George Osborne demands massive cuts to windfarm subsidies

[Guest]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jun/02/george-osborne-cuts-windfarm-subsidies

Damn right and about time to.

These things are, at best less, than 30% efficient. Some are much less than that. Like the monstrosity at Green Farm, Reading....you know, the one that you can see from the M4 as you drive by..the one where the vanes are turning on a windless day...because they have to consume electricity to keep it turning so that the bearings don't seize up...the one that uses more power than it actually generates..the one with an overall efficiency of 17%...the one built in a place that doesn't have much wind. Wonder what the subsidy ni for that one..located next door to the company that makes them....that was a masterstroke.

Even those offshore don't fare much better. Stop wasting money on windfarms onshore. if you are going to invest in green technology then take the money you'd waste subsidising onshore windfarms into a technology such as this one ...the Anaconda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BOozAaYGDE and site them underneath offshore windfarms to capitalise on the power distribution infrastructure.

[Serial_Apologist]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...farm-subsidies

Damn right and about time to.

These things are, at best less, than 30% efficient. Some are much less than that. Like the monstrosity at Green Farm, Reading....you know, the one that you can see from the M4 as you drive by..the one where the vanes are turning on a windless day...because they have to consume electricity to keep it turning so that the bearings don't seize up...the one that uses more power than it actually generates..the one with an overall efficiency of 17%...the one built in a place that doesn't have much wind. Wonder what the subsidy ni for that one..located next door to the company that makes them....that was a masterstroke.

Even those offshore don't fare much better. Stop wasting money on windfarms onshore. if you are going to invest in green technology then take the money you'd waste subsidising onshore windfarms into a technology such as this one ...the Anaconda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BOozAaYGDE and site them underneath offshore windfarms to capitalise on the power distribution infrastructure.

I like the idea of wave power, and wonder why not more research funding has been channelled towards this. Superficialy the Anaconda looks like one possible option - but one does wonder about the practicalities. The blurb states the devices would be located far off-shore. Wouldn't they be yet another underwater obstruction to add to the many others, risking snagging by trawling, for instance? Enclosures would have to be considered.

[eighthobstruction]

I believe it would be far more economic and speedy to frack Resurrection Man's GAS....

[ahinton]

I'm all for the widespread development of sustainable alternative energy sources but agree with these subsidy cuts entirely, for broadly the same reasons as have already been given here; all that I would question is whether the present or previous government has led any wind farm developers up the garden path over subsidies only to witdraw them and, if there have indeed been any breaches of contract, disaffectd parties may reasonably be expected to sue.

Far more investment in solar makes a lot of sense between now and when new nuclear fusion reactors can be built and commissioned; fuel cell technology is another possibility, although much more in the research stage than solar right now.

[Lateralthinking1]

It depends on who you want to believe. George and the Duke of Edinburgh or the combined brains of Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Germany

[Dave2002]

I believe it would be far more economic and speedy to frack Resurrection Man's GAS....

Particularly as he's incorrect, so there may be a lot of it! For information without the hot air see http://www.withouthotair.com/

[Beef Oven]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...farm-subsidies

Damn right and about time to.

These things are, at best less, than 30% efficient. Some are much less than that. Like the monstrosity at Green Farm, Reading....you know, the one that you can see from the M4 as you drive by..the one where the vanes are turning on a windless day...because they have to consume electricity to keep it turning so that the bearings don't seize up...the one that uses more power than it actually generates..the one with an overall efficiency of 17%...the one built in a place that doesn't have much wind. Wonder what the subsidy ni for that one..located next door to the company that makes them....that was a masterstroke.

Even those offshore don't fare much better. Stop wasting money on windfarms onshore. if you are going to invest in green technology then take the money you'd waste subsidising onshore windfarms into a technology such as this one ...the Anaconda http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BOozAaYGDE and site them underneath offshore windfarms to capitalise on the power distribution infrastructure.

There they go again, nicking another UKIP policy issue!!!

"We seek an amicable divorce from the European Union and its replacement with a free-trade agreement, which is what we thought we'd signed up for in the first place" - Nigel Farage.

[Dave2002]

Far more investment in solar makes a lot of sense between now and when new nuclear fusion reactors can be built and commissioned; fuel cell technology is another possibility, although much more in the research stage than solar right now.

Depends what you mean by solar. Solar water heating makes a lot of sense, and would be even more useful if modern appliances, such as dishwashers and washing machines had hot and cold fill, as they used to do. Otherwise solar heated water can be used for lowish temperature background heating - to take the edge off the cold e.g underfloor heating. Solar electricity generation is currently a marginal exercise, as the unsubsidisd costs of PV panel installations on a small scale don't break even compared with just burning fossil fuels. However this may improve in the next 5 to 10 years, and is expected to do so. This might eventually even make it economic to install solar PV in the north. The annual insolation in the north of the UK is actually not so much lower than the rest, though of course it is very low in the winter, when it might be needed most for light and heating. Tidal generation is good, but UK governments have resisted this. There are a few sites in the UK which have tidal potential. Wave power is not the same, and waves are generated by wind. Of course even wind comes ulimately from solar power, due to large scale heating of air causing it to flow.

[Resurrection Man]

Particularly as he's incorrect, ....[/url]

How so? Where do you think I got my figures from?

Lat....lots of wind turbines in Germany....and as for their efficiency?

Serial-Apologist...I don't think underwater obstruction would be an issue given that they would/should be mounted underneath existing OFFshore windfarms. Anyway, GPS is pretty good these days...could be a safe breeding ground for fish...double-bonus.

[Dave2002]

From the article cited by RM from the Guardian we see, according to Liebrich:

"If you cut too fast, you damage the industry and the supply chain, but if you go too slow, you create subsidy junkies."

This appears to make a lot of sense. Some subsidies may be necessary to kick start an industry, but then subsidies should be reduced gradually as the industry matures.

Also, from the Guardian article, Liebrich's presentation showed the global average cost of onshore wind was falling, but he said using that to justify cuts in the UK was wrong: "Just because the best windfarms in the world are competitive [with gas] does not mean the average ones are yet." He added that large scales, fast planning and good grid connections made US windfarms much cheaper than those in the UK.

[ahinton]

Depends what you mean by solar. Solar water heating makes a lot of sense, and would be even more useful if modern appliances, such as dishwashers and washing machines had hot and cold fill, as they used to do. Otherwise solar heated water can be used for lowish temperature background heating - to take the edge off the cold e.g underfloor heating. Solar electricity generation is currently a marginal exercise, as the unsubsidisd costs of PV panel installations on a small scale don't break even compared with just burning fossil fuels. However this may improve in the next 5 to 10 years, and is expected to do so. This might eventually even make it economic to install solar PV in the north. The annual insolation in the north of the UK is actually not so much lower than the rest, though of course it is very low in the winter, when it might be needed most for light and heating. Tidal generation is good, but UK governments have resisted this. There are a few sites in the UK which have tidal potential. Wave power is not the same, and waves are generated by wind. Of course even wind comes ulimately from solar power, due to large scale heating of air causing it to flow.

I was referring to both, actually. It's now possible to use solar PV with a non-lead acid type battery backup and storage facility which can help to some degree to overcome the problems associated with its practical use outside daylight hours when, as you rightly say, it's most needed (this is also especially useful for people in remote places without grid access). When used in conjunction with efficient building insulation, an electrically powered underfloor heating system and a heat recovery ventilation system, the amount of electricity required of them can be pared down quite usefully; for example, one such undefloor system that I know of works on a radiant heat basis and is by far the most economical in terms of electricity consumption. There are now research and development projects to use solar electricity to boost power in all-electric cars in order to give them better range between charges. Yes, the costs of all of this are relatively high compared to fossil fuel use (although underfloor heating system and HRV system costs should not be included in price comparisons because these can be used with whatever feul you want), but the more people that purchase and install them, the quicker and the more the prices for the materials will drop.

[gradus]

I do hope that the Treasury gets its way. The environmental pollution caused by these things is a major problem. I've recently spoken to people who are suffering from the noise generated by land-based wind turbines anything up to a kilometre or more from their homes, all of whom wish that they had been more active and vocal in their opposition to the installation of these machines, it being extremely dificult/impossible to remove the nuisance once it is in place.
Far better and I daresay more cost effective to stop subsidising land-based wind turbines and instead to spend the money on improving the energy efficiency of housing.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

It is irksome to hear that the proponents of wind energy threaten legal action over subsidy cuts; surely none of the subsidy programmes had any firm timetable of rates, they were always indicative?

As for cutting subsidies for onshore windmills, the case seems made simply by viewing information proponents of renewable have produced. The Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy commissioned from Imperial's Grantham Institute a report titled The Case for and Against Onshore Wind Energy in the UK.

http://www.cccep.ac.uk/Publications/Policy/docs/PB-onshore-wind-energy-in-the-UK.pdf

Chapter 4 deals with the costs of onshore wind. It makes a comparison of the levelised costs of various forms of power production in the UK. By levelised costs the Grantham Institute mean the costs of investment , operating, fuel and maintenance. That is, those costs always carried by the owner/operators of the power plant. (This is NOT the cost to Joe Public, and nor is it the price paid by Joe Public). Figure 6, page 15 shows these costs.

Comparing gas and wind power production is a good point of comparison here simply because you can build both in about the same time, and they have roughly similar operational lifetimes; thus the investment pattern is broadly similar. If we take the Grantham figures as valid (and they are supported by other workers in this field), then they’re saying that in 2011 the cost of wind is £66-93/MWh compared to gas costs of £52-74/MWh. So the median generation costs are wind £79.5/MWh versus gas £63/MWh.

Since the Select Committee are looking for a sensible subsidy (ROCs) figure for wind, if the subsidy were changed from £45/MWh to £26/MWh (the apparent mean difference in the levelised costs) the profitability of wind would be the same as gas.

By 2030 the median figures have changed to wind £53/MWh against gas £83/MWh and gas would need a subsidy of £30/MWh to compete! This suggests that the subsidy of onshore wind should disappear completely perhaps as early as 2018.

Just to give George an incentive to cut, we really need to see what wind power is costing us, not the generators. What about all these transmission lines wind will need, and what about sorting out all those variability and intermittancy problems which are now know to give grid operator a serious problem (ask a German)? On page 16 we have this:
"Besides transmission, the costs related to the increased intermittency of electricity sources also need to be taken into account. These include the costs of distribution interconnection, bulk storage, smart grids and additional conventional generation (to ensure balancing and reliability). Overall, the Committee on Climate Change estimated that the combined costs of transmission upgrades and other flexibility measures related to a 30 to 64 per cent share of electricity from renewables by 2030 would be between £5 and £5.9 billion per year. Doesn't sound much, but if you work it out on the basis of an additional cost per MWh of wind energy production, that's an additional £80/MWh. This brings the real cost of wind energy production to £133/MWh - far more than any fossil or nuclear production costs.

And in passing, the costs of solar hot water heating are far, far worse than those of wind.

[Serial_Apologist]

And in passing, the costs of solar hot water heating are far, far worse than those of wind.

Beyond initial environmental and monetary considerations, solar energy generation requires less moving parts than the other types already cited, and therefore would presumably incur less financing in its maintenance - surely a saving long-term?

[Resurrection Man]

Few, if any, of these alternative technologies provide details on their total carbon footprint during their manufacture.