Wind power: Left out in the cold?


#1

Customers face huge bill for wind farms that don’t work in the cold | Mail Online

The failure of Britain’s wind farms to produce electricity in the extreme cold will cost billions of pounds, create an economic crisis and lead to blackouts, leading industrialists have warned.

To cover up the ineffectiveness of wind farms the Government will be forced to build emergency back-up power plants, the cost of which will be paid by industry and consumers.

Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, which represents major companies employing hundreds of thousands of workers in the steel, glass, pottery, paper and chemical industries, said the failure of wind power had profound implications.

He was speaking after new figures showed that during the latest cold snap wind turbines produced less than two per cent of the nation’s electricity.

Now Mr Nicholson predicts that the Government will encourage power companies to build billions of pounds worth of standby power stations in case of further prolonged wind failures.Last updated at 1:20 AM on 9th January 2011

And the cost of the standby generation will be paid for by industry and households through higher bills – which could double by 2020.

Industry regulator Ofgem has already calculated that the cost of achieving sustainable energy targets – set by Brussels but backed by the British Government – will amount to £200 billion, which will mean that annual household fuel bills will double to about £2,400 on average within the next ten years.

In the last quarter ending December 23, wind turbines produced on average 8.6 per cent of our electricity, but the moment the latest bad weather arrived with snow and freezing temperatures, this figure fell to as low as 1.8 per cent.

The slack was immediately taken up by efficient, but dirty, coal-fired power stations and oil-fired plants.

‘What is so worrying is that these sort of figures are not a one off,’ said Mr Nicholson. ‘It was exactly the same last January and February when high pressure brought freezing cold temperatures, snow and no wind.’

In fact last year, the failure of wind power to produce electricity was even more profound.

Then, over a few days, the lack of wind meant that only 0.2 per cent of a possible five per cent of the UK’s energy was generated by wind turbines.

So little energy was generated then that the National Grid, which is responsible for balancing supply and demand of energy in the UK, was forced to ask its biggest users – industry – to ration supplies.


#2

Sorry I have to laugh–irony is something else

Look at the bright side jobs have to be created[ATTACH]1149[/ATTACH]


#3

The only truly “green friendly” energy methods are nuclear power and hydro electric, all this other garbage would die without massive subsidies.

Any people dumb enough to embrace these ideas on a large scale will pay dearly for their rejection of basic science and known truth.


#4

Right, and the big problem with the subsidies is that they end up encouraging inefficient design. Who’s to say that the 3-bladed turbine is the most efficient? What about the vertical axis design? I think the large problem is that a lot of these environmentalists want another Manhattan project, but they tend to ignore simple economics when they create these pie-in-the-sky ideas. I personally see wind and solar as belonging on top of a roof of a house, which helps save the customer money and sends power back to the grid. These large-scale projects are so inefficient in terms of cost and the amount of land that has to be used for power generation.

The only problem with nuclear is that it takes a long time for a plant to come online. But seeing how France can do it, I’m sure we can do it as well.


#5

[quote=“swirling_vortex, post:4, topic:28834”]
The only problem with nuclear is that it takes a long time for a plant to come online. But seeing how France can do it, I’m sure we can do it as well.
[/quote]Nuclear power will not be attainable with more plants as long as the environuts have a say and people like Obama say one thing about supporting it and privately works against it.


#6

That was my thought as well. At most neighborhood sized projects. Such small scale efforts won’t distort power distribution and generating efficiency, and minimizes the effect of local conditions.


#7

Mr. 2 and our neighbor were rummaging around with the idea of building a windmill at each of our homes. I shouldn’t have cringed so hard. We might have one by now.


#8

GOOD LORD!!! wind and solar energy are ONLY good when conditions are right, and conditions are right just part of the time, when there are clouds there is no solar, when there is no wind there is no turbine generated energy. The only supposed place one can have both conditions on a continual basis is in a progressive liberal politicians yard. There’s a blowhard with a sunny disposition.


#9

[quote=“njc17, post:8, topic:28834”]
GOOD LORD!!! wind and solar energy are ONLY good when conditions are right, and conditions are right just part of the time, when there are clouds there is no solar, when there is no wind there is no turbine generated energy. The only supposed place one can have both conditions on a continual basis is in a progressive liberal politicians yard. There’s a blowhard with a sunny disposition.
[/quote]:coffee_spray::howler::rofl::biggrin:


#10

I put windmills in the same category as global warming for the reasons already stated.

When I visit Atlantic City NJ, I see windmills just off the beach in the Atlantic Ocean and I never see any of them turning. So, if they don’t TURN then they are just an ugly eyesore looking much like those abstract sculptures made from scrap metal liberals like so much. :biggrin:

.