Wind power is magic. Wind power is almost infinitely scalable. Wind power is for everyone. Wind power is incredibly successful and growing almost exponentially. Yet some recalcitrant intransigents, such as Christopher Booker, persist, like sea hawks, in clinging onto the fossil fuel guano in their ossified little niche perches, high above the wind-power blown cliffs of reality. Wind power is here, and it’s working, and it’s displacing carbon emissions, but to read Christopher Booker you’d think it were the height of folly to deploy it. | |
He cannot purvey his argument on the basis of the facts, and so he resorts to repeating outdated and confused information, thinking that mere repetition of erroneous statistics counts for the truth. His position has been trounced, locked in the floodlight beam and stamped on by several intelligent parties, but meanwhile, people are arguing about his weekend article. They’re not arguing about whether he’s right (he clearly isn’t) or wrong, but about excactly how wrong he is. All I know without doing in-depth calculations is that he’s at least 30% way out – although others argue he’s up to around 70% out. And what are the numbers he’s so misguided about ? The number of wind turbines UK policy dictates should be installed. Here’s Booker :- Here’s Christian Hunt of Carbon Brief explaining how Booker is using out of date figures :- “…Booker is taking figures from DECC’s 2011 Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) report, which provides UK energy statistics for 2010. But although he says these are the most recent figures available, the new edition of DUKES was published last week, providing information on what happened in 2011. These new figures show the year saw fairly significant growth in the amount of electricity coming from renewable sources. The amount of electricity generated by wind power rose from 10.2 terawatt hours in 2010 to 15.75 TWh in 2011 – a rise of 5.53 TWh. This made up much of a wider growth in renewable power – renewables generated 34.4 TWh of electricity in 2011, a rise of about 8.6 TWh compared to 2010…” And here is what he summarises about how to count wind turbines :- “…According to Renewable UK, the generating capacity of wind turbines currently being installed is about 2 MW for onshore and 3.6 MW for offshore. Plugging those numbers in, an extra 73.6 TWh would take either another 15,600 onshore turbines, or 6,300 offshore. In practice, the numbers are likely to be smaller. Offshore turbines will continue to increase in size, meaning it will take less to produce more power. Turbines will probably become more effective – increasing their load factor. And other sources of renewables will produce more power, reducing the amount of wind turbines needed to hit a particular amount of renewably-generated power. So the 32,000 figure looks pretty overinflated…” And here’s the online Claverton Energy Research Group forum picking their way through various alternative answers :- =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Eric Payne Hi As experts in this area, I would be very interested to hear people’s views on this piece in The Daily Telegraph. How accurate is the information quoted and what is its significance for Britain’s energy policy? Best regards Eric Payne =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: David Hirst A fraudulent article. It does not mention that the change was forced by Osborne and the Treasury, who insisted that gas should continue to receive the subsidies it already gets. But likely true in the sense that UK energy policy is now undeniably incompatible with climate change objectives, and the legal carbon budget. The nuclear industry is undoubtedly looking on with glee, and doing some of the stirring and distortion. But they cannot deny climate change, as it is the only shred of opaque clothing on that emperor. What I find even more shocking through, is the huge barrage of comments, most of which seem to deny any role for wind, and deny the science of climate change. Although always deeply biased towards the middle class and the rich, the Telegraph has become a mouthpiece of denial, and this is very dangerous. I suppose we ought to form all sorts of aliases, and spend our days balancing the lunatic comments with occasional sensible ones. Who knows, Osborne might take notice. Horrible. David Hirst =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Herbert Eppel Hi Mr Booker who, according to Wikipedia, “has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming”, would be well advised to have a look at this: I’m sure Britain’s energy policy would be in a better shape if it didn’t keep getting side-tracked by such maverick interventions. Herbert Eppel =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Eric Payne So, is the need to ‘keep the lights on’ compatible with present renewable electricity and carbon emissions targets? Is a large build out of new wind turbines the best way to address those needs? Is it preferable to preserve the wind turbine subsidy at its present level in order to achieve the same? What other options/policies (if any) might be more effective? Best, Eric =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Herbert Eppel As I keep saying, we need to fire on all renewables cylinders. Wind should, without a doubt, play a key part. Check out the numerous pertinent links I sent over the last few months (not sure whether you read the Claverton messages regularly) – see Best Herbert Eppel =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Jo Abbess Dear Eric, Christopher Booker uses emotive language. Before reading his article “The Government plans to break its own climate change law” – the use “Politicians are finally admitting that our ‘carbon’ targets and our Other examples “serious breach of the law”, “opaque”, “catastrophic Strip these things out of the opinion piece and then you have some Note : this is an opinion piece, and is not expected to be taken as a See “Views on science” here : Note how Christopher Booker puts a halo round the head of shale gas And don’t forget – American academics that have vindicated shale gas Two useful links :- https://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/17/shale-gas-fracking-uk Christopher Booker shows himself to be a “wind-up merchant” with this :- Again he uses emotive language and he should not be relied upon in my https://storify.com/icey_mark/the-greenland-surface-melt-story I’m sorry I don’t have time to debunk this piece more thoroughly. It I don’t trust his output. End of. jo. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Frank Holland Jo, Follow the money, who, apart from the Torygraph, is paying Booker? Frank =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Dave Andrews My take on one of his points: ….he says “Hidden in the small print of Davey’s statement are two passages of particular significance. One, so obscurely phrased that it seems to have passed everyone by, is that by 2017 we hope to be generating “79 terawatt hours” (TWh) of electricity a year from renewables, rising by 2020 to the “108 TWh needed to meet the UK’s 2020 renewable energy target”. To make sense of this, one must look at the section of DECC’s website showing that, in 2010, the last year for which we have figures, we used 378 TWh of electricity, of which only 10 TWh, or 2.6 per cent, came from wind. Slightly more than this came from other renewables, such as hydro. But to meet that 32 per cent target within eight years, almost all the increase would have to come from new wind turbines. If 3,000-odd turbines produced 2.6 per cent in 2010, then to meet the EU target would require something like the “32,000 turbines” mentioned by Davey’s predecessor Chris Huhne just before he resigned. This would require us to build about 10 giant turbines every day for the next eight years. Regardless of how many billions of pounds of subsidy might be thrown at this, in practical terms it is quite out of the question.”…….. My calculation based on the latest turbines being installed off shore are 6.15, and onshore 7.5 MW. Going with the lower figures and using a 40% load factor, then this needs for 108 TWh only 5011 such turbines. Over 8 years, this is a rate of installation of 1.7 per day, so he out by a factor of 5.8 or 580% a figure relatively as large as his ego and the fee paid by the lobbyists who wrote this crap for him. 1.7 per day would be easily achievable with the appropriate incentives. The Allies built 600,000 aircraft in ww2 with an average engine power of around 1 MW and 225,000 armoured vehicles – add those together 2:1 to get roughly one turbine and that is say 500,000 equivalent turbines units over 5 years or 273 per day, plus a lot of airfields, ships etc. The advantage this time round is that this hardware has an NPV which is positive. The subsidies he talks about are far less than paid to the fossil industry…didn’t Osborne just give a £100m tax break to the offshore gas industry to cite one? Dave =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: John Baldwin Dave, Your figures don’t seem right!! You may be right and Booker wrong but I’m not sure, needs a comment from an offshore wind bod. Regards John =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Dave Andrews John, which figures, the size, or the load factor? Or the sum? Dave =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Jo Abbess Dear Clavs, I think part of the problem with Christopher Booker’s figures are that For example, in the Renewable Energy Roadmap :- Energy demand is forecast to be 1557 TWh in 2020 in the Government’s 15% of this is 233.55 TWh – expected to be from renewable resources. The Renewable Energy Roadmap expects that wind power will generate :- Christopher Booker is saying that generation from wind power is 10 TWh Renewable UK have an up-to-date counter :- https://www.bwea.com/ukwed/index.asp Currently there are 3,868 turbines generating 16 TWh Onshore = ~ 5,000 MW installed capacity These figures are roughly 20% higher than 2010 counts for onshore and So we have a classic Christopher Booker fudge. 1. He’s not comparing apples with apples, but 2010 data with 2012 data. 2. He’s mistaken “energy” for “electricity”. I rest my case. jo. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Jo Abbess And Clavs, I forgot to add :- 3. Wind turbines are increasing in their capacity ratings as time Even if the average capacity moved up by 10% (and admitting that not So Christopher Booker is out by a whopping great 30% or so. jo. =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Steve Browning Hi All, I must admit you get too much emotive language and bad numbers, with politics in the current energy debate… From a PRASEG meeting with Charles Hendry last month, it does look as if we are going for ‘Gas and Air’. When I first looked at the issues with 32GW of wind in our 60GWMax/24GWmin system two years ago, I think the figure quoted for 2020 was @6400 turbines. That would be an average of 5MW/turbine I believe the the largest wind machine available currently is the Enercon E-126 (DC Generator) at 6MW We still have to get a handle on ‘value’ for each future scenario, including all the internal and external costs and drivers. Regards Steve =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Frank Holland Booker is a history graduate, he claims that asbestos is the same as He is best ignored. Frank =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Dave Andrews John, my wind turbine size and the load factor are correct. They are supplied by a wind energy expert, pphd, ex utility, hired to study these things by a governmental scientific organization. So are you saying my calculation is wrong? Kind regards Dave =x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Eric Payne What body would be responsible for commissioning a ‘walk-through’ study calculating the practicability of different future energy scenarios and their affect on the grid? Have any full or partial studies been carried out? If not, why not? Best Eric =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Fred Starr Dear Jo When I saw the figure for wind energy I ceased to read any more because the figures are well out of date. There was a big expansion after 2009, but more recently this has slowed. The capacity on the Grid is still 4686 MW You would do be writing to him. Fred =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Neil Crumpton Regarding the number of UK turbines by 2020 if producing 90 TWh – I make it around 11,000 not 20,000 to 30,000 ! calcs below Neil PS my view of journalists (and politicians) confusing energy with electricity have been well aired over the years on Claverton PPS 15 % of 2020 final energy demand will be around 230 TWh/y – so more than 100 TWh/y of wind by 2020 would give UK a better chance of reaching the target (and biomass CHP – with CCS) ————– i) offshore turbine capacity (assuming 58 TWh/y at 38 %) = 17.4 GW ( offC x 8.76 x 0.38 = 58 ) So assuming average offshore turbine capacity is 5 MW (ie mostly 5-6 GW from now) = 3,480 turbines – say 3,500 turbines ii) onshore turbine capacity (assuming 32 TWh/y at 28 %) = 13 GW ( onC x 8.76 x 0.28 = 32 ) So assuming average onshore turbine capacity is 2 MW (ie mostly 2+ GW from now) = 6,500 turbines Hence total number of turbines to generate 90 TWh/y in 2020 would be around 10,000, say 11,000 or 12,000 if average capacity and capacity factors are a bit less than I estimated above =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Dave Andrews The correct figure to generate the electricity he is talking about, irrespective of if it is the right amount is 1.7 turbines per day, whereas he gets 10 per day. (John you still havent told me what is wrong with this figure – the capacity is right and the load factor is right) This would be easy to produce given the right industrial and supportive environment. The peak capacity of vehicle engines in the UK is about 2,500 GW and this is replaced every 10 years, so we make 684 MW per day of mobile chp plant (cars). This is the equivalent in power terms of ~114 6 MW wind turbine per day. Dave =x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=x= From: Jo Abbess Dear Eric, Are you aware of the Offshore Valuation that looked at scenarios for https://www.offshorevaluation.org/ This was a joint UK Government and industry first pass assessment on Note the strong emphasis on NPV – building a net present value or Regards, jo. |
Categories