Wind Chill: wind energy will not fill the UK’s energy gap

Introduction: The Center for Public Policy Studies is associated with the British Conservative Party, although its positions are not coordinated with the official party views. The Essay, "Wind Chills," by Tony Lodge, ought to be read as a political document, but it should not be dismissed simply because of its ideology. Wind Chills offers a penetrating analysis of the problems associated with wind. I have posted both the press release on Wind Chills and selected passages from the document

Wind Chill: wind energy will not fill the UK’s energy gap
Date: 25 Jun 2008
Source: Centre for Policy Studies

The Government’s renewable energy consultation document, to be published on Thursday 26 June, is expected to call for a massive development of wind power. This is wrong, argues Tony Lodge in Wind Chill: why wind energy will not fill the UK’s energy gap, published today Wednesday 25 June by the Centre for Policy Studies.

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. But a rush to wind energy is not the answer to these problems.

The problems with wind are that:

It is unreliable. Wind energy must be backed up by other baseload sources.

It is expensive. The Royal Academy of Engineering has calculated that wind energy is two and a half times more expensive than other forms of (non-oil and gas) electricity generation in the UK. A Government-sponsored report has calculated that the cost of meeting the 2020 renewable energy target will be between £1,900 and £3,000 a household. The leaked strategy paper estimates the cost at £100 billion (or over £4,000 a household). Leading industry figures have estimated that it might be as much as £4,700 a household.

It is overambitious. The Government proposals imply an increase in wind production of over 20 times (from 4,225 GWh in 2006 GWh to 87,000 GWh in 2020).

It is impractical. The UK does not have the capability to build the 3,000 new offshore wind farms that are proposed; nor can the national grid handle the enormous new strains that will be imposed on it.

This matters. The increase in consumers’ electricity prices, required to pay for and maintain expensive wind energy will contribute to the difficulties faced by the 6 million households facing fuel poverty.

It is also politically foolish. New polling conducted for this report shows that this policy is also deeply unpopular. Only 3% of people say that they are very willing to pay higher electricity bills if the extra money funds renewable power sources such as wind, with another 12% saying that they are willing. The figures for "very unwilling" and "fairly unwilling" are 37% and 24% respectively.

Lodge also shows that 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 also signs that other countries are losing some of their enthusiasm for wind power.

Lodge concludes that the UK must indeed now develop its nuclear, clean coal (including coal gasification) and other renewable supplies of energy (particularly tidal). But wind energy, in contrast, should only play a negligible role in plugging Britain’s looming energy gap.

From The summery ofWind Chills:

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.

LESSONS FROM DENMARK
DENMARK IS Europe’s most-wind intensive state. With a population of 5.4 million, it has over 6,000 turbines that in 2002 produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country used. In theory, at peak output, the Danish wind farms could account for nearly 64% of Danish peak power
demand.

However, not a single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed. Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity and to provide back-up.7 Furthermore, the Danes have found that it is not practical for large baseload plants to be turned on and off as the wind dies and rises: indeed, the quick ramping up and down of those plants, such as coal, would actually increase their output of pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary greenhouse gas). Baseload stations have to keep running so that they can ‘shadow’ wind turbines due to their intermittency. So when the wind is blowing perfectly 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. According to the
Copenhagen newspaper Politiken, wind met only 1.7% of Denmark’s total demand in 1999.8 And in 2003, for example, 84% of western Denmark’s wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss). Denmark’s grid accepted only 3.3% of electricity generated by its vast wind farms.9 This has undermined the “green” credentials of Danish wind farms. For example, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The increase in the demand for coal, needed to plug the gap left by underperforming wind farms, meant that Danish carbon emissions rose by 36% in 2006.10

There are other problems. Sometimes the Danish wind turbines produce maximum output when there is little demand. On other occasions they deliver no energy when energy demand is high. Yet wind turbines themselves require electricity to operate.11 On days of little wind, the that they can ‘shadow’ wind turbines due to their intermittency. So when the wind is blowing perfectly 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. According to the Copenhagen newspaper Politiken, wind met only 1.7% of Denmark’s total demand in 1999.8 And in 2003, for example, 84% of western Denmark’s wind-generated electricity was exported (at a revenue loss). Denmark’s grid
accepted only 3.3% of electricity generated by its vast wind farms.9 This has undermined the “green” credentials of Danish wind farms. For example, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The increase in the demand for coal, needed to plug the gap left by underperforming wind farms, meant that Danish carbon emissions rose by 36% in 2006.10

There are other problems. Sometimes the Danish wind turbines produce maximum output when there is little demand. On other occasions they deliver no energy when energy demand is high. Yet wind turbines themselves require electricity to operate.11 On days of little wind, the wind power system reorientation requirements can exceed wind output: the wind turbines therefore consume more power from the grid than they produce. In other words, the turbines can be a net energy consumer.12

And wind is not cheap. Danish electricity costs for the consumer are the highest in Europe. Danish electricity consumers paid €322.03 million in subsidies for wind energy in the first half of 2007. The money was levied through the Danish Public Service Obligation (PSO) which guarantees wind generators a minimum price for their output regardless of the wholesale price of electricity.
Denmark’s national grid, Energinet.dk, had expected PSO fees to be half what they ended up being in the first six months of 2007.13

So 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”.