Juggling numbers on renewables

Juggling numbers on renewables

image

 

Renewables at 23.7% sounds impressive, eh? But craftily, they include hydro, which accounts for two thirds of this figure. Ten years ago hydro was already supplying 16% of the world’s electricity, just the same as it is now.

We all know that adding much more hydro is not possible, and generally speaking is not sensible from either environmental or agricultural reasons.

And that leaves wind and solar, which produce less than 5%.

But when we look at total energy consumption, and not just electricity, the contribution from wind/solar becomes vanishingly small:

 

image

 

 

4) “The fact that we had 147GW of capacity, mainly of wind and solar is a clear indication that these technologies are cost competitive (with fossil fuels)”

This is simply self serving nonsense.

The only reason renewable capacity is increasing in developed countries is because they are heavily subsidised and/or fossil fuels are being regulated out of existence.

In the UK, for instance, the latest CfD auction has awarded 15-year, index linked prices to offshore wind farms of £126/MWh, which is three times the market price. Solar farms subsidies are not much less, getting guaranteed prices of £83/MWh.

Much more

Electric Prices To Rise By 40%

Electric Prices To Rise By 40%

Germany, UK took the plunge so we don’t have to. Thank you for demonstrating (again) no such thing as a perpetuum mobile (renewable energy) exists. Any sane person could predict you can’t get something for nothing, that the only tenable energy sources are matter/energy conversion or gravity. Why is it so hard to understand you can’t ‘make’ energy but only convert one form to another where stored energy in the form of hydrocarbons or matter/energy conversion release already contained energy thus making it the most productive one? I can’t get my head around people imagining that collecting energy can ever beat releasing captured energy. It’s so blindingly obvious.

NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul2

image

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/11292367/Green-policies-to-add-up-to-40pc-to-cost-of-household-electricity.html

Don’t say I did not warn you!

The cost of household electricity will rise by as much as 40 per cent by the end of the decade because of the Government’s green energy policies.

Official figures — initially withheld by ministers — show an alarming increase in the price of electricity caused by generous subsidies to wind farms as well as other policies.

An average household is expected to pay as much as £250 more for electricity – mainly through consumer subsidies – to pay for the Government’s green energy schemes, while an electrically heated house could be as much as £440 a year worse off.

And by 2030, when thousands of planned offshore wind turbines are finally operating, the burden will be even greater, the numbers show. The average household could be paying an extra 60 per cent for electricity – equivalent to…

View original post 360 more words

The Climate Scam’s Meltdown

The Climate Scam’s Meltdown

WALTER STARCK

The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they’re trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn’t cooperating

This doesn’t mean the climate change “debate” will stop, the news media will cease reporting weather as a dire threat, or that the true believers will no longer be obsessed by it. However, the ultimate arbiter, climate itself, has made clear its decision by ceasing to warm for over 18 years. Despite the ongoing use of fossil fuels, a proclaimed 95% certainty of 97% of scientists and the high-powered projections of the world’s most advanced climate models, the climate has refused to pay the slightest heed.

Contrary to all the confidence and predictions of alleged experts, storms are no more intense nor frequent, while droughts, floods and sea levels have declined to confirm alarmists’ barely concealed hopes of disasters. The simple fact is that the alleged experts and their high-powered models were wrong. The climate has ceased to warm and, with little or no greenhouse warming, the entire theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), aka Climate Change (CC), aka Global Warming, aka Extreme Weather, is left with no basis.

The debate over CC has been unique in the history of science in that its proponents have largely abandoned the primacy of evidence and openly declared methodology in favour of self-proclaimed authority backed by their own confidential methods and models. It is also unique in that the alarmists refuse to directly address their arguments, prefering to ignore, censor and personally denigrate them. In a few instances in the early part of the public debate, the proponents attempted direct debate with their critics but came away looking decidedly second-best and they soon refused any further direct discussion. With no convincing answers to the uncertainties and conflicting evidence raised by their opponents they simply chose to ignore them, declare the science “settled” and anoint themselves as the only experts. All who disagreed agree were deemed to be fools, knaves and/or in the pay and pocket of Big Energy.

With a naive and compliant news media steeped in the same politically correct, left wing academic indoctrination as the researchers, the latter enjoyed a near monopoly on favourable news coverage. Self-serving publicity releases were regurgitated undigested beneath the by-lines of environmental “reporters”, who eagerly reduced themselves to unquestioning stenographers.

Read More

How windfarms burn money to generate energy

How windfarms burn money to generate energy

Dr Gordon Hughes

The Performance of Wind Farms in the United Kingdom and Denmark

Executive Summary

1. Onshore wind turbines represent a relatively mature technology, which ought to have achieved a satisfactory level of reliability in operation as plants age. Unfortunately, detailed analysis of the relationship between age and performance gives a rather different picture for both the United Kingdom and Denmark with a significant decline in the average load factor of onshore wind farms adjusted for wind availability as they get older. An even more dramatic decline is observed for offshore wind farms in Denmark, but this may be a reflection of the immaturity of the technology.

2. The study has used data on the monthly output of wind farms in the UK and Denmark reported under regulatory arrangements and schemes for subsidizing renewable energy. Normalized age-performance curves have been estimated using standard statistical techniques which allow for differences between sites and over time in wind resources and other factors.

3. The normalized load factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15. The decline in the normalized load factor for Danish onshore wind farms is slower but still significant with a fall from a peak of 22% to 18% at age 15. On the other hand for offshore wind farms in Denmark the normalized load factor falls from 39% at age 0 to 15% at age 10. The reasons for the observed declines in normalized load factors cannot be fully assessed using the data available but outages due to mechanical breakdowns appear to be a contributory factor.

4. Analysis of site-specific performance reveals that the average normalized load factor of new UK onshore wind farms at age 1 (the peak year of operation) declined significantly from 2000 to 2011. In addition, larger wind farms have systematically worse performance than smaller wind farms. Adjusted for age and wind availability the overall performance of wind farms in the UK has deteriorated markedly since the beginning of the century.

5. These findings have important implications for policy towards wind generation in the UK. First, they suggest that the subsidy regime is extremely generous if investment in new wind farms is profitable despite the decline in performance due to age and over time. Second, meeting the UK Government’s targets for wind generation will require a much higher level of wind capacity – and, thus, capital investment – than current projections imply. Third, the structure of contracts offered to wind generators under the proposed reform of the electricity market should be modified since few wind farms will operate for more than 12–15 years.

Windenergy really really isn’t cost effective by any standard (PDF)