Cost of windymills starts to hit home
Discussion
Millions of families face yet another hike in heating bills to pay for a massive expansion of green energy.
Click
Perhaps for once the relevant element of PH can resist shooting the messenger and look at the content.
For example:
The green levy, or 'Renewable Heating Incentive', is part of an energy package to be unveiled today by the Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband.
Ministers have no idea at this stage how much the levy will be - or when it will be introduced.
PH can help 'Ministers' with that. looking ahead through to 2027 when the timescale of current 'government' 'thinking' plays out:
At £2 million per megawatt of "capacity" (according to the Carbon Trust), the bill for targeted 33 gigawatts would be £66 billion (and even that, as was admitted in a recent parliamentary answer, doesn't include an extra £10 billion needed to connect the turbines to the grid). Yet the actual output of these turbines, because of the wind's unreliability, would be barely a third of their capacity.
The cost of merely connecting the UK's wind farms to the grid is more than the total cost of the equivalent nuclear capacity. The information was disclosed in parliamentary written answers to Owen Paterson. Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks gave a number of figures adding up to over £10billion comprising:
- £0.6 billion to connect new renewable generation in Scotland and the North of England
- £3.8 billion to cover network refurbishment and the costs of accommodating new generators between 2007 and 2012
- £5.7 billion from 2005 to 2010 to cover other (unspecified) network refurbishment and development issues
Written replies also revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - the government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.
There are no official government costings for decommissioning regarding the fixed useful lifetime of windymills, or other on-costs such as maintenance, which together will make a sizeable additonal burden. Also no Estimate to 2027 of the market cost shift as climate cools and demand rises. Argue me down from another £50 billion to 2027.
Total cost of ecolunacy over roughly 20 years totals about £150 billion or £6250 per household, which is about £310 per year over that period.
Our emissions trading deficit is estimated at £6.5 billion a year – this would be £270 for every household..
Total paid for by us will be about £580 per household every year for 20 years (flat rate) whether by increased taxes or increased energy bills or increased costs due to businesses passing their increased costs on to customers. The actual total will probably be between £300 and £500 depending on which elements of this pointless nightmare actually make it into reality. If the madness persists.
This is crazy enough, but the EU's policy on biofuels is even more so. The costs - up to £50 billion by 2020 - would, as the EU's own scientific experts have just advised, "outweigh the benefits".I currently lack information on how this idea will impact on UK household bills due to lack of information on how costs might be shared within the EU. Whatever the scheme turns out to be, it won't make life less expensive. Let's round up to £600 per household per year for 20 years as a very reasonable estimate, which can only get worse as Ministers have a habit of being economical with the truth over cost estimates, and inflation may soon return with a vengeance.
Total unfettered barking lunacy, even at a time of economic growth.
Click
Perhaps for once the relevant element of PH can resist shooting the messenger and look at the content.
For example:
The green levy, or 'Renewable Heating Incentive', is part of an energy package to be unveiled today by the Energy and Climate Secretary Ed Miliband.
Ministers have no idea at this stage how much the levy will be - or when it will be introduced.
PH can help 'Ministers' with that. looking ahead through to 2027 when the timescale of current 'government' 'thinking' plays out:
At £2 million per megawatt of "capacity" (according to the Carbon Trust), the bill for targeted 33 gigawatts would be £66 billion (and even that, as was admitted in a recent parliamentary answer, doesn't include an extra £10 billion needed to connect the turbines to the grid). Yet the actual output of these turbines, because of the wind's unreliability, would be barely a third of their capacity.
The cost of merely connecting the UK's wind farms to the grid is more than the total cost of the equivalent nuclear capacity. The information was disclosed in parliamentary written answers to Owen Paterson. Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks gave a number of figures adding up to over £10billion comprising:
- £0.6 billion to connect new renewable generation in Scotland and the North of England
- £3.8 billion to cover network refurbishment and the costs of accommodating new generators between 2007 and 2012
- £5.7 billion from 2005 to 2010 to cover other (unspecified) network refurbishment and development issues
Written replies also revealed that the cost of the Renewables Obligation - the government certificates issued to wind farm operators that make wind power economical to run in the first place through taxpayer subsidies - will be £25 billion between 2002 and 2027.
There are no official government costings for decommissioning regarding the fixed useful lifetime of windymills, or other on-costs such as maintenance, which together will make a sizeable additonal burden. Also no Estimate to 2027 of the market cost shift as climate cools and demand rises. Argue me down from another £50 billion to 2027.
Total cost of ecolunacy over roughly 20 years totals about £150 billion or £6250 per household, which is about £310 per year over that period.
Our emissions trading deficit is estimated at £6.5 billion a year – this would be £270 for every household..
Total paid for by us will be about £580 per household every year for 20 years (flat rate) whether by increased taxes or increased energy bills or increased costs due to businesses passing their increased costs on to customers. The actual total will probably be between £300 and £500 depending on which elements of this pointless nightmare actually make it into reality. If the madness persists.
This is crazy enough, but the EU's policy on biofuels is even more so. The costs - up to £50 billion by 2020 - would, as the EU's own scientific experts have just advised, "outweigh the benefits".I currently lack information on how this idea will impact on UK household bills due to lack of information on how costs might be shared within the EU. Whatever the scheme turns out to be, it won't make life less expensive. Let's round up to £600 per household per year for 20 years as a very reasonable estimate, which can only get worse as Ministers have a habit of being economical with the truth over cost estimates, and inflation may soon return with a vengeance.
Total unfettered barking lunacy, even at a time of economic growth.
Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 12th February 12:18
Simpo Two said:
They would argue - 'What price to save the planet and future generations etc'. Such people know nothing of money or where it comes from, mostly because they either work in local government, a 'university' (watch out for the .ac.uk) or are unemployed.
Would you mind not lumping all those who work at universites together. I have very clear opinions on this climate change/chaos/whatever they call it next bollax, and the assiciated crap that goes with it. These wind turbines are next to useless and we need to get fully nuclear as soon as possible.emicen said:
Problem is, any complaint will be treated the same as the road pricing petition. "Its very nice you have an opinion, but we're the government, hence we're right, you're wrong, so STFU..."
Indeed, like all the evidence the drugs panels submit to the gov't. "Thanks for spending all that money looking into it scientifically and statistically, but we'll just ignore all your recommendations and do the opposite the evidence suggests we should do."Whilst the reality is ridiculous, the process is understandable: EU sets requirements for reducing carbon emissions, UK signs up to requirements and instructs energy generators to increase their 'green' proportion of total energy generation (and actually imposes fines on energy suppliers if they do not achieve targets set). Energy suppliers forced to focus on known/proven means of relatively large scale renewable generation. To help things along, the government greases the wheels by offering subsidy and by (recently) further relaxing the planning consent process.
Nuclear is where it's at. or should be.
Nuclear is where it's at. or should be.
kambites said:
You mean unlike the massive taxes we had to pay to fund the government subsidy of research into nuclear electricity generation?
But isn't that more worthwile to invest and research, as nuclear is by far the most viable source of 'proper' sustainable energy, meaning the UK would be less reliant on outside sources?chris watton said:
kambites said:
You mean unlike the massive taxes we had to pay to fund the government subsidy of research into nuclear electricity generation?
But isn't that more worthwile to invest and research, as nuclear is by far the most viable source of 'proper' sustainable energy, meaning the UK would be less reliant on outside sources?Nuclear is still extremely expensive (compared to coal) over the full life-cycle of the power station anyway. Hard to say exactly how expensive because much of the cost is decommissioning and you never know what technological advances will happen in the time between now and when you have to decommission the plant.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 12th February 12:51
I was up at Dounreay a couple of weeks ago. Here is a community with a (currently being decommissioned) nuclear facility on it's door step, a pool of nuclear SQEP workers, and an acceptance of nuclear power.
So what do the Scottish morons decide? Let's build a s
t load of wind turbines and dabble with some tidal power experiments. You really couldn't pick a better spot for an NPP, but the Alex Salmond has decided he wants a nuclear free Scotland 
So what do the Scottish morons decide? Let's build a s
t load of wind turbines and dabble with some tidal power experiments. You really couldn't pick a better spot for an NPP, but the Alex Salmond has decided he wants a nuclear free Scotland Shar2 said:
Would you mind not lumping all those who work at universites together. I have very clear opinions on this climate change/chaos/whatever they call it next bollax, and the assiciated crap that goes with it. These wind turbines are next to useless and we need to get fully nuclear as soon as possible.
Sorry you got tarred with the brush. Not everyone with a ac.uk address is an idiot 
Of course, if Greenpeace & Co hadn't screamed blue murder over nuclear power 10-20 years ago, we wouldn't be in this expensive and stupid mess now.
kambites said:
chris watton said:
kambites said:
You mean unlike the massive taxes we had to pay to fund the government subsidy of research into nuclear electricity generation?
But isn't that more worthwile to invest and research, as nuclear is by far the most viable source of 'proper' sustainable energy, meaning the UK would be less reliant on outside sources?Nuclear is still extremely expensive (compared to coal) over the full life-cycle of the power station anyway. Hard to say exactly how expensive because much of the cost is decommissioning and you never know what technological advances will happen in the time between now and when you have to decommission the plant.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 12th February 12:51
Living in a nuclear free country for a year and a half, I can tell you that the cost of electricity does cost more for a lot less power (max you can have, and great cost at that, is 6kw) The average UK home has 24kw - if you had to rely on windmills and 'green' energy, you will have to get rid of your halogen hob cookers, kettles, power showers etc. Still, a small price to pay (!!) for saving the planet....
(Having said that, we have 4.5kw of electricity, and we do fine on that for two houses)
ETA - It would be interesting to know exactly how many people in the 'green' pressure groups actually pay tax and thus contribute towards 'green' initiatives, by way of paying for windmills, or paying Third World farmers to produce biofuel produce, instead of (arguably) food.
Edited by chris watton on Thursday 12th February 13:10
Simpo Two said:
Of course, if Greenpeace & Co hadn't screamed blue murder over nuclear power 10-20 years ago, we wouldn't be in this expensive and stupid mess now.
Allegedly, Greenpeas could have been bankrupted over the Brent Spar fiasco, getting a recycling thing so badly wrong should have been enough warning that these people are, as their co-founder and former leader Dr Moore says, populated by mystics weirdos and ultraleftists. They'd have re-invented themselves, but with massive egg on face and much less money. Now they crow about it as though it was some sort of victory. Same with nukes, Greenpeas again. Back in 2006 when President Bush visited Pennsylvania to talk about nuclear energy, Greenpeas prepared a "fact sheet" which declared: "In the 20 years since the Chernobyl tragedy, the world's worst nuclear accident," it read, "there have been nearly [FILL IN ALARMIST AND ARMAGEDDONIST FACTOID HERE]."
The public generally still believe these outfits care about fluffy bunnies when in fact they're political activists with red-green colour blindness.
In terms of the forthcoming Energy Crunch, we can only hope that bankers will be replaced by leading Greens with their daft heads on the block, with public and political vilification returning to them in spades. They dole it out easily enough it will be very satisfying to watch their self-righteous countenance fade to brown when it hits the fan.
I cannot get my head around the windmil thing really We had a proposed site near us and some "consultants" were on hand at a presentation to answer questions on an open house basis at local village hall.
I asked them some what I thought were pretty obvious questions like, how does a wind devt like tis interact with regular power, so that houses always have power, ie when it does not blow wind, and how does the overall system adjust to windy conditions, different power demands (after all it is often most windy overnight in my experience when power demand is low).....none of the consultants had even the slightest clue! They did nto know which local houses if any may benefit, they did not know how long the turbines lasted, they knew absolutely nothing! I asked what the cost per unit KWh of production was, he said it depended how hard the wind blew! So I asked if they had an average idea, or a KWH cost over the full life and they said it depended how long the turbines lasted, and they did not know!
I was really interested in the idea, they were there to merely answer questions from people who might "not like the look of them" and have objections from a landscape perspective...as soon as someone turns up asking genuine questions about the actual merits of the idea, its costs and viability, they just were dumbfounded!
I was disappointed, as personally I love these things, I think they look pretty cool in the locations I have seen them. But I cannot help but feel that when invited to a presentation like this, and they have so little idea about any costs or viability, that they are merely paying lip service to the "process", these things will come ANYWAY, and no one making the decisions CARES how much it costs, or they know, and wont let on as it will be horrific and cause uproar!
I left disappointed, but with 2 energy saving lightbulbs they were giving away! !
From what little I know, and i admit to knowing on a passing knowledge of it all, I genuinely think these modern nuclear generation facilities are the way to go. Sustainable as a raw material, cleaner than ever, and with modern techniques, there is no reason to have undue worries about the waste, (certainly not like the issues we had 30 years ago with it) and other countries like France are doing it, and have very cheap electric etc.
I read about some company that has developed a self contained 25 year nuclear generation system, for housing developments etc, and can proivide electric and heat for 40k houses, for 25 years at a cost of about £2300 per house. It is buried in concrete in the ground and when spent, it stays there and they plant another one! About the size of 1.5 shipping containers!
Surely such technology is more realistic as being a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels than wind and other green ideas ever will be? If you cannot store the stuff, what do we do when the sun aint shining or the wind not blowing?
It's all quite dismaying IMO!
I asked them some what I thought were pretty obvious questions like, how does a wind devt like tis interact with regular power, so that houses always have power, ie when it does not blow wind, and how does the overall system adjust to windy conditions, different power demands (after all it is often most windy overnight in my experience when power demand is low).....none of the consultants had even the slightest clue! They did nto know which local houses if any may benefit, they did not know how long the turbines lasted, they knew absolutely nothing! I asked what the cost per unit KWh of production was, he said it depended how hard the wind blew! So I asked if they had an average idea, or a KWH cost over the full life and they said it depended how long the turbines lasted, and they did not know!
I was really interested in the idea, they were there to merely answer questions from people who might "not like the look of them" and have objections from a landscape perspective...as soon as someone turns up asking genuine questions about the actual merits of the idea, its costs and viability, they just were dumbfounded!
I was disappointed, as personally I love these things, I think they look pretty cool in the locations I have seen them. But I cannot help but feel that when invited to a presentation like this, and they have so little idea about any costs or viability, that they are merely paying lip service to the "process", these things will come ANYWAY, and no one making the decisions CARES how much it costs, or they know, and wont let on as it will be horrific and cause uproar!
I left disappointed, but with 2 energy saving lightbulbs they were giving away! !
From what little I know, and i admit to knowing on a passing knowledge of it all, I genuinely think these modern nuclear generation facilities are the way to go. Sustainable as a raw material, cleaner than ever, and with modern techniques, there is no reason to have undue worries about the waste, (certainly not like the issues we had 30 years ago with it) and other countries like France are doing it, and have very cheap electric etc.
I read about some company that has developed a self contained 25 year nuclear generation system, for housing developments etc, and can proivide electric and heat for 40k houses, for 25 years at a cost of about £2300 per house. It is buried in concrete in the ground and when spent, it stays there and they plant another one! About the size of 1.5 shipping containers!
Surely such technology is more realistic as being a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels than wind and other green ideas ever will be? If you cannot store the stuff, what do we do when the sun aint shining or the wind not blowing?
It's all quite dismaying IMO!
chris watton said:
It may well be more expensive right now, but what about the future - are windmills anything more than a token gesture, and how much do these cost and for what gain?
Living in a nuclear free country for a year and a half, I can tell you that the cost of electricity does cost more for a lot less power (max you can have, and great cost at that, is 6kw) The average UK home has 24kw - if you had to rely on windmills and 'green' energy, you will have to get rid of your halogen hob cookers, kettles, power showers etc. Still, a small price to pay (!!) for saving the planet....
(Having said that, we have 4.5kw of electricity, and we do fine on that for two houses)
ETA - It would be interesting to know exactly how many people in the 'green' pressure groups actually pay tax and thus contribute towards 'green' initiatives, by way of paying for windmills, or paying Third World farmers to produce biofuel produce, instead of (arguably) food.
can you please expand on this?Living in a nuclear free country for a year and a half, I can tell you that the cost of electricity does cost more for a lot less power (max you can have, and great cost at that, is 6kw) The average UK home has 24kw - if you had to rely on windmills and 'green' energy, you will have to get rid of your halogen hob cookers, kettles, power showers etc. Still, a small price to pay (!!) for saving the planet....
(Having said that, we have 4.5kw of electricity, and we do fine on that for two houses)
ETA - It would be interesting to know exactly how many people in the 'green' pressure groups actually pay tax and thus contribute towards 'green' initiatives, by way of paying for windmills, or paying Third World farmers to produce biofuel produce, instead of (arguably) food.
what do you mean you have a 4.5Kw supply? you mean you have a 20A (240V) main fuse?
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff