Another Flaw in Ed Miliband’s Clean Power Agenda
Last week, Danish offshore wind farm developer Orsted announced that it would be pulling out of its 2.4 GW Hornsea 4 project. “Orsted has taken the wind out of Miliband’s Net Zero sails”, said the Times, citing the developer’s economic problems influencing the decision. Meanwhile, Miliband is reported to be considering boosting the subsidies available to green generators, according to the Telegraph, “to prop up his ailing green power target”. But the rising costs are not the only message from reality that Miliband’s crusade is likely to end in catastrophic failure.
Orsted won the commission to develop the Hornsea 4 wind farm at last year’s renewable energy Contracts for Difference (CfD) auction, the sixth. As we reported here, Miliband claimed that this bidding was the most successful auction yet and represented the new Labour Government’s commitments to saving the planet bearing fruit. But in fact, it had been the preceding Conservative government that had made the parameters of the auction more favourable, following the fifth auction (AR5) failing to attract any bids from offshore wind developers. Outgoing Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, Claire Coutinho (now seemingly a Net Zero policy sceptic) boosted the CfD subsidies for offshore wind farms by a whopping 60% of the preceding auction’s price.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
He is spending everyone’s money and lying to justify it. In the commercial world, that would be misrepresentation, which has unlimited liability. He is not even challenged properly by journalists on the matter.
Meantime though he is at least enjoying the freebie global trips on Blair Force One
Isn’t it taking pecuniary advantage by deception – fraud?
Yep
Why aren’t reform all over him like a rash, that’s what I don’t understand. As you’ve said – he’s clearly lying
There is a negative reason why reform are not doing that and it’s a fair question.
Always good from Mr Pile. At risk of teaching grandmother, might suggest adding a rider to all these excellent articles along the lines of
“and of course, since co2 doesn’t drive dangerous global warming there is zero point in net zero “
Nice graph from John Shewchuck showing that while co2 does produce some warming from very low concentrations, the effect drops off so as to be now nothing to worry about:
Decarbonaters are going to lose.
Increase in CO2 concentration does not “produce” warming, it is not a heat generator.
Its increase may “result” in a delay in heat leaving the atmosphere into Space balanced against heat arriving from the Sun.
When the delay is positive – and we have water vapour almost entirely to than for this, the Earth is warm enough to sustain life. If it goes negative we freeze.
It is important to understand this. The only thing that causes “global warming” is the Sun. The behaviour of some gases in the atmosphere regulate what happens to the Sun’s warmth.
Thanks J,
that’s right.
Recent press release from Net Zero Watch, entitled, “Net Zero, not gas, causing electricity bill increases…”
https://www.netzerowatch.com/all-papers/why-have-electricity-bills-risen
“…Around three quarters of the increase in average bills since 2015 can be attributed to Net Zero.
The most important factors in the £327 real-terms increase are:
– Renewables subsidies (£83)
– Carbon taxes (£39)
– Grid balancing (£26)
– Capacity Market (£26)
– Grid strengthening (£23)
The direct cost – the element that can reasonably be attributed to the cost of gas – only accounts for £45 of the increase.”
Clean power is dirty lies.
Reading about all this nonsense it’s easy to forget that the whole shebang is absurd anyway. Britain is the source of a mere 0.7% of global emissions so, as most major economies are not prioritising emission reduction, even if we were to get ours down to 0.0% it wouldn’t make the slightest discernible contribution to global emission reduction.
Ben, does “3Gw of offshore wind” mean it can produce that amount only when the wind is favourable? Do Milliband’s plans incorporate where that 3Gw or fractions of it will come from on still weather days?
To answer your question I’m going to hazard a guess based on what applies in the hydro sector. The 3GW figure is the Total Installed Capacity (TIC), which is actually the maximum power rating of the turbines. A more realistic measure is to apply an efficiency percentage, which takes into account all the things which affect daily operations (wind speed including over-speed shutdowns and lack of wind, wind speed range, maintenance outs, breakdowns, etc) to come up with a forecast output. In hydro, which is quite a reliable source of power using long-proven technology, that efficiency figure would be 45%. So 3GW of TIC in hydro is actually more like 1.35GW of output. Sadly, I believe that actual UK wind efficiency is more like 30%, so this 3GW site’s long term output could be 900MW. Not quite as headline-grabbing is it… Gas-fired power stations are between 50 and 60% i.e. higher than any renewable source Daily electricity demand in the UK tops out at about 40GW in the winter, and it has to be available 24/7. Based on 30% efficiency, a 40GW wind-generated supply would need over 133GW of TIC – eight times the present TIC – which would be… Read more »
Do you work in the Hydro sector?
Yes
Thanks, that’s interesting. I hadn’t considered efficiency factors.
Thanks. Also important to differentate between capacity and output. Rather than talk [brag] about rated capacity “3GW” it would be far more enlightening if we all talked about the GWhours [or MWh or kWh] needed for UKplc to function. For example, a typical 3-bed house uses about 2700 kWh per annum, of which boiling a kettle for 3 minutes would consume 0.075 kWh
Unfortunately that plays into “green” hands. They love averages, a yearly average suits them fine. The number to watch is the dispatchable 24/7 number. This is ZERO for renewables like wind and solar! The grid requires 40GW or so and this has to come from gas during these periods. Net zero is simply impossible, and this could be understood by a small child. However Millibrain cannot follow this!
Interesting expert info – thank you. I was surprised to read hydro (not pumped hydro) is only 45% – assume the water causes a fair amount of wear and tear needing lots of maintenance downtime etc?
But you have to ‘love your hydro’, and they can be very good investments
Thanks – places like Canada and the nordics certainly make great use of their geography with hydro, it’s the ideal power source if you have the right geography
Just to pick a small hole in your erudite post, Miliband did Maths and Physics at ‘A’ level, rather than ‘reading’ them at Degree level. He read Economics at Degree and Masters level, ie an Arts subject.
He should at least be numerate with economics. He is not! Or if he is he is telling lies. One or the other, he should be nowhere near Government. See my post above.
Currently on this fairly windy and sunny day (at least where I am in the home counties) wind is running at around 20% of nameplate capacity and solar at around 25.
Yearly average for wind seems to be around 30% and 10% for solar.
But as always the averages don’t matter much because the word “up to” includes ZERO.
Intermittent sources for something where the demand is at a constant minimum are a dumb idea, and it’s even dumber to have sources you cannot control dealing with demand that can go up significantly as well as down, sometimes at fairly short notice.
A wind farm with 3GW capacity will produce 3GW when the wind is blowing at a suitable speed, typically between 35 and 55 mph. In a gale, the wind farm has to shut down and produce nothing. At lower wind speeds, the energy available varies with the cube of wind speed, ie a 20% drop in wind speed means 51% as much energy to convert into power. At very low wind speeds on a cold day, it consumes power to keep the turbines warm, becoming a negative generator.
The average for offshore wind farms is supposed to be about 50% (or 1.5 GW) but it may well be less. As the hardware gets older, it generates less power.
GW is a unit of energy, GWh is the unit of supply. We do not consume GW, we consume GWh.
The use of GW is a deliberate deceit as it is used to compare wind and solar with fossil fuel plants so people imagine a 10GW wind (subsidy) farm can supply as much electricity as a 10GW coal or gas plant.
Using MW or GW allows them to boast it can supply a town the size of X or Y thousands of homes. Technically it is true, but the question is: for how long?
The difference is coal and gas can deliver better than 90% of it plated output and continually, wind at best 30% or 40% off-shore and not continuously.
There should be a requirement to use MWh or GWh or TWh when stating the “capacity” of all power stations.
They are pulling the same trick with the battery storage fantasy, quoting energy rating not actual deliverable output – how long the battery will last – minutes at best.
Agree. In his mind, Miliband wants say 30 GW of installed capacity offshore, and tries to maintain the fiction that he is currently half way there. But see my post above, he is about 1/8th of the way there if that, based on power capacity and normal industry efficiencies. And that is wihout addressing the other hugely expensive issues of 100% redundancy, extra Grid distribution network, storage, stand-by generators, shutdown payments, major supply issues, planning obstacles….the list goes on
The answer, Mr Miliband, isn’t blowing in the wind. Frankly, you are just pissing into the wind with your present ‘strategy’
Exactly – the other question in addition to your ‘how long’ is ‘when we actually want it or not?’….
From my O level physics I thought that GW (gigawatt) is a unit of power. Power is energy divided by time. GWh (gigawatt hour) is a unit of energy. Please feel free to correct me.
Strictly you are correct, but the point is that total energy from electricity is GWh, but the hour bit is not 24/7 from renewables like wind and solar. Averaging over a year is useless to the grid! We need exactly the amount of power that the consumers demand, it cannot be too much or too little every second of the whole year!
Who is marking Ed’d homework? if it all were to be abandoned now who would it upset? what action can they whoever they are take to force this on the country? Are we then answerable to a an external entity, unelected who runs the country?, if so who is it?, If not then why?why? is Ed and his band of fanatics rushing to have the box ticked by 2030?
Something smells in all this.
This highlights the difference between capitalism and socialism. In capitalism, when something clearly isn’t working, the money is pulled and the initiative put out of its misery. However, in socialism, when something doesn’t work, people double or triple down rather than admitting they had an idea that doesn’t work. They are just too arrogant to admit they didn’t know everything at the start. When the economy collapses and we’re bailed out by the IMF maybe net zero might be scaled back.
Building wind farms in the North Sea with a combined capacity of 50GW will not leave much change from £200 billion.
For about £60 billion, South Korea can build 20 nuclear power stations with a combined capacity of 28GW, which will generate more electricity than the wind farms, and don’t require back-up when the wind isn’t blowing.
When will Ed Miliband face facts on wind power?
Probably never.
How often do communists ever say “Guys, I was wrong. I supported a murderous ideology that caused unmeasurable suffering and the death of millions of people.”?
Ideology has its own facts.
All power – work done, or energy transferred per unit of time – is clean.
We must challenge the lazy, lying, pejorative use of words and terminology.
Wind and solar is “free” – so are coal, gas and oil. The price of any resource is all the costs, direct and indirect, that occur, in getting the resource from its origin to the point where it can be used beneficially by Humans.
Wind and solar are more expensive because as well as direct fists, indirect costs of coal, oil and gas must be added which are needed to get them from origin to point of use.
No business that cannot match supply with demand, which cannot plan operations, cannot know when it can produce or for how long, and does not have a constant, adequate revenue stream to cover costs and make a contribution to earnings is viable.
No company could produce a business model, budget and cash-flow forecast.
To trade such a company by taking money by taking money from the public treasury must raise questions about legality and liability of its directors and those in Government dispensing public monies to benefit shareholders to the detriment of the public.
Any lawyers, company law experts watching?
If government was a commercial entity it would be closed by the regulators.
Not least because it is an uncontestable monopoly.
Personally I’d say they can have as may wind farms as they like, as long as the owners provide enough battery storage to be able to guarantee supply when they say it’s available. That requirement will kill all proposals stone dead I’d imagine, given the current capacity availability of large scale battery storage.
the only practical solutions I can see is wind / solar paired directly to pumped hydro as a battery, however we don’t have enough sites like this in this country, and they aren’t anywhere near next to each other… and… and…
enough already – just build some more nuclear stations and gas!
There has never been any chance that Siliband would deliver on his plans from the minute he became Secretary of State. The delivery times in the article prove that. There is not the remotest chance that he can speed up delivery either as the resources do not exist – no cable laying ships for offshore wind until 2030 for example.
Sadly we are saddled with the bimbo Coutinho in East Surrey – dumped here as she was a mate of Sunak. Just as DS has shown Esther McVey to be a fraud on Net Zero, Coutinho announced that the increased CFD price following the AR5 failure would bring down prices. So she is either a complete moron – never to be discounted with politicians – or a bare-faced liar given I think in the whole history of economics, making something more expensive has never brought down prices.
And the establishment who run this green communist scam, have no interest in the fact that the sea has many ships on it, moving goods and raw materials around, that makes modern life possible, and that they need much of the same sea space as windfarms want to occupy. Ships can, in some cases, sail through windfarms (the bigger ones with bigger gaps between each turbine) but not smaller ones. But the risk of doing that may be too great, ao they avoid them. So costs of moving goods goes up because of extra fuel costs of routing around, and longer journeys for ships. The costs go further than just the over priced energy
I find all these articles about what will happen in four yrs funny. The damage will be down and cost a small fortune to rectify. Prepare for a serious rollercoaster ride. Buckle up..
“The fact that we have seen no offshore wind farm commissioned since 2017 coming online”.
I suspect the author may have been confused by recent windfarms starting generation but declining to activate their CfD contracts. The contracts allow this so, given the low CfD prices, it is more profitable for them to sell their power at market prices.
Any sensible Minister would authorise more oil and gas licences and start fracking to extract the 50-100 years of natural gas we have beneath our feet. Instead, they prohibit new oil and gas licences, and prefer to import gas from other producing countries, thus putting the UK in their hands.