“The problem with your first point is that wind power generation has a very poor record in preventing CO2 emissions.

This is pretty evident from most countries/regions with very large wind capacity, where it has failed to substitute for fossil-fuelled or nuclear capacity.

Major reductions on CO2 have been achieved by conversion to gas, recessions and nuclear build.

In most countries with big wind we have seen a parallel expansion of gas-fuelled capacity. When you look at Texas, there is liitle wonder that Pickens et al are so keen on wind!

The oft-repeated claim by the wind industry that every kWh of wind-generated electricity (WGE) substitutes for an equivalent of fossil-fuelled generation is a misleading half-truth.

This entirely ignores the fact that only just over 50% of current wind capacity is even visible to the Grid. Also that the margin of error in wind speed forecasting can be the difference between 25% and 70% of rated output.

Talking to power engineers, they are totally dismissive of wind power generation and say that until it is so big that it becomes a problem to the stability of the grid it will be largely ignored in balancing load.

Then, as National Grid are already planning, we will have a choice between following Germany and Denmark in curtailing wind output when it is not needed and compensating wind power operators or prioritising wind and inefficiently cycling gas capacity to back it up (and compensating gas turbine operators).

Both are inefficient and expensive solutions. Cycling gas turbines will also crank up CO2 emissions.

A lot of your technical suppositions are optimistic in the extreme, being very expensive and inefficient solutions to what is already expensive and inefficient generation with costs that, according to the wind industry itself, are rising, not falling (see Douglas-Westwood's report for trade body RenewableUK) .

As in previous centuries, I suspect we will have moved on from wind by then.

Your costings are not realistic, I recommend that anyone who is interested consults the levelised costings by Parsons Brinkerhof or Mott MacDonald, both show that wind, and offshore wind in particular is very expensive. Noatably, the latter report, used by DECC, fails to include consequential backup, distribution and grid reinforcement costs.”

“William .. in answer to your first point, you have to answer the question "should generators of renewable electricity be rewarded for producing electricity without releasing CO2 into the atmosphere?". In my view the answer to this is yes, unless there is a proper carbon-tax to penalise power generation by burning fossil fuels, which would be a better option but that isn't happening right now.

In the case of Bagmoor, the 'subsidy' amounts to 4.8p per kWhr generated, whereas the grid seem to be getting the electricty quite cheaply at only 4p per unit. This seems to be unduly low since we consumers pay more than 10p per unit and extra even for 'green' tariffs suggesting that fat profits are being made by the major power companies, quelle surprize!

On the matter of back-up power, yes! .. back-up generation will be needed but the economics of this are not unduly onerous.

Consider first the cost of producing 1GW of average power from wind turbines. Most of the cost arises in the construction and installation of them, say £4.5billion. The electricity for the next 30 or so years is more or less free.

The additional cost of installing in parallel, 1GW of gas-powered capacity would be only £0.75 billion.

Combined-cycle gas generation running constantly can achieve 50% efficiency. This would require 1.1 million tons of methane per year and releasing 3 million tons of CO2. Over 30y, 33 million tons of gas would be used costing about £4.4 billion, comparable with the cost of wind power over a 30y design life.

Combined-cycle gas generation can not be switched on and off though and is intended to run constantly. To be able to be responsive to wind variability, conventional gas turbines would have to be used running at lower efficiency, say 35%

As I mentioned in other posts to ST, in the long term when there is very large wind capacity, during strong wind the power not needed by the grid can be diverted to electrolysis of water. This would produce hydrogen with an efficiency of about 80%. Hydrogen can then be combined with sequestered CO2 to make either methane for back-up power, or methanol for liquid transport fuel as a substitute for petrol.

As methanol production increases with time, it can be blended with petrol in increasing amounts and eventually car engines designed specifically to run on it. Methanol has a very high octane rating so higher compression engines can be used, running at higher efficiency, about 40%. The optimal fuel for internal combustion engines is probably M85, 85% methanol and 15% petrol which retains the cold-weather start-up characteristics of petrol.

In the future we are going to have to be very imaginative about energy policy. It is going to be much more complicated than putting up a load of wind turbines, assuming these are simply going to be used to make electricity and fretting about the variability of wind speed.

Other sources of renewable energy should also be exploited, of course.

UK has the dubious honour of leading Europe in the amount of methane leaking from land-fill sites, estimated at 20 million tons per year which is equivalent to 12% of our current Primary Energy Input. Land-fill gas is not truly sustainable, however, and would run out eventually if we start digesting and incinerating waste instead. This would effectively be recovering the energy from waste before burying it”

“Correction: 171.7GW should be 17.1GW.”

“Martin

Two points:

1. You fail to discuss the fact that over 50% of a wind power station's income is public subsidy paid from our electricity bills.

Comparing that with the profits of real businesses is somewhat misleading.

In other countries, such as Spain and Denmark, the excessive cost to the economy of wind power subsidies have resulted in savage cuts to the subsidies or restrictions on turbine operation. In Spain the cost of subsidies to wind and solar had a major effect on government debt:

In Denmark, payments are now linked to the spot market and producers can end up having to pay the grid to use their power when the wind blows strongly. Turbines are now automatically switched off when that happens!

2. You also neglect to mention that we still have to build conventional power stations for when the wind does not blow.

National Grid is planning a huge build of gas-fuelled power stations in the next 7 years (171.7GW), followed by even more (18.6GW). This roughly parallels the planned wind build.

NG is planning to create a system whereby gas-fuelled power stations will be cycled to back up wind (STOR).

This is hugely inefficient and results in increased carbon emissions from those gas stations.

Even the politicians admit there are problems:

"In answer to the question that was asked earlier, wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs¿may I use a technical term?¿base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind. That is why it is not the most effective source in terms of energy security of supply, ..." (Baroness Vadera, BERR, House of Lords, Energy Questions, 23 June 2008).”

“A proportion of the income of £500,000 per year has to go towards re-paying the initial capital of about £2.5million with some reasonable rate of interest also.

Over the design life of a wind-turbine of say 30 years, the total revenue (ignoring inflation for simplicity) would be £15million, compared with the initial outlay of £2.5million, that's 500% profit spread over 30 years. There aren't many financial instruments capable of offering such a high rate of return with such a low level of risk

I would agree that the community benefit of £2,300 per year is somewhat paltry. It is for this reason that I believe that wind-turbines should be owned on behalf of the public, if not by Local Authorities, then by non-profit trusts feeding the benefits back to the LA.

It would not take very many publically owned wind-turbines to result in a situation where Council Tax could be reduced to NIL for residents of North Lincolnshire.

This would be only right since if we all have to live amongst the means of Primary Energy generation, then we should all have a stake in the benefits. Many people find wind-turbines visually obtrusive, although personally i find them very appealing. People might be less inclined to object if the massive income that can be generated was being shared fairly.

The current situation simply allows already fabulously wealthy land-owners to enrich themselves and is of course consistent with 'free-market' ideology. To place distributed power generation in the hands of the public would require a government sympathetic to what would be a very Socialist project.

The substantial capital that would be needed to install wind turbines on behalf of the public could be raised by issuing bonds. Such bonds would be an excellent, high-yielding and safe investment vehicle for all our pension funds as well as helping to build a secure, sustainable future for our children.

We have the ignomony of belonging to one of a few generations who in the space of a century, have stripped the planet bare of at least the 'low-hanging fruit'. We have an ethical responsibility to start doing something about this.”