Wind vitality is worse than we thought, so we have to subsidize it much more – Watt is okay with that?

From DAILY SKEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

At first glance, the news that the UK government is lowering its forecasts for the amount of energy produced by wind turbines is another nail in Net Zero’s coffin. The Telegraph reports that “updated modelling” has seen the predicted efficiency of wind turbines fall by more than a quarter. The skeptic might observe a political game being played in the run-up to the final annual round of subsidies for future renewable projects. Andrew Montford of Net Zero Watch describes it as “incredibly misleading”. The game is about increasing the huge subsidies needed to meet the government’s clean energy capacity targets by 2030, while leaving it to the other fanatics in the media to explain the eye-watering future electricity costs. So expect organized climate fearmongering to ramp up and the large parliamentary majority the Labor government currently enjoys over the next four years to be used to ensure there is no turning back from the net zero fantasy.

How can such a plan fail when trusted messengers still claim that wind is nine times cheaper than gas? All hope is certainly not lost if the Guardian’s Fiona Harvey can write a recent article headlined: “A study finds that wind energy has reduced Britain’s energy costs by £104 billion since 2010.” It’s perhaps not a complete surprise that this veteran Guardian headbanger is reporting on statistical modeling from UCL, an academic institution that has barely covered itself in mathematical glory during the Covid pandemic.

In the real world, of course, the further dismal trivialization of wind power is a nail in the coffin of Net Zero. This means much higher electricity bills for British consumers, further deindustrialization and the loss of currently well-paid jobs, an increasing likelihood of blackouts and out-of-control public finances. A Carbon Letter hilarity funded by Green Blob was nine times cheaper than gas. How we laughed when a group of senior British energy managers recently told a parliamentary committee that electricity prices in the UK would not fall in the future even if the price of gas fell to zero.

Chris Norbury, chief executive of E.ON UK, took the risk to often-deceived MPs. “When I look at the non-commodity costs – policy costs, network costs – some of our modeling certainly suggests that by 2030 you could get to a position where, because of the increase in those non-commodity costs, the bills would still be the same as they are today if the wholesale price was at zero.” Simone Rossi, economic director at Octopus Energy, highlighted the lack of budgetary control over policy-related spending, an apparent reference to the £15 billion in renewable energy subsidies and spending that is charged directly to Britain’s electricity bills each year without legislative oversight.

By 2030 the hated gas turbines will be phased out with no immediate prospect of replacement, while nuclear power will also be in short supply until Sizewell C opens. Does Edward Miliband and his gang of weirdos in the Department of Energy care? Probably not – if your ultimate political goal is to dominate the top tiers of the economy, what are a few blackouts if elite-managed socialist nirvana is the ultimate prize? Isn’t it time to stop routinely referring to him as “mad” Miliband, a derogatory insult to his enemies that he probably enjoys and even encourages, and give his sinister plan the serious attention it deserves?

Needless to say, the news that energy from wind turbines is no longer nearly as powerful or plentiful as it once was has been out for some time. In March 2023, the Daily Skeptic reported on a paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) that said “wind power is failing on every count.” Even then, governments were accused of ignoring “overwhelming evidence” about the inadequacies of wind power and resorting to “talk rather than reasoned analysis.”

The short paper was written by Oxford University mathematician and physicist Professor Wade Allison, who also conducts research at CERN and is a member of Keble College. He focuses on calculating the sums behind natural variations in wind speed. At 20 miles per hour, Professor Allison calculated, the output of a wind turbine at full efficiency was 600 watts per square meter. If the wind only blew 20 miles per hour day and night, generating electricity would be much easier. Unfortunately, this is not the case: if the wind speed drops by half, the available power drops by a factor of eight. Conversely, and almost worse, Allison notes, when the wind speed doubles, the power output increases eightfold and the turbines must be shut down for their own protection.

Want to know why the Miliband fanatics are so passionate about leather combining as much wind capacity as possible and at whatever price? Consider the following graphic published in the GWPF paper.

The brown dashed line shows the installed nominated generation capacity in the EU and UK in 2021. This was 236 GW, but the highest daily output was just 103 GW on March 26th. On most other days it was significantly lower.

Professor Allison did the calculations a few years ago and they are still the same today because they were based on physical and freely available information. “However you look at it, wind power is inadequate. It is intermittent and unreliable; it is exposed and vulnerable; it is weak and has a short lifespan,” he concludes.

Chris Morrison is the environmental editor of the Daily Sceptic. Follow him on X.

Like this:

How Load…

Explore more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to receive the latest posts by email.