The carbon cost of wind
A comment was recently passed to us from a planning authority regarding one of our wind turbine applications. A member of the public had asked what the carbon cost of a wind turbine was in comparison to the claimed savings.
To answer this we first need to assess the relative "costs" of energy generating technologies. A 2011 Government report gives us the following numbers which represent the amount of CO2 released during the manufacture, delivery, installation, operation and decommissioning of each major technology expressed in grams of CO2 per kwh generated:
| Technology | Lifetime Cost in gCO2/kWh |
| Nuclear | 5 to 7 |
| Wind | 5 to 20 (includes micro, onshore & offshore) |
| Wave/Tidal | 12 to 39 |
| Solar PV | 75 to 116 |
| Biomass | 60 to 550 |
| Gas | 365 to 488 |
| Oil | 650 |
| Coal | 786 to 990 (includes use of carbon capture & storage) |
The particular wind turbine in question (a Vestas V52 on 74m tower) with an average windspeed of 6.8m/s should be on the lower range of costs associated with wind energy, but for fairness we will choose a value a 10gCO2/kwh. Annual generation output is predicted to be around 2,000MWh.
So the total lifecycle CO2 "cost" can be calculated as below:
2,000,000 (kWh) x 20 (years) x 10 (gCO2/kWh) = 400 metric tonnes of CO2
Now let's look at the total lifecycle CO2 "saving" by calculating the CO2 released if we were to produce the same amount of electricity using existing UK powerplant. The Government publish the CO2 cost of UK grid electricity as 540gCO2/kWh, so the calculation is:
2,000,000 (kWh) x 20 (years) x 540 (gCO2/kWh) = 21,600 metric tonnes of CO2
Put another way, the turbine will yield an equivalent CO2 saving of 1,080 tonnes per year. So its quite easy to see that it will account for its entire lifecyle CO2 emissions in less than 6 months of operation.
This is why wind turbines are so popular, in UK and even more so abroad.
HM Gov in a mess over solar FITS
The Government has been dealt a major blow today after a High Court ruling that the 50% cuts in the solar PV feed in tariff were "legally flawed".
High Court judge Mr Justice Mitting said that Government attempts to push through cuts on projects registered before the end of the consultation period on the proposals amounted to a breach of consultation rules.
Denying the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the immediate right to appeal, the judge said the court was also amenable to a judicial review of the consultation, which could force the government to start the consultation process again, delaying the cuts and throwing the programme into further chaos.
Perhaps the Government should consider increasing the FITS budget rather than pay the bonuses of greedy bankers?
Dieter Helm spouts more nonsense on BBC Panorama (UPDATED)
UPDATE: Action For Renewables have uploaded their "de-bunking" of Panorama here
In BBC1's Panorama last week (What's Fuelling Your Energy Bill?) enviro-skeptic Tom Heap painted the picture that the move to renewable energy sources is to blame for spiraling home energy fuel bills.
There is some truth here, even OFGEM figures support that renewable energy is adding to fuel bills. However the conventional wisdom (now accepted by all the worlds leading scientists) is that not only are fossil fuels damaging the environment, but that increasingly they are imported from political "hot zones" and may even be running out. Therefore, in the medium to long term, energy from conventional sources is set to rise at a much faster pace - eventually making renewable energy prices competitive and perhaps even cheap.
Only this year the International Energy Agency admitted, after years of denial, that peak oil has probably already occurred and therefore it is hard to understand how, as predicted by Mr Helm that oil and gas prices are set to fall. Indeed Mr Helm provided no evidence for this brave assertion nor was he cross examined by the presenter.
Worse still is that in a recent article for the Guardian Mr Helm claimed:
There is enough oil and gas (and coal too) to fry the planet several times over. The problem is there may be too much fossil fuel, not too little, and that fossil fuel prices might be too low, not too high.
The truth is, that with record high prices anyone with large gas and oil reserves will be pumping as fast as they possibly can. Aside from environmentally disastrous shale oil there have been no "mega fields" discovered since the 1950's and 60's. Even if this wasn't the case - just look at where the oil and gas is being exported from. Should the UK be beholden to the likes of Russia and Suadi Arabia?
So the rather biased message in Panorama was this - renewable energy is pushing up your fuel bills while we should be "dashing for gas" because some (un-named) miracle is about to return gas prices to much lower levels.
The Hydrogen Superhighway
Lets hope it doesn't start with a bang!
The M4 in south Wales is to become a "hydrogen highway", with alternative energy refuelling points, Welsh Secretary, Peter Hain, has announced.
The scheme, to extend into south west England, is aimed at making hydrogen and electric-powered vehicles a viable alternative to petrol-driven machines. Under the plan, Wales will lead in developing alternative fuels, including hydrogen from renewable sources.
The aim is to create an extensive renewable refuelling infrastructure.
Question is, where will the hydrogen come from? We would like to see a wind turbine at every site to generate the fuel cleanly from wind power.
What will the Feed In Tariff add to my bills?
There is a LOT of misinformation and finger pointing regarding the FIT. As wind turbine developers we often get two slightly contradicting arguments used against us:
- Wind turbines are inefficient and do not produce much electricity
- Wind turbines will cause household electricity bills to rise significantly
The FIT paid is based on the amount of electricity generated, so the more inefficient and useless wind turbines are... the less the operators get paid. Conversely, if they are very efficient and generate lots of clean electricity then the payments can be large. Thus the two complaints above seem mutually exclusive.
Yes, the FIT is a subsidy, without which the UK or any part of Europe would simply not have a renewables industry.
Why is the subsidy needed? Simple, because for decades energy has been hugely undervalued. The cost of fossil fuels was predicated on an unending, ever increasing supply and the smart money now says that world oil production probably peaked a few years ago. So, today we have an energy market that is only now just starting to price in the replacement cost of the primary resource - hint... you cant just go and plant more oil and gas and there have been no new "mega fields" discovered in the last 30 years. This is why energy price inflation is in double digits and set to continue.
Because the true cost of energy is still massively undervalued it means that the cost/kWh that you can sell electricity for is still much to low to make small/medium scale projects viable. In 10..15 years time when prices have soared it might be different. In the meantime, the transition period, subsidy is required to plug the gap. Don't be fooled into thinking nuclear is not subsidised either - if the operators had to budget for clean up costs it is unlikely that any new stations will be built.
As for how much small/medium wind projects actually add to domestic energy bills, the best estimate comes from DECC (Department for Energy and Climate Change) who predict:
Our policies would increase household electricity prices by 25% in 2015 and 30% in 2020 compared to what they would have been in the absence of policies
The contribution of individual policies to the 30% policy-driven price increase estimated for 2020 is as follows: i) A third of the total cost comes from carbon pricing policies – both HMT's carbon price floor and the carbon price derived from the EU emissions trading scheme. ii) A third comes from the Energy Company Obligation – the successor policy to CERT, to be implemented from late 2012 alongside the Green Deal, mandating energy companies to install hard-to treat energy efficiency measures and make fuel poor households more energy efficient. iii) A fifth of the total policy cost comes from Electricity Market Reform's new long-term contracts. iv) A fifth comes from price support for renewables under the Renewables Obligation. v) Around 5% of the total policy costs comes from small-scale feed-in tariffs.
So an average home using 4,000kWh annually at a current rate of 15p/kwh would expect to pay £600 per year. By 2020 this could rise to £780 of which the FIT will account for just £9.
So, using DECC's optimistic figures for the take-up on all renewable technologies (including wind, solar, biomass, geo-thermal etc) under the FITS scheme, the average household will pay just £9 extra per year by 2020.
£9 a year to help save the planet - seems like very good value for money.
48% of onshore wind applications refused in 2010
According to DECC (the Department of Energy and Climate Change) in 2010 nearly half of all applications for onshore wind energy projects were rejected by Local Planning Authorities (LPAs). This number has increased from roughly 30% in 2009 and represents a worrying trend for the Government who are still backing the technology as part of the their attempts to overcome the dual risks of climate change and energy security.
Law firm McGrigors, who obtained the numbers using the Freedom of Information Act, found that wind energy developers are becoming increasingly frustrated with LPAs and that the number of complaints and appeals are on the increase.
Often, elected members serving on planning committees were either ignorant of the need for affordable renewable energy or else swayed by local politics towards voting against proposed projects. From experience we have witnessed such comments as
I'm fed up of seeing wind turbines not moving, and so I'm voting against the motion.
If, in 10 or so years from now energy prices have tripled - you know who should be held partly responsible. The energy system the UK gets is the one it will likely deserve.
How to destroy the UK onshore wind industry
Simple... support this Private Members Bill by looney tory lord, Hugh William Mackay, 14th Lord Reay, Baron Mackay
The Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill seeks to impose minimum distances between wind turbines and the nearest properties of at least 1000m for turbines over 25m up to 2000m for the largest turbines. Smaller distances could still be approved by planners if EVERY resident within the "buffer zone" gave written permission.
On the face of it you might think this is reasonable, however consider the implications.
- The bill takes no account of the number of turbines. Whether its 1 or 1000 the same rules apply.
- By mandating large separation zones it will force developers to look further out into unspoiled countryside and schemes will become even more controversial. Why should people living in the countryside have to host wind turbines to power towns and cities?
- It will kill community schemes. We are working on a number of community projects and thanks in part to the negative propaganda put about, it is near impossible to get 100% approval for any scheme. So it would just take 1 NIMBY to thwart the aspirations of an entire village. Fair? We don't think so.
This bill will, quite simply, kill the UK onshore wind industry dead... from single turbine community schemes upwards. For many this will cause to celebrate, however if you are concerned about energy security and climate change it's a disaster waiting to happen.
The UK is legally bound to reduce carbon emissions massively by 2050, we are so behind schedule its scary. If onshore wind falters then you could argue off-shore will pick up the slack - but at THREE TIMES THE COST are you willing to see your energy bills to take the hit?
Annual energy inflation is already running at 10 - 15% with no signs of doing anything but accelerating. Nuclear is now universally unpopular, besides which... where do you build new nuclear plant if experts are predicting significant sea level rises within their operating lifetime?
New report details common concerns over wind power
The Centre for Sustainable Energy has just published a report that covers the common concerns that are raised (and re-raised) every time a new wind turbine application is discussed.
The report is based on peer reviewed research and current Government policy/analysis and should be read in conjunction with any proposals for wind energy developments.
Simon Roberts, CSE Chief Executive, said “Of all renewable energy sources, wind power occupies a unique place in the public consciousness and generates strong opinions, both for and against. For the most part the debate is emotive and unhelpful, with both sides cherry-picking convenient facts to support their entrenched position whilst ignoring evidence to the contrary. "
“Our research paper aims to present pertinent research in a more balanced manner and we hope that it will make the debate less polarised and generate informed and constructive discussion."
“CSE’s view is that wind power is a necessary part of the energy mix that is required to meet our carbon emission reduction targets and help tackle climate change. However, wind power is not appropriate everywhere, and we believe it is the duty of local communities themselves to decide where there is a place for it through engaging responsibly with the best available evidence, and through working together to assess their own locality.”
The report can be found on the CSE website here.
UK to halve carbon emissions by 2025
Let'c cut to the quick... Todays announcement by the Government to reduce 2025 CO2 emissions to half of those from 1990 is very good news for two reasons:
- For the obvious environmental benefit.
- Because the "green revolution" is gaining pace and developed economies cannot afford to miss out. The shift in policy will force investment to occur where before there was little or none.
Old world industries such as steel may complain about higher energy prices in the short term, but with annual energy inflation already in double digits just wait until oil hits $200 a barrel! Just as the print and publishing industry bemoaned competition from the internet many still see renewables as a problem rather than opportunity.
Renewable energy technology is one of the few industries that currently has the potential for massive growth. For strategic and economic reasons the UK must be fully committed to develop and manufacture its own technology. Otherwise, just as we import oil and gas today, we will be left buying in from abroad.
When imported energy is prohibitively expensive, investing in renewables and other energy saving technologies offers the "double whammy" of creating new jobs and reducing the national debt. When New Labour was pumping money into the banks... it should have been into renewables instead. It could have launched a program to install double glazing at heavily discounted rates, or free solar panels - creating thousands of proper skilled jobs and saving the country billions of pounds for decades into the future.
On a final note... why isn't a company with the expertise and resources of BAE Systems NOT developing wind turbines? Let the War on Climate Change start today by shifting budgets away from killing people to saving the planet.
Come on UK.. "Get with the program"
Bank of England warn on expected jump in fuel prices
In todays inflation report by Mervyn King the Bank of England warn that general inflation will likely hit 5% and that gas and electricity prices will increase by 15% and 10% respectively later this year.
Since the UK is now a net importer of oil and gas we can only assume that hiking interest rates (seemingly their only blunt tool for combating inflation) will have no effect on energy prices.
We've said it many times - renewables may look expensive compared to conventional energy - today, but in five to ten years time they will look dirt cheap.
You were warned.