must be backed up by other baseload sources.
Greater reliance on wind power could lead to electricity supply disruptions if the wind does not blow, blows too hard or does not blow where wind farms are located.
The experience of Denmark – often hailed for its pioneering development of wind farms – is that wind energy is expensive, inefficient and not even particularly “green”. There are signs that other countries are losing some of their enthusiasm for wind power.
Unpopular
There is no evidence that people are prepared to pay for wind power. Only 15% of people say that they are fairly or very willing to pay higher electricity bills if the extra money funds renewable power sources such as wind. The figures for “very unwilling” and “fairly unwilling” are 37% and 24% respectively.
This over-reliance on expensive wind energy, coupled with rising gas prices, will drive six million households
into fuel poverty.
Disrupting
Present wind farm planning applications do not take into consideration the economic viability of the project or whether the topography and meteorological conditions are suitable.
The planning system already favours wind farm developers. But if the Government is to meet its renewable target by 2020, then current planning regulations will have to be weighted even further in favour of wind farm suppliers.
The Ministry of Defence has recently lodged last minute objections to at least four onshore wind farms claiming
the turbines will interfere with their national air defence radar.
The alternative
The energy gap must be filled with equivalent baseload capacity as quickly as possible.
The UK should therefore now develop its nuclear, clean coal (including coal gasification) and other renewable supplies of energy (particularly tidal).
Wind energy, in contrast, should only play a negligible role in plugging Britain’s looming energy gap.
There is also an article about the report in the Daily Mail: Wind turbines are 'unreliable and will cost each home £4,000' claims think-tank
Ender,
The Victorian gov. approved a new coal fired power station.
(I'm sure it's to power the desal plant)
It will use brown coal, dried to black coal standard.
Looks like they don't have a lot of faith in renewable energy supply just yet, or in the foreseeable future either, given that it takes years to build.
World Nuclear News notes thus -
IEA spells out carbon reduction challenge. The OECD International Energy Agency’s
biennial publication Energy Technology Perspective has outlined what it says is necessary to
halve today’s CO2 emissions by 2050 in order to keep global temperature increase below 2.4C.
This would require the virtual decarbonising of the power generation sector and entail
investment in new technology of over $45 trillion by 2050 plus carbon emission costs of $200
to $500 /t CO2. Apart from conservation, nuclear power and carbon capture and storage are
the main technologies to achieve this, and some 1400 new nuclear plants are likely to be
required by 2050. WNN 6/6/08.
This is reality land, calculated by experts rather than dreamers.
If you wish to kill millions of people, stop fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions overnight. To parody Oscar Wilde, "There is only one thing in the World worse than GHG, and that is not having GHG".
Peter Lang is experienced in electricity provision and costs in Australia. He has given me permission to circulate the following paper.
It deals with the cost of avoiding emission of a tonne of CO2 from a new power generator in Australia. Because of the need for backup power, the windmill approach costs over $1,000 per tonne of CO2 avoided. Nuclear costs $22.
Worth a read? It's a word document to click once you get my esnips account page. It's my only post there at the moment.
http://www.esnips.com/web/CostofCO2inpowergeneration
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/29/eawind129.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/29/do2910.xml
"When these things happen the other elements of the smart renewable grid will take over so this argument is just old and tired now."
Like what? Hamsters?
Just a bit more on nuclear costs:
http://www.energycentral.com/centers/energybiz/ebi_detail.cfm?id=525
""It's not so much how much the plant costs, it's what's the price of electricity is when the plant comes online and how does that compare with natural gas, that's really the important question," says Heymer.
Yet consultant Harding says that he estimates that operating cost per kilowatt-hour for a new nuclear plant will be 30 cents per kilowatt-hour for 12 or 13 years until construction costs are paid down, at which point operating costs will drop to 18 cents. Harding adds those costs are a tough sell when concentrated solar power and wind power can be had for about 14 cents per kilowatt-hour. He said he believes that those renewable resources, as well as natural gas, and perhaps LNG, might prove competitive to a new nuclear plant. "
Mark - "Except when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow!"
When these things happen the other elements of the smart renewable grid will take over so this argument is just old and tired now.
"I must get out of the way before I get trampled by market governed private utilities scrambling to build your proposed nirvana rather than tried, true and workable solutions!"
Maybe you would be trampled by the market forces rushing to build nukes:
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Newsletter/NLRMIspring08.pdf
"Nuclear power, we’re told, is a vibrant
industry that’s dramatically reviving
because it’s proven, necessary,
competitive, reliable, safe, secure, widely used,
increasingly popular, and carbon-free—a
perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal
power. New nuclear plants thus sound vital
for climate protection, energy security, and
powering a growing economy.
There’s a catch, though: the private capital
market isn’t investing in new nuclear plants,
and without fi nancing, capitalist utilities aren’t buying. The few purchases, nearly all in Asia, are all made by central planners with a draw
on the public purse. In the United States,
even government subsidies approaching or
exceeding new nuclear power’s total cost have
failed to entice Wall Street."
That's great Ender! Except when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow! I must get out of the way before I get trampled by market governed private utilities scrambling to build your proposed nirvana rather than tried, true and workable solutions!