Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

The Scotsman Digital Archive - Special Christmas Offer

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Coal back-up for wind power 'will cost £100bn'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 30 August 2008
A LEADING power company has claimed wind energy is so unreliable that even if 13,000 turbines are built to meet EU renewable energy targets, they could be relied on to provide only 7 per cent of the country's peak winter electricity demand.
E.On has argued that, during the coldest days of winter, so little wind blows that 92 per cent of installed wind capacity would have to be backed up by traditional power stations.

It argues this would require new coal-fired power stations to be built so they could be used in an emergency when little wind blows.

This, E.On suggests, will mean that, to meet renewable targets of 20 per cent of energy being provided from renewables by 2020, the UK's installed power base will need to rise from 76 gigawatts today to more than 100GW.

The company estimates this could cost £100 billion.

The John Muir Trust, which campaigns against wind farms in Scotland's beauty spots, said E.On's claims back its view that the country is depending too heavily on wind power.

Helen McDade, the trust's policy officer, thinks instead far more should be done to improve energy efficiency.

"Energy conservation is by far the best use of money," she said. "The question is why we are not doing more of this."

She criticised the "assumption that as long as it's got a renewable tag on it we can carrying on using energy at the level we have been".

However, Friends of the Earth Scotland accused E.On, which is trying to build a new coal-fired plant at Kingsnorth in Kent, of "scaremongering".

"I'm not at all surprised to find a company trying to build new coal-fired power stations using unfounded assumptions about the renewables industry," he said.

"Essentially, what they are doing is taking a very simplistic analysis and arguing that we need to massively back up for the worst possible scenarios."

Dr Richard Dixon, director of conservation charity WWF Scotland, agreed. "It's not surprising, given their agenda is all about building massive coal-fired power stations," he said.

He said by 2020 wind turbines will be more efficient, there will be more storage within the grid, and the UK could be connected to the European grid – all measures which will undermine the need for back-up from coal-fired power stations.

E.On argues in its response to a House of Lords inquiry into the economics of renewable energy that if 40,000 megawatts of wind capacity – about 13,000 turbines – is needed to meet renewable targets, just 3,600MW will be able to be relied on to meet the peak demand in winter.

It says this is because on the very coldest days there is very little wind, because of anti- cyclones.

A spokesman said the question had to be asked how power companies would make money from plants that only run when the wind is not blowing.

"Under the current trading system for power, you just wouldn't build it so clearly there has to be some sort of encouragement," he said.

IN NUMBERS

1,382 megawatts of installed hydro power in Scotland.

1,367 megawatts of installed wind power in Scotland.

100 megawatts of installed energy from waste in Scotland.

79 megawatts of installed biomass electricity in Scotland.

29 megawatts of installed biomass heat in Scotland.

2 megawatts of installed wave power in Scotland.

31 per cent of Scotland's electricity to be generated from renewable sources by 2011 under Scottish Government targets




The full article contains 594 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 29 August 2008 11:12 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Wind Power
 
1

Resolutions,

30/08/2008 00:10:48
Tides do not rely on wind and as far as I know the moon is not affected by winds.

Why do Eon always think wind is the only renewable?
2

danielrober,

30/08/2008 00:27:17
I don't think it matters what a company even as reputable as eon says. The politicos have found some kind of peace in their heads. They simply are not listening to anyone.

Good on the Scotsman though to keep up the effort.
3

SlyFifer,

Somewhere west of Scotland 30/08/2008 00:41:48
Energy is a huge debate everywhere none more so than here in California. Sad reality is that wind is just so unreliable as a leading source of power it simply has to be relegated to a lowly place in the lexicon of power sources. Equally, it is the storage and transmission of wind generated power that makes large scale investment in it now, uneconomic.
Scotland with it's vast coal reserves, like the US can and should be grearing up to building clean coal plants. Nuclear has a place too, just ask a Frenchman. 60% + of France's power is nuclear and to the best of my knowledge, hasn't killed anyone yet. Wave is good but mightly expensive. So, maybe Scotland should stick to tried and true mix of Hydro/Coal/Nuclear and suppliement this with whatever proves to bring in at least 15-20% of power needs. Just saying !
4

Dan_DHRT,

30/08/2008 00:44:53
I agree with Ms. McDade.

What if every home and commercial building had an energy audit to identify what specific energy consevation measures the individual home or commercial building would be beneficial?

We had a home energy audit performed on our house last fall. We learned a great deal about energy conservation in the home in general as well as specific recommendations that would result in reduced consumption of non-renewable resources in our home.

Problem was we couldn't find a sample report from a home energy audit before we agreed to have it done. So, if others are interested we have published a series of articles on our home web site showing the different charts, graphs, ratings and recommendations specific to us (the ECOENEGY page).

With a home energy audit, the home owner will know from an independant perspective what they can do and the relative degree of energy consumption from various eenrgy conservation tasks in the home. Perhaps some of the money identified for solar power generation could be allocated in stead to subsidize home and commercial building energy audits to reduce the demand side of energy consumption.

Dan
DailyHomeRenoTips.com
5

Matt there,

somewhere 30/08/2008 01:01:17
E.oN seems unable to see the wood for the trees.

Use wind power, wave power, biomass, hydro and solar.

See? Simple, isn't it? Or maybe their laderhosen was a bit too tight to allow rational thought...
6

Alan Reid,

NZ 30/08/2008 01:55:21
Sorry Mike cannot agree on that, with the usual things IE: what do we do with waste, if there is an accident etc But also the cost of nuclear is so high it’s crippling.

Please have a look at the following links:

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/business/-BE39s-repair-bill-for.4301635.jp

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/defects-found-in-nuclear-reactor-the-french-want-to-build-in-britain-808461.html


This one is scary

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nwaste-containers-likely-to-fail-warns-devastating-report-907200.html

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/utilities/article2741526.ece


Then again I have to admit I’ve just landed a job, carrying out inspection on wind turbines, here in NZ and all over the world, so maybe you could say I have a vested interest in wind power.
In truth though I’ve always been against nuclear power having worked with radiation these last twenty years.
7

Charles MN,

30/08/2008 02:02:07
#5
At the moment windpower is producing almost no electricity ( check http://www.middelgrund.com/ for their current stats or just look out the window), solar is producing no electricity, wavepower isn't producing enough to be worthwhile counting. So we are left with biomass and hydro. Of the 400TWh of electricity produced in the UK,hydro produces 5 and biomass 9. That's 3.5% between them.

What Eon , one of the worlds largest windpower producers, are saying is that if you buy a wind turbine you still need to buy another form of electricity supply as well for when the wind doesn't blow.

8

atp2007,

Clive, Iowa 30/08/2008 03:59:03
We've heard the same nonsense from the utilities in the States, that they can't meet whatever % of the electric load we want them to, then the state legislature makes it mandatory and low and behold they not only meet the requirements but go further. Some midwestern and western states are already generating 10 to 20% by wind turbine, but we are probably doing this because many of the turbines are private and the utilities are required to buy the power to meet state requirements. It's frigid here in the winter and we have plenty of wind to power the turbines.
9

devo,

lincoln, nebraska, usa 30/08/2008 06:35:27
The fellow from Iowa has it right. There's a lot of "can't do" attitude with the utilities until they get forced to get with it. The other thing that Iowa has going for it is that they're putting in compressed air energy storage (CAES) to be able to take the wind power and store it for use later. It's called the Iowa Stored Energy Park. It's similar to pumped hydro in terms of scale and costs but you can put it in more locations. The Advanced Adiabatic (AA-CAES) systems are in the works to boost the storage efficiency even higher and reduce the fossil component to next to nil.
10

Boy Wonder,

30/08/2008 07:02:59
Been telling you all long enough ... windfarms are stupid and nasty, impractical and an eyesore ... a blot on the landscape.

Wave power would be better and more sustainable. But frankly ... nuclear is the best option. Clean fusion would be better and we have to get to grips with it ... unless ....

Does anyone have any Dilithium handy???
11

Greenheatman,

www.greenheating.com 30/08/2008 07:23:40
At the risk of repeating myself the ONLY solution is to use tidal stream, waves and perhaps unreliable wind to generate green heat NOT green electricity.

There are two simple ways of converting real time dynamic shaft power from your RES into heat. For example, my Gentec venturi device in the Pentland Firth develops a peak shaft power of 10MW(mech)during one Spring tide then using the formula (4xbxh)/3xpi)almost 25.5MWh(mech) can be converted into heat and stored in thermal accumulators close to existing coal fired power stations.

For every 6MWh(thermal)fed in 2MWh(green electrical) will be generated from storage and, more importantly, 950kg of CO2 will not be emitted!

Pretty self evident to most readers but you will always get a few befuddled thinkers who cannot comprehend simple physics and never will.



12

BigNige,

Arizona, US 30/08/2008 07:26:33
What E.On are saying is correct. The unreliability of wind is such that 26GB of installed wind capacity would need 4GB of reliable capacity on standby, e.g. gas or coal in today's technologies. (Sinden, G. (2005) Diversity in the Electricity Generating Sector, Ofxord Environmental Change Institute.) Sinden also indicates the probability that all of this backup capacity would ever be needed is very low, however it is still necessary to match existing reliability. the chances of 2 sites more than 300km apart having the same wind speed is less than 50%. With appropriately distributed generating sites reliability can be improved. The number of hours in which there was no wind across the UK from 1982-2000 is zero. increasing the diversity of renewable sources - wave, tidal, solar, biomass) will also increase the reliability.

If wind is itroduced to meet new demand then the backup capacity must be new as well. If wind capcity replaces existing capacity, then no new coal or gas would be needed - the backup comes from existing plants.

The costs of maintaing the backup will have to be borne by the renewable plant - it's an integral part of their function - and will obviously increase its cost.

None of this means than wind and other renewables cannot work. Even with the overhead of maintaining the backup wind and renewables are still economically viable and greatly reduce carbon emissions - especially when coal and gas have to start paying for their carbon emissions.
13

ziz,

Oldham 30/08/2008 07:33:09
News for Mr Dixon at WWF - the UK was connected to the European Grid in 1986 by the IF 2000 interconnector - a contract has just been awarded to Areva to upgrade it.

The "inconvenient truth" is that demand exceeds enrgy saving - how many TV's have you got ?
14

McNasty,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 07:34:07
In a civilised society, perhaps it would be nice only to work when the wind is blowing?
15

BigNige,

Arizona, US 30/08/2008 07:37:13
Other posters' comments on developing storage technologies (compressed air, heat) will increase teh reliability of wind and reduce the dependency on old tech plants over time.

Hydro of course is an old storage technology and Scotland is perfect for developing this in tandem with offshore wind.
16

jdships,

30/08/2008 07:37:30


It comes down ,then, to an awful lot of people making an awful lot of money producing/operating a system which is not/ going to be efficient and economical.
Sounds very familiar , especially to the citizens of Edinburgh !!!!!
17

Me, myself and I,

Livingston 30/08/2008 07:46:14
Tree huggers of the world wake up to an inconvenient truth.

What will you say when the lights go off? When the elderly die in winter as there is no power to heat their homes? When people die on operating tables during a power outage? When your mugged and raped in the dark because there are no street lights?

The Russians and Arabs have us over a barrel and are ready and willing to butt f**k us.

Coal, nuclear to a degree, and some renewables are needed to guarantee energy independence.

Within the next decade this will happen as all our existing nuclear stations are switched off and europe makes us close down the old coal stations. Succesive governments have ignored the peril.
18

Me, myself and I,

Livingston 30/08/2008 07:46:31
Tree huggers of the world wake up to an inconvenient truth.

What will you say when the lights go off? When the elderly die in winter as there is no power to heat their homes? When people die on operating tables during a power outage? When your mugged and raped in the dark because there are no street lights?

The Russians and Arabs have us over a barrel and are ready and willing to butt f**k us.

Coal, nuclear to a degree, and some renewables are needed to guarantee energy independence.

Within the next decade this will happen as all our existing nuclear stations are switched off and europe makes us close down the old coal stations. Succesive governments have ignored the peril.
19

BigNige,

Arizona, US 30/08/2008 07:47:19
Efficient? No. Generating electricity is not efficient (unless you are talking micro scale hydrogen). Cost effective? Wind is already close to the cost of generating from gas and coal and that is without paying for the carbon emissions. Add in economies of scale and incremental technolofy improvements and wind will probably be the cheapest electricity there is in 10 years.
20

Greenheatman,

TAIN 30/08/2008 08:15:35
Graham Sinden's 'report' on renewable energy is an excellent example of flawed academic thinking. There is no future in generating any electricity from renewables and uploading it in real time onto the grid randomly.

He falls into the trap of believing that all wind derived electricity is consumed the moment it is generated when most of it is lost to the ether.

When you have any number of random events subject to the vagaries of tide and weather, mathematically, you will always have 'coincident nulls' Take wind, wave, tides and hydro as an example. The probability of all of these working is 0.3 x 0.3 x 0.2 x 0.24 = 0.4%. This means that the probabilty of them all not working at the same time is 99.6%; the probabilty of the first three not working is 98.2% and so on.

Graham Sinden makes no mention of this in his 'paper'


Storing renewables through the night as heat and converting this heat to meet demand in the morning when all our toasters go on is a pretty obvious strategy which will raise the probability of supply from 0.4% to 100% without burning coal and 'biomass'
21

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 08:16:24
Both coal and nuclear stations fail quite often and then the system loses around 1GW all at once. However, the wind does not suddenly drop all over the UK.

Furthermore the probability of zero wind all over the UK is much lower than the probability of failure of one or more big thermal or nuclear stations.

22

Nebulous,

Aberdeen 30/08/2008 08:18:18
I am keen on renewables, have a strong instinctive reaction against nuclear - the greedy selfish option- get 30 years power and leave our children and their descendents with a 10,000 years clean-up bill.

However the main reason I am posting is to point out the possibilities in saving power. Our heating, hot water and hob are gas - which has always been cheap to run. Our electric bills are considerably higher and over the last 3 months I have really tackled them. I have had no energy surveys, no high tech meters - just recording and monitoring usage. We had averaged 18 units a day over the previous two years and in the last 3 months that is down below 12, a decrease of a third. Our lifestyle hasn't suffered, we aren't sitting in the dark, we are just more aware and have changed some equipment - mainly in buying a new energy efficient fridge/freezer.
23

Nebulous,

Aberdeen 30/08/2008 08:18:42
I am keen on renewables, have a strong instinctive reaction against nuclear - the greedy selfish option- get 30 years power and leave our children and their descendents with a 10,000 years clean-up bill.

However the main reason I am posting is to point out the possibilities in saving power. Our heating, hot water and hob are gas - which has always been cheap to run. Our electric bills are considerably higher and over the last 3 months I have really tackled them. I have had no energy surveys, no high tech meters - just recording and monitoring usage. We had averaged 18 units a day over the previous two years and in the last 3 months that is down below 12, a decrease of a third. Our lifestyle hasn't suffered, we aren't sitting in the dark, we are just more aware and have changed some equipment - mainly in buying a new energy efficient fridge/freezer.
24

Unimpressed one,

30/08/2008 08:28:06
See the usual suspects, Dixon and McLaren, deny the harsh reality of engineering facts. They still cling onto renewables with religious fervour. Now if only politicians would listen to the power generators instead of the loonies....
25

Geoff,

sa 30/08/2008 08:33:54
The bland truth is that all energy sources have a place and all of them have strengths and weaknesses. Whether we like it or not,renewables will and WILL HAVE TO play a larger role in our future as oil, gas and coal inevitably disappear. Technology in renewables, including wind power improves and will continue to improve daily.
26

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 30/08/2008 08:35:25
Strange, a company that is heavily involved in old fashioned energy production and only wants to build more of its old fashioned technology, argues that that its old fashioned technology is best...

Nice numbers. No good without knowing their assumptions (oh yes - the moon will stop orbiting the earth and the earth's weather system will shut down)

27

gus1940,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 08:40:48
How much energy is being wasted by burying domestic waste (most of which is combustible)?

Burn it to generate electricity or as district heating systems.

Regard the waste as chemical feed stock and apply a bit of chemistry to treating the poisonous and/or polluting residue and gases and producing something useful and non-polluting.

I know there must be a reason why but could somebody tell me why the gas flared off into the atmosphere at oil refineries cannot be used instead of polluting and heating up the atmosphere.

The same applies to the flare stacks on oil rigs - surely the gas could be burned in a gas turbine to produce the electricity for the rig.

28

Evan Owen,

Snowdonia 30/08/2008 08:43:27
Common sense at last! Why did they wait until wind power fever had taken hold?
29

Geoff,

sa 30/08/2008 08:48:11
29-on the face of it,good point re gas flares-can anyone inviolved in the oil industry answer this one-I am assuming there must be a good reason otherwise why would they simply burn money?
30

C U Jimmy,

Mauchline 30/08/2008 08:58:39
During the 1920s some hydro power plants in the north of Scotland were closed down as being uneconomical due to cheap oil at that time, these plants were built at considerable cost both in money and sadly in some some places lives were lost, with Scotland's lochs, rivers and rainfall, you don't have to be a genius to see the potential......old proverb, there's none so blind as those who will not see....
31

,

30/08/2008 08:59:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
32

David MacVicar,

Web 30/08/2008 09:02:11
This article is misleading in typical Britsman fashion.

The remarks by Eon are valid in the context and scope they were made. The Context and Scope that the Scotsman then tries to compare that to is another matter.

Coal will cost 100 Billion Headline. Since this is the 'Scotsman' without context you would think this is referring to Scotland. Except Eon was referring to:
The UK, UK Coal, UK distribution of Energy, UK wind Energy production and UK Wind patterns.
In fact they were certainly mainly pointing to energy use in England and Wales and reffering to it as the UK.

The Scotsman then gives all the 'numbers' 'in Scotland'.

Is it any wonder this paper and junk journalism is going to the wall.

Scotland has of course similar issues over percentage of Wind and required base load and backup and alternatives etc. The Scotsman however tries to paint comments about the UK (and South UK principally) as meaning Scotland. Jenny Howarth : do you know the difference between UK Energy needs and Scottish energy needs? Guess not.

Where is the headline stating that Scots are having 30% gas fuel bill rises due to UK imports. I say UK imports but really it is England and Wales. Scotland still produces 6 times more GAS than it uses and pipes it South and to N.I. (figures on Scottish Gov. Website). Gas fired stations are the 'cleanest' orleast polluting fossil fuel stations. Now we dont even have a Perterhead plant.

Where are these headlines Jenny? At least the Scotsman wont be spouting the UK propaganda for much longer.
33

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 30/08/2008 09:07:08
Since the population of the UK is predicted to rise by a further 10 million in the next decade - purely by immigration - all of these plans are off- target. There is no ring-fenced 'Scottish Power' - it is a national UK grid - in fact it is a Euro-grid - so this is just 'greenwash'. Britain is about to become the most densely populated country in the whole of Europe and energy demand will go through the stratosphere.

Also, despite what the MMGW hysterics keep ranint on about - many climatologists are predicting a decade of plummeting temperatures (new sunspots have failed to appear for the last 8 months) - so we are going to need every tiny bit of power: coal, nuclear & hydro we can get. Windpower is a sop to green hysterics - though of course the companies have a guaranteed trough of money taken from the taxpayer by hidden energy stealth taxes.
34

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 09:09:46
In the 1950s and 60s, when the coal industry was at its peak, and coal-fired power stations were the main supplier of electricity, and at a time when more and more nuclear stations being commissioned, there were more sudden and prolonged electricity power failures than in recent years?

However, a search online reveals that electricity power failures are still part of daily life and happening regularly all over the UK, and not because some careless workman has drilled through a sub-station cable!

It is also interesting that Scotland still generates more electricity than it can use, and every year exports the surplus to England and Wales, and Northern Ireland.

35

The Tin Man,

30/08/2008 09:44:00
#34 David McVicar

David, it does not matter how much gas is produced by oil companies off Scotland, we still have to pay the going rate, unless it is to be subsidised through taxation.

I costs a lot more to produce gas in the N. Sea than in Siberia, so perhaps we are being subsidised by UK gas imports?
36

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 30/08/2008 10:13:19
I don't like to say it, but - Told you so!
37

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 10:26:33
A detailed study for the UK National Grid states "We have estimated that for the case with 8000MW of wind needed to meet the 10% renewables target for 2010, balancing costs ['backup'] can be expected to increase by around £2 per MWh of wind production. This would represent an additional £40million per annum, just over 10% of existing annual balancing costs." This is a paltry £0.11/MWh.'
38

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 10:34:38
34# The main piece of junk journalism in the Scotsman's figures is that it continues to give out the installed capacity for wind farms as being relevant. On average for the year to 31st March 2008 Scottish wind farms had an output of 314mws. For the last month published, May, the figure was 217mws. (31% of Scotland's electricity production is currently 2000mws.)
39

Aquifer,

Belfast 30/08/2008 10:45:12
Currently (sorry) wind generated electricity is only used to displace fossil fuel generation. Gas and Oil prices are now so high it will now pay to use it to heat homes. And low and behold, heating demands rise with wind speed, due to draughts, so the match is good.

There is lots of spare generation about. Hospitals etc have huge diesel generators which should be run regularly anyhow. Too often such generators fail to run because they have not been used.

If people paid for electricity in proportion to the hourly wholesale price, using Smart meters, they would soon work out when to switch off, and when to install their own wind or other generators.

Eon and the rest like to boost their turnover and have us pay for big fat powerstations to try to make their profits look small.

Was it Eon that admitted the new nuclear station in Finland was going to run way over budget? The one with the dodgy welds. ref Radiation Safety Centre (STUK)
40

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 30/08/2008 11:52:02
We should forget about wind power and open up the coal mines again. Global warming is a lot of hogwash - it's all down to solar cycles and has happened throughout history. The Thames has often frozen over in the past so nothing new there.

Even if global warming is real, I'm not bothered about the world's state in 100 years' time, I want to be comfortable now thanks very much. You can can the recycling nonsense as well - stick it all in landfill.
41

wattie>x 1,

PLYMOUTH 30/08/2008 12:13:58
In days of yore those who held the political control and power very few ever snuffed it during natural or man-made disasters, those who paid the ultimate price were the ordinary people, the exact same as it is today.

Who are asked to save on the use of fuel power?

Those controlling every single minute of our lives politically ? Or their wealthy supporters who live in a false world of grandeur while most of us are not even given the humble privilege to make voluntary sacrifices but are rigidly compelled by cost?

Most of these pious politicians and their extreme rich sycophants are maybe on £2.000 + per week; while millions of ordinary people are seeing their weekly earnings being whittled away daily.

The same criterion applies in conflict situations; those who make the supreme sacrifice are the ordinary members off our class ridden democracy ?

How many victims off the Second World War (or any war)
do you imagine came from the ranks of our privileged wealthy and political controllers ?

Very few and far between!
42

Charles MN,

30/08/2008 12:15:45
#41 STUK doesn't say that at all:

http://www.stuk.fi/stuk/tiedotteet/en_GB/news_506/

don't believe what Greenpeace tell you.

I pointed out at 2am Windpower was producing no power. It still isn't. So not only are we paying twice as much for windpower we have to pay for an other plant to supply us with electricity when the wind doesn't blow.
43

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 30/08/2008 12:21:29
We should have loads more nuclear power plants too. They are CO2 free (if that nonsense worries you) and their spent fuel can just be put in cheap rockets and blasted into space.
44

nolimits,

Canada 30/08/2008 15:04:29
#31 Geoff: There are two main types of natural gas. Sweet and sour. No pun intended. Sweet gas has a low/no concentration of sulphides, and sour gas(H2S) will kill you in one breath.I am not sure what the North Sea platforms produce, but if it is sour gas, it would need a considerable amount of scrubbing(removing the sulphur) to make it usable for power generation. There is no room on a rig platform for this equipment. Ergo, it is burned off.
45

Aquifer,

Belfast 30/08/2008 15:05:20
#44 It's not what STUK says, it's what it does:

http://www.yle.fi/news/left/id99473.html

When we pay for wind we get high value local jobs and the prospect of import-free energy. Buying in fossil energy from people who may not like us very much cannot be seen as risk-free. Where will the price be in 10 or even 2 years? Will they still be selling?

After a spell of success men tend to go for risky strategies. Its a testerone thing. I'd like to appear manly and cheer for nuclear, but I can also count. So I confine my risky behaviour to activities where I risk myself, not others, and not bankruptcy.

Rationally, and perhaps a little boringly in terms of the technology content, its energy efficiency and wind that can save our energy skins. The UK were almost energy sufficient a few years back, and could be again if government could get their ducks in a row.

Cheap gas has had ministers listening to market mantras and silken prose excuses for inaction for too long. Time to move on before political embarrassment is eclipsed by a permanent strategic crisis.
46

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 30/08/2008 15:23:32
The last part of my #39 should read:

'This is a paltry 0.2p/kWh.'
47

Charles MN,

30/08/2008 15:43:08
#47
Do you have difficulty reading?

"There have been public allegations suggesting that the quality control of welding work at the Olkiluoto 3 nuclear power plant construction site has been deficient. According to an investigation carried out by the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority (STUK), these allegations are unfounded. STUK submitted the report requested by the Ministry of Employment and the Economy to the ministry today (Wednesday)."

As I have been pointing out all day, if you were dependant on windpower you would have had no electricity all day.

Windpower does not supply high value local jobs as they are all imported. All the high value jobs are in Denmark.
48

johnpw,

30/08/2008 17:07:28
The reality is, in fact, far worse than E.ON states which will surprise some. In their evidence to the House of Lords they make it clear that it was based on a limited selection of their wind farms. More comprehensive data has now been published which demonstrates that full back-up is required for everything over about 2%.
The wind industry has done everything they can to hide this from the Government and the public because it completely destroys the rationale for having wind as anything more than a very small part of the energy mix.
The data to support this can be seen at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/07/23/nosplit/eawind123.xml

Alternatively just put "when the wind stops" and Telegraph into Google and you'll find the article.
49

johnpw,

Kent 30/08/2008 17:08:22
The reality is, in fact, far worse than E.ON states which will surprise some. In their evidence to the House of Lords they make it clear that it was based on a limited selection of their wind farms. More comprehensive data has now been published which demonstrates that full back-up is required for everything over about 2%.
The wind industry has done everything they can to hide this from the Government and the public because it completely destroys the rationale for having wind as anything more than a very small part of the energy mix.
The data to support this can be seen at
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2008/07/23/nosplit/eawind123.xml

Alternatively just put "when the wind stops" and Telegraph into Google and you'll find the article.
50

Charles MN,

30/08/2008 17:33:36
#52
Thanks for that link. Even Sindens data shows how poorly turbines work ( though it has been well buried in the document). His data suggests that wind turbines produce < 10% of their rated output for a quarter of the time, less than 33% for two thirds of the time and only manage over half power for 15% of the time.
51

johnpw,

Kent 30/08/2008 18:34:08
RE Charles MN
Yes, but Sinden claims that the overall average over the UK at any one time is acceptable. The article proves that this claim, which is used by the Govt in the Renewable Energy Review currently out for consultation, is totally flawed.
The simple key question is, how much of the theoretical wind capacity can be statistically relied upon to meet peak demand. The simple answer is no more than about 2%. Therefore stand-by back-up has to be virtually total.
If the Govt's proposed additional 7,000 wind turbines were to be approved we would be victims of one of the biggest confidence tricks of all time.
52

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/08/2008 08:33:34
#52:

The byline for your linked article reads:

'This article was prepared by Kentish Weald Action Group (KWAG) set up to oppose wind turbines in rural Kent'

no comment.

53

johnpw,

31/08/2008 12:00:57
#55
What an interesting reaction. But we should believe the BWEA?
The article contains evidence collected by an electrical engineer and can be easily verified. In order to reinforce the UK data it was corroborated with the corresponding German data.
I'm afraid the article demonstrates that the assertion you make at #23 is total nonsense which is probably why you don't like it.
54

Navvy,

singapore 31/08/2008 15:41:50
of course they are correct. Anyone who opens his eyes (and engages his brain)in the winter knows this.

The tides as opposed to waves offer a possible solution and we have the basis of the methods in our building of oil rigs
55

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/08/2008 16:02:16
56.

All the evidence from unbiased sources shows that the extra costs for balancing due to wind penetration up to around 20% are small.

56

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/08/2008 16:16:58
56.
You say my statement at 23 - 'the probability of zero wind all over the UK is much lower than the probability of failure of one or more big thermal or nuclear stations.' - is nonsense.

And yet you give a link to a source that quotes and does not dispute:
'"Low wind speed conditions affecting 90 per cent or more of the UK would occur in around one hour every five years during winter."

The failure rate at UK thermal and nuclear stations in recent years has been much greater than one hour in five years.

57

johnpw,

31/08/2008 17:39:33
#59
You then need to read the next two paragraphs under the quote.
Sinden defines "low wind speed" as being less than 4ms. Based on this the statement might well be correct; correct but irrelevant. The fundamental flaw in Sinden's analysis is that, in terms of turbine output, wind speeds of, say, 6ms are still very low.
By way of example, on 10 february 2008, 4 of the 30 Met Office weather stations monitored for the article had winds speeds in excess of 4ms. The overall output from turbines evenly distributed across the uk would, however, have only been 1% of installed capacity. i.e. a total wind collapse but one which would be disregarded by Sinden. This fundamental flaw in his analysis totally undermines his conclusions.
If you look at the charts in the article you'll see that, in Oct '07 there were 8 days when output in the UK would have been less than 4 %, 5 days in November and 4 days in February '08. On some of those days output dropped well below 2% and the same happened in Germany.
As EON made clear to the House of Lords, back-up is required for all the capacity above the amount which can be absolutely relied upon at times of peak demand. The data used for the article provides irrefutable evidence that not much more than 2% can be relied upon in this way and even 2% is a bit generous.
58

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 31/08/2008 17:49:42
60:

Cherrypicking dates when the wind speed was low doesn't seem very scientific to me. What matters is power fed to the grid. In Scotland the capacity factor for wind is 35% indicating useful clean power fed to the grid in significant amounts. In contrast recent figures for nuclear in Scotland have been as low as 28%.
59

Aquifer,

Belfast 01/09/2008 19:54:27
And as the price of gas from europe follows the oil price upwards, the relative cost of the machinery to burn it falls, so it really does not matter that we have some less efficient power stations standing by if the wind drops. If we were energy smart we would be building combined heat and power stations like the Danes Russians and the rest, to get more out of our gas.
60

Richard Dewick,

Bradwell-on-Sea 02/09/2008 09:43:49
Why do people blind themselves to facts when it doesn't suit their argument? When the wind doesn't blow wind turbines don't work. Simple.

Eon should know,they manage the biggest wind carpet in Europe. If they say they are useless one should really believe them.

It would have been a good idea if Dr. Dixon of WWF Scotland and the spokesman for Friends of the Earth had done their homework before making such ill-advised criticisms.

If we want lights to stay on we are going to have to make some hard decisions fast. Otherwise it is back to the stone age on every windless day!
61

robertg222@hotmail.com,

Rockville, MD USA 02/09/2008 12:31:14
Build the coal plants. The only reason against coal come from the environmental groups. That alone is enough to discredit those reasons. No good ideas come form the rich, self centered environmental groups these days. Just look at the giant global warming lie they have been touting for years. They have been repeating the lie often enough that people are starting to believe it.
62

Dragonhead,

Dalian,China 03/09/2008 04:37:56
Open up the coal mines again.They will still never produce a fraction of what one volcano spews out daily! Green doesn't mean they have the right ideas.Build cleaner more eco friendly power stations. Nuclear (the bogeymen are coming) is still the most reliable and efficient. It is 'pilot error' which causes the problems. Waste? Where there is a will there is a way. Wind turbines? another gigantic con trick.Who made on it? muppets all.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.