Peoples Republic of South Devon

Lacking energy

April 24th, 2006

Responsibility, responsibility, responsibility. Yes, we all know that’s what we should look for when we begin on the property ladder, but what’s it go to do with energy? Well, take it from someone who has been criticised for burning the candle at both ends, it’s kinda basic.

One of the beautiful side-effects of being more mindful of renewable energy is that you start getting in step both with the seasons and your energy use. With hydro-power, you’re probably going to need more energy when the rivers are running wild in winter than when they’re trickling down in summer, for example.

Renewable energy is more than just wind (was there talk once of tying up all the hydro-powerers on Dartmoor to produce energy for their communities?), so what intrigues me is the focus on wind power as the only renewable. And as we know the debate is vicious.

So, I was interested to hear what European Energy Man MEP Giles Chichester had to say. He’s always been against wind, but why? Below is a paper that was forwarded as his response to his anti-wind stance. All good stuff, and certainly adds to the debate, so thanks. But why the nuclear thing at the end? Surely the main reason we’re all of us concerned about energy usage and provision is the main reason nuclear won’t cut it. . . responsibility, responsiblity, responsibility.

From Giles Chichester MEP

‘CHICHESTER’S ENERGY COMMENTARY

How long will it take until this Government learns and recognises that the solution to future energy needs and the requirement to reduce CO₂ emissions is not blowing in the wind? Recent developments in Ireland which are outlined in a paper on security of power supplies by Professor Michael Laughton for the British Management Data Foundation (February 2004) give pause for thought.

In December 2003, the Irish Electricity Regulator took emergency measures to reduce the amount of wind power on the electricity grid, following major concerns about the security and stability of the power system. The ESB National Grid advanced a number of reasons for its advice to cease authorisation for new wind farm connection.

Analysis of historical wind data has shown that, with wind plant installed capacity of approximately 20% of peak demand, variations in wind generated output that would be beyond the capacity of available generation reserves or back-up capacity could be expected to occur regularly. That means supply interruptions.

In order to cope with the unpredictability and variability of wind generation, it is necessary to have reserve or stand-by conventional generating capacity to match and maintain balance in the system. That means running the additional reserve plant at reduced output which, in turn, means lower efficiency. Put another way, you have the cost of the wind capacity, plus the cost of the reserve capacity, plus the cost of the reduced efficiency.

Furthermore, the likely generation schedules arising from this mix are likely to increase overall emissions, hardly the hoped for benefit from windpower. In addition, a multiplicity of small-scale connections to the transmission system, (i.e. from hundreds of wind towers scattered over the countryside, each requiring it’s own connection), is likely to compromise the reliability and security of the national transmission system. Remembering that security of supply is about keeping the lights on and electricity available to meet a demand that fluctuates significantly through the day, what are the implications of this for the Labour Government dash for wind?

Studies by Oxera (June 2003) of hourly demand data and simulated wind generation data covering 10 years, point to significant periods in an average year when electricity demand is high and wind output is low. For England, Wales and Scotland as a whole, given a hypothetical widespread distribution of wind farms, there are on average 1,642 hours (that is 18.75% of the time), when wind generated output would be less than 10% of maximum rated capacity and 450 (5.1%) of those hours at a time when demand would be between 70-100% of peak demand.

What this tells us is the high probability of blackouts if we become dependant on wind generated electricity up to the Labour Government target of 20%, without maintaining other reliable, conventional generating capacity of at least 100% of peak demand. In fact, a rule of thumb suggests there should be total capacity of 120% of peak demand to allow for routine maintenance and the occasional unavoidable accident to power cables. And if we maintain a part of that reserve capacity as back-up to variable wind generation, there is a cost.

A study (March 2004) by the Royal Academy of Engineering into the costs of different generation technologies, puts numbers on the additional standby cost for wind. Onshore wind generation costs 3.7 pence per kiloWatt hour (kWh) which increases to 5.4 pence per kWh when you include the cost of standby generation. Offshore wind costs are 1.8 pence per kWh more expensive in each case, i.e. 5.5 kWh and 7.2 pence per kWh. By comparison, a combined cycle gas turbine generates electricity at a cost of 2.2 pence per kWh, whilst a nuclear power plant cost is 2.3 pence per kWh. These costs are based on state of the art new build plant and include de-commissioning for the nuclear plant.

From all this, I suggest there are sound engineering, energy, efficiency, climatological and economic reasons for being very cautious about putting all the eggs in one wind basket, so to speak. This is not to be against wind generation, because it clearly has a contribution to make and should be part of a diversified energy supply. But it makes little sense to build hundreds, maybe thousands of wind towers the height of Salisbury Cathedral Spire (403 feet) and more, in parts of our countryside which are scenically outstanding, when we don’t absolutely need to do so.

Furthermore, I believe the arguments about the level of birdlife slaughter and the human health effects of low frequency sound are a powerful addition to the case for caution. To any clever man from the ministry who may say the death of a few birds is as nothing to the costs of failing to address the implications of greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, I would say a virtually CO₂ emission-free option is available, which would produce the electricity of 2,000 wind tower aerogenerators of the height of Salisbury Cathedral spire and would do so reliably as base load electricity. It is called nuclear energy. Or perhaps people would like to dust off plans for a Severn Barrage, a snip at tens of billions of pounds and never mind the ecological impact or the fact it would only generate on the ebb tide! ‘

Cheers Giles

Posted by Cptn

Random Posts:

• Climate change professor wins top prize
• Renew the renewable pledge
• The lights go out
• Pound notes
• Book club

Entry Filed under: Environment