Wind Farms Useless In Reducing Carbon Emissions, Claims Civitas Think-Tank

Wind Farms Civitas Useless

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 09/01/12 06:43 GMT Updated: 09/01/12 06:43 GMT

Britain's investment in wind farms has been branded a "folly" in a report on their ability to reduce the UK's carbon emissions, which concludes that wind power is expensive and inefficient, particularly when compared to nuclear energy.

The report, authored by respected economist and former economic adviser to the government, Ruth Lea [PDF], comes from the independent think-tank Civitas, which claims to have no political allegiance.

"There is no economic case for wind power," the report concludes, saying that while onshore wind appears to be economically competitive, it fails to take account additional costs incurred in gathering the energy. Civitas says it has used analysis from work undertaken for the government by engineering consultants Mott MacDonald, which suggests that British weather patterns in winter often lead to a combination of cold weather with very little wind.

This, says Civitas, means that wind farms are often unable to compete with other forms of energy when demand is at its highest - when it's cold.

The report comes as Energy Secretary Chris Huhne is reportedly planning a new generation of wind farms for Britain.

Civitas also claims that because wind farms are often situated far from the people who will consume their energy, the costs of sending that electricity to where it's needed is much higher than other forms of energy.

These factors mean that while nuclear power costs £67 per Megawatt hour (MWh), onshore wind farms cost £146/MWh and offshore wind is even more expensive at nearly £180/MWh. The two forms of wind energy are the most expensive ways of generating electricity, claims the report.

It concludes: "Wind-power is unreliable and intermittent and requires conventional back-up plant to provide electricity when the wind is either blowing at very low speeds (or not at all) or with uncontrolled variability (intermittency)."

The report will be seized upon with relish by the numerous campaign groups who oppose wind-farms, who dislike them on aesthetic, economic and agricultural grounds.

While wind farms work well in parts of the UK including western Scotland, sometimes there is such a thing as too much wind. The fierce gales that swept Britain over Christmas were so strong some wind farms had to be shut down, according to The Telegraph. This allegedly cost the taxpayer millions.

On the 9th of December a wind turbine in North Ayrshire caught fire during one of the strong gales. The trade body representing renewable energy firms described it as a "freak occurrence" at the time.

A spokesperson for the Department of Energy and Climate Change acknowledged they were trying to reduce the costs associated with wind energy, but said there was still a powerful case for using it:

“Onshore wind is one of the most cost effective large scale renewable technologies, and being one of the windiest places in Europe it makes perfect sense to exploit this natural resource," she said.

"Wind farms provide home-grown renewable energy, reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, cut carbon emissions and bring huge investment to support jobs and growth.

"Value for money is vital so that is why we have set up a task force to help bring down the cost of offshore wind and why we are proposing to reduce support for onshore wind as costs come down.”

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Britain's investment in wind farms has been branded a "folly" in a report on their ability to reduce the UK's carbon emissions, which concludes that wind power is expensive and inefficient, particular...
Britain's investment in wind farms has been branded a "folly" in a report on their ability to reduce the UK's carbon emissions, which concludes that wind power is expensive and inefficient, particular...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 370
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (7 total)
11:31 AM on 03/01/2012
Wake up, Thismortalcoil. Oil is NOT running out – fast or not so fast. Neither is gas, neither. Check the facts and see how more fossil fuels are being discovered year on year. As for coal, we have enough for any projected time-scale you care to devise. The scare-mongering tendency is doing all it can to perpetuate the myth of our running out of fossil fuels, but it won't wash, chum.

Haven't you wondered why the cost of 'home produced' energy is coming down in the US, while demented Carbon Trading obsessives are screwing the EU tax-payers and ignoring the vast shale gas deposits that are going to revolutionise energy production once the Watermelons have abandoned their politicised mantras.

But, looking at some of the wilder contributions to the latest news, that may take some time!
06:18 PM on 03/24/2012
Yes, they are finding new reserves all the time.
" Oil " is running out, is the scare tactic employed by the UK Government to try and stop Scottish voters, voting for Independence.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michaelxx
10:28 AM on 01/11/2012
but we knew all that before they spent the money on making them....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
09:37 PM on 01/11/2012
Yep, that's what they said about electricity before it caught on. The fact is that any technology is going to have teething problems in its infancy. We need to start investing in renewable energy pretty fast because oil is running out quickly. And what they don't tell you is that uranium is running out fast too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
09:40 PM on 01/11/2012
Well said. No point spending £billions on a new generation of nuclear power stations if there isn't enough uranium to keep them running for more then a few years. As it gets rarer, it gets more expensive (and therefore so do our energy bills).

Wind power will get cheaper as the technology improves.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
02:50 AM on 01/13/2012
Really? It's bs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Cost_trends
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
03:26 AM on 01/11/2012
Looks like a hit job by the Nuke and gas folks.

They don't even include the increased capacity factor for offshore versus on shore wind.

They of course don't include the trillion dollars nuke disasters.

They make a big deal about wind intermittency and assume coal, gas and nukes will back it up, when waste bio char bio fuels is the way of the future.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/03/18/offshore-wind-energy-cheaper-than-nuclear-energy-eu-climate-chief-says/

Wind’s costs have dropped over the past two years, with power purchase agreements being signed in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.” http://cleantechnica.com/world-wind-power/5/
Many studies have found the cost of wind integration to be in the $3 to $5 per MWh range. Or about FOUR TENTHS of a cent per kWh. variability ads just .5 cents per KWH. Why Wind Intermittent is NOT a Big Deal
http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/tribalenergy/pdfs/course_wind_milligan1.pdf agree no new generators needed because of wind

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/08/price-of-wind-lower-than-gas-hydro-in-brazil-auction

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/what-do-winds-cost-price-and-performance-trends-show-three-cents-per-kilowa/

Wind 6 months energy payback: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/wind_turbine_lca.php
http://www.wind-works.org/articles/EnergyBalanceofWindTurbines.html 3 months
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
09:43 PM on 01/11/2012
Loads of useful links, thanks very much!
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
10:01 PM on 01/11/2012
Enjoy your link to the treehuggers!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
07:40 PM on 01/10/2012
Nuclear energy has many hidden subsidies from the UK government including insurance costs, radioactive waste disposal costs and contributions to final decommissioning costs.

There is even a proposal to take the government to the European courts to face a formal charge of unlawful state aid for nuclear power.
06:09 PM on 01/10/2012
Put one infront of Jeremy Clarkson's mouth - That will create a few Megawatts - and unlike the wind it will always continue to create energy !!
04:04 PM on 01/10/2012
for those that asked the figures are
yearly average carbon foot print for a person is 10.92 tons

times just 5 million immigrants = a saving of almost 55million tons of carbon
this of course does not include the co2 relating to the building of new homes schools health facilities etc nor the creation of consumer goods that would not be required.
add in a saving regarding water usage (156 litres per day x 365 x 5,000,000)

will it happen, of course not which is proof that like all governments the present one is not really concerned with reducing co2 in a quick simple and practical manner , all they want is tax money.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
07:34 PM on 01/10/2012
Thereiver, thanks for your statistics. You're correct that the UK average carbon footprint is about 10tonnes per year (although estimates vary quite a lot). However, by 'sending immigrants home' you are not stopping them from having a carbon footprint, you simply send it 'home' with them. They still consume resources just as they would here in the UK. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve?

Also you said earlier that 'sending immigrants home would make the UK carbon neutral'. In fact the remaining 57million people will produce 570million tonnes of CO2. That's 570million tonnes away from being carbon neutral. Do you understand?
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
09:44 PM on 01/10/2012
Why do you assume that an average CARBON footprint is a reliable measure. I take a size 9 and I know where I would like to leave an imprint!
12:21 PM on 01/11/2012
we would move closer to meeting the reductions, it would also allow for greater savings in the longterm as less resources would be needed as the population growth would fall, do you understand?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
07:41 PM on 01/10/2012
You haven't really thought this one through have you thereiver? I notice that on an earlier thread you were claiming American Indians were immigrants to the US.

By the same logic, I'm sure you're aware white people in the UK are immigrants, given that all humans on Earth have been shown to have originated from Africa.

Where exactly do you want to be repatriated to?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
07:45 PM on 01/10/2012
It'll be a tight squeeze getting 7,000,000,000 of us back into the rock-pool where life first began. Might be worth it to shut the EDL up though.
12:24 PM on 01/11/2012
i was responding to the blinkered view that red indians were good guys who had never done anything wrong until europeans arrived. if you read what i said you would have seen i was making a general point.

myself , i took part in a dna survey which shows that linked to bone finds from pre history i have a y link to the bones of those who lived here in Cumberland from that time so if you can find an alternative place let me know.
photo
planetjeffy
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
10:05 AM on 01/10/2012
considering they have never figured out what to do with the thousands of tons of toxic nuclear waste that is sitting and rotting on-site (without much security)....
I'd say clean wind power is a good piece of the clean energy solution

also, the companies that run nukes always push to extend the operation of these plants past their useful lives and put everyone at risk. it is too tempting to just ask for another 10 - 20 years, over and over until something goes wrong
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:56 PM on 01/10/2012
I think you make a good point for replacing nuclear power stations on a regular basis, rather than dismantling them.

I would be delighted if wind, wave and solar power could replace coal and oil and all other forms of power production, but it doesn't seem to be viable on a large scale. Nuclear is, at least, far safer than coal - which has taken many more lives in the past 40 years than all of the nuclear incidents put together - and it's CO2 footprint is tiny when in operation.

Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the climate crisis has over-ridden all of our ideals and principles - by which I mean, they are not enough (worthy though they are) to abate the problem. It is a nemesis, and they tend to be quite uncompromising.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:37 AM on 01/10/2012
first generation wind farms that could be true but the current generation rival coal fire power plants. So if you use bad data you can come up with a stupid answer
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JPETERB
01:15 AM on 01/10/2012
Yeah, fossil carbon energy is so much cheaper so long as we do not "think" of any of the many externality costs of fossil fuels. Price fixing, endless war, toxic pollution, global climate change, monopoly and fascist capitalism, just to name a few. Just think, "No" and you are through thinking. But most citizens are thinking of the ever increasing prices we will always pay to put ever more limited fossil fuels in our "tank" into, well..perpetuity; could be, well... thoughtless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Burgess
George Bush. The Worst President Ever!
12:23 AM on 01/10/2012
That would be a right wing think tank by any chance would it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
09:24 AM on 01/10/2012
You got it in one!
10:21 AM on 01/10/2012
What has politics got to do with it ? The argument is based on the lack of efficiency and generating costs. Why do you think windmills got made obsolete ? What this country needs is a national energy authority with the country's interest at heart i.e. non-dependence on imported oil and gas. Not more crooks and foreign corporations taking us all for mugs.
10:46 PM on 01/09/2012
I've never been big on wind power. Personally I think solar is the way to go. We would be fools not to heavily utilize the most powerful energy source in our entire solar system. Wind is very limited, and not worth the massive investment. Solar is still too weak now to be the primary source of energy, but as our technology improves it will become much more useful.
09:28 PM on 01/09/2012
I wonder how many people in the study who think Nuclear Power is so great live next door to a Nuclear Power Plant?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
07:43 PM on 01/10/2012
Exactly. There are tens of thousands of people in Japan right now who wish they'd voted against nuclear power.
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
09:45 PM on 01/10/2012
Did they have the opportunity to vote? Your comment as usual makes no sense.
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
10:07 PM on 01/11/2012
When did they ever get the opportunity to vote for or against nuclear power. please provide some evidence from a reliable source!
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
10:10 PM on 01/11/2012
The study was by a CIVITAS think tank- They think!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
09:25 AM on 01/12/2012
That doesn't mean you're excused from doing the same.
07:22 PM on 01/09/2012
Waste of space go back to the drawing board, ask the Duke.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
07:46 PM on 01/10/2012
Because he's so famously well-informed and well-balanced.
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
09:48 PM on 01/10/2012
The Duke of Edinburgh is a renowned wit and thinker.
His views and comments reported in the press are ice breaking comments that put individuals at ease.
Cheap shots by someone as ill-informed or respected as you are are seriously suspect.
Do you have a life other than arguing or insulting?
06:19 PM on 01/09/2012
How can the government call it 'home grown'? the wind might be (hot air from Westminster) but the turbines are mainly foreign.
06:26 PM on 01/09/2012
Yes Dibble and the only ones to benefit from these monstrocities blighting our landscape are the wealthy few supplying them they are a complete waste of time I bet the politicians do not want them interfering with their views from their large mansions but the rest of us have to put up with it once again one law for the wealthy and another for the rest of us
05:50 PM on 01/09/2012
It is a well known fact in the industry that wind farms do not show any reduction in CO2 emissions.
When you take the manufacturing, transporting, assembling, maintenance and end of life disposal costs into account.
What is also left out of the equation is the cost of distributing the generated power by electric cables , plus all of the switchgear and plastics used. All of these use high energy in their manufacture.
This is just another manufacturing industry supplying products to todays flavour.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
09:17 AM on 01/10/2012
Well that's not well known to me, and I've done plenty of research into the subject. Power distribution is a cost shared by all the forms of generation, apart from personalised ones like rooftop solar..