Hi David, I was wondering if you'd like to take a look at a piece that I've just written about windfarms, more of a philosophical piece. If you have the time of course.....
Another excellent analysis of the stupidity of Government’s energy policy. However, I feel this approach is counterproductive because, when we are argue about emissions, it reinforces the idea that CO2 emissions matter. They do not; CO2 does not and cannot control the climate. I believe that is the only argument which can defeat the madness of Ed Miliband, and the Net Zero policy.
Thank you David, for your analysis. What i don't understand is why we cannot stop these fools from causing the damage they are.
Yes, we live in a representative (meaning no) democracy, but these ideological obsessions of government are clearly just a tax scam. They are a control system for moving money from the worker to the state. Little else is achieved. It's a bit: we know they're lying, they know they're lying, they know we know they're lying and they know there is nothing we can do to stop them. Why can we not?
Is it because people don't understand their bills and can't see the 70% taxes and levies added to it? Is the intent to brainwash and deceive so desperate that people stop asking the questions that expose the deceit? Why can Miliband and the department for economic ruin not be stopped from this maniac obsession with destroying our way of life?
This is a very good analysis of diminishing returns on power generation of wind and solar. One thing this analysis ignored is Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI). While energy generation gets smaller and smaller, the huge CO2 costs of building the turbines and foundations are high and constant. Given a 10 or optimistically 20 year lifespan, these additional units INCREASE CO2 emissions. Go broke and increase emissions is a truly stupid decision.
Dave, your EROEI article is excellent. As an engineer, the cradle to grave approach is super obvious. Because it damages the green narrative, it is unpopular with the climate cult. Their narrative cannot survive an objective, informed analysis. Beware the Energy Cliff!!!
If there any reference to the CO2 produced by the consumption of tobacco and related products? If we plant more trees, will they produce more CO2? If we cut more trees down, will that reduce the CO2 production?
@David Turver Can you do a similar study on power system and rates charged from public on Pakistan? We have lots of hydel, untapped potential of large and small dams also and yet we have over the top Independent power producers IPPs who operate on Captive Power contracts with gov. They operate at 20-30% of capacity and are paid 100% because the grid does not have the capacity to carry the power generated.
And we have wind and solar projects also whereas weather is not suitable for any of them.
Sorry, but I have quite enough on my plate keeping up with UK Government madness without adding Pakistan to my list of countries with insane energy policies.
Quiet Right. I understand. Madness is the New Normal.
All this is meant to increase the national debts of all countries. Ultimately the IMF shall in return of taking up all the debt, shall take over entire national land and resources via its private debt management company. That's One World Govt complete take over of global resources. (WEF slogan...You will own nothing and still be happy).
That's the reason whenever I see Ministers/ Secretarys of various govts enter into talks with IMF, they all come out heads shaking and mumbling I'M F@#$%&.
The analysis appears to exclude interconnector imports. These are I believe officially deemed to be zero carbon. The fact that BritNed terminates right next door to the MPP3 coal and biomass co-fired power station is ignored. Biomass actually gives rise to more local CO2 emissions than coal. While the French interconnectors can reasonably be said to be supplied by the nuclear complex at Gravelines and in Normandy, it is increasingly unclear what the supply for the other interconnectors really is. Norwegian supply is likely to be from hydro, or perhaps from renwables surplus from Germany and Denmark on the occasions they are exporting. The origin of supply from Belgium is very unclear. In future, when NeuConnect opens we might find ourselves trying to cover Dunkelflaute with more coal generation in Germany.
Yes, just focused on UK generation. There is an argument that at times of Dunkelflaute, the marginal generation in Europe that we take through the interconnectors is most likely generated from fossil fuel, because that's the only form of generation that is not already running flat out.
You are right about biomass (wood burning) producing more emissions than coal - strange that the UK calls biomass burning 'clean' - because they are thrilled that it is "renewable".
In theory, biomass is carbon neutral because you can plant more of the trees (and other plants?) to absorb CO2, offsetting the CO2 you just emitted from burning the biomass, the idea being that you essentially form an artificial carbon cycle where you burn biomass which emits CO2 which is absorbed by the biomass you grow for future burning, and so on. Is this in fact achieved with biomass?
Thank you David! Your post seems to be another illustration of the law of diminishing returns. I feel that a pragmatic administration, while wishing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, might have accepted that having achieved a useful reduction, a further drive to wind and solar would prove increasingly expensive and result in a grid that was progressively more unstable and hard to manage. Instead, we have an "at all costs" approach. The simple truth of intermittency is brushed aside: the unaffordable expenditure will crowd out better alternatives. I am hard pushed to recall similar ideological folly pursued by successive UK governments against such widespread ignorance and acquiescence.
Ah well, at least thanks to you and others I can see what's coming, though I fear only a full-blown crisis will make it apparent to the masses, followed by revolt.
I'm not familiar with wind patterns in the UK, but in the US we are clearly experiencing diminishing returns on new wind "farms" because the best locations of course were taken up first.
Interesting - thank you Al. I don't have reliable averaged information about the UK to hand, but if you wish to dip in occasionally for enlightenment and entertainment the following sites are updated every few minutes and show the state of the wind and (separately), the UK electricity grid: https://www.xcweather.co.uk/observationshttps://gridwatch.co.uk/demand
Part of the problem with windmills currently is that all the new plantings have been in Scotland but they've done virtually nothing to increase transmission capacity so they can't be utilised. Thus they have to constrain them off and instruct gas back onto the system to compensate. This is largely why emission levels are not following down increase in wind capacity. This is is only going to get worse as there are quite a few windfarms in construction in Scotland let alone all the ones that are planned. The main fix for this is the Eastern Green DC Links which will make a significant different to utilisation of wind, when its available of course!, but these are barely fixing todays mismatch let alone the in construction and planned additions. Thus its very clear that no more generation should be added in Scotland until transmission catches up. This is the sort of sensible approach Millibrain and Starkie should be taking and at the same time have built UK manufacturing capability as well but they haven't. When will they get found out though not until its too late I suspect and the bills have gone up even more fortunately their NZ2030 goal is unachievable so there is a bit of upside!!
What is certain is David will have plenty of material for our Sundays all next year and beyond!!
Subjectively, it is hard to believe any of the government’s estimates and forecasts – even the so-called sceptics in the Royal Society seem to be relaxed about massaging figures to support pre-determined groupthink conclusions about climate-change issues.
A brief skim of National Audit Office reports would suggest to any disinterested reader that, for decades, almost all major government projects suffer large overspends and delays, to the extent that early project estimates are risibly low. [Cynical entryism is a factor of course.] A modicum of extrapolation from NAO and other hard major project evidence would probably suggest that ALL Miliband’s cost and time forecasts should be roughly doubled. As for those emission forecasts …
Hard to see any glimmer of a satisfactory ending, alas.
To be fair here whilst the projects are effectively underpinned by the consumer they are actually private ventures and have a reasonable track record on construction. Cost wise we rarely get to know how that turned out and can infer only from annual reports what the final costs may have been.
Thank you for providing my Sunday morning entertainment with facts and clarity that the climate catastrophe doom-mongers don't even try to refute with facts and logic.
Today's post adds yet another inconvenient truth to the mad race towards netzero.
Happy New Year. The only thing is, I believe it will get worse before it gets better. We need the blackout before they accept their project is utterly flawed. And we need famine before they understand that farmers are essential. Both are coming.
Blackouts are highly unlikely as the grid control engineers are very adept at what they do and they have an armoury of tools to manage the system the biggest one being they can throw unlimited amounts of money at keeping the lights on.
I doubt we will see famine but for sure food price inflation and shortages seem highly probable.
In the short term next four years they have more than enough generation signed up under the capacity mkt agreements. Im watching this tears T-4 for 29/30 delivery year as an indication as to what it will take (in cash) to keep the existing CCGT fleet sitting available. If we see the CCGT owners dropping out of the auction then the risks start going up.
I feel your optimism is not grounded in reality. If the governing class keep on the same path they have done for the past 30 years, we will have both power cuts and food shortages. We have come close to this a few times this past year, so as the nuclear fleet reduces then the capacity to cover for a prolonged period of dunkelflaute will be stretched to breaking. And living in a rural area I am all too aware of the war the government are waging on farmers.
Only then will sufficient people wake up to reality. And while the electrical generating system can be fixed relatively quickly, a loss of food production is a decades-long recovery process.
Even mad Ed now acknowledges that we will need to keep 30-35GW of standby generation mainly CCGTs to manage wind lulls in winter. I see this as a positive that the NESO engineers still have significant say in whats needed to keep the lights on and are being listened to. This should also start a conversation of "hang on why do we need two generation systems and how is that going to save us money". Its not of course but even mad Ed has now rolled back on saving us money and is moving the narrative slowly to i know best and you will have to pay more for so I can get accolade of destroying the UK economy sorry saving the planet and now be selected for some grand UN job to complete the task. This is about him and trying to outdo his brother and Starmer and Reeves can't see it. Reynolds is feel is more circumspect but keeping his head down currently.
If we live long enough we shall see but I remain unconvinced that Milliband et al will ever have a grand awakening before it is too late.
Too many people, some who have influence have fully bought into the need for NetZero so it has a long way to go before reality takes hold. But it inevitably will do at some point.
The diminishing return from increasing wind capacity is a problem but the wind drought problem is probably more fundamental because if people had known about the Dunkelflautes they should never have allowed wind and solar power onto the grid. Let alone subsidising and mandating it.
That is arguably the most damaging policy blunder in peacetime because trillions have been spent around the world to get more expensive and less reliable power with massive damage to the planet.
This is a longstanding warning from The Energy Realists of Australia and apparently it has to be repeated because it is not being spread around by any mainstream media including conservative outlets which should welcome it.
Around the Western world, subsidised and mandated wind and solar power have been displacing conventional power in the electricity supply. Consequently, most of the grids in the west are moving towards a point where the lights will flicker at nights when the wind is low. This is a “frog in the saucepan” effect and it only starts to worry people when it is almost too late. It may be too late for Britain and Germany.
Consider the ABC of intermittent energy generation.
A. Input to the grid must continuously match the demand.
B. The continuity of RE is broken on nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no feasible or affordable large-scale storage to bridge the gaps.
Therefore, the green transition is impossible with current storage technology.
The rate of progress towards the tipping point will accelerate as demand is swelled by AI and electrification at large.
In Australia, the transition to unreliable wind and solar power has just hit the wall, while Britain and Germany have passed the tipping point and entered a “red zone,” keeping the lights on precariously with imports and deindustrialization to reduce demand.
The meteorologists never issued wind drought warnings and the irresponsible authorities never checked the wind supply! They even missed the Dunkelflautes that must have been known to mariners and millers for centuries!
There is an urgent need to find out why the meteorologists failed to warn us about wind droughts and why energy planners didn’t check. Imagine embarking on a major irrigation project without forensic investigation of the water supply including historical rainfall figures.
It is likely that the meteorologists of the world have taken instructions from the World Meteorological Organization which was a first mover in the climate alarmism in the UN. Without awareness of wind droughts the net zero program sets “wind drought trap” where windless nights are an existential threat to the power supply.
Despite the steady increase in capacity, the output of wind has been fairly flat at just over 7 Gwatts average for the last three years. Solar also shows a marginal increase (circa 100 Mwatt) (Gridwatch.co.uk figures.)
The decrease in output with age may well be factor in these figures? Related to installed capacity it is poor.
Hi David, I was wondering if you'd like to take a look at a piece that I've just written about windfarms, more of a philosophical piece. If you have the time of course.....
Post a link or message me with a link.
And any one else who wants to chip in is very welcome. It's a more philosophical piece, about where all of this is going.
https://allthatssolid.substack.com/p/9efc6bd5-aa9a-411a-b256-d334453d9a64?postPreview=paid&updated=2025-01-05T11%3A54%3A27.116Z&audience=everyone&free_preview=false&freemail=true
Another excellent analysis of the stupidity of Government’s energy policy. However, I feel this approach is counterproductive because, when we are argue about emissions, it reinforces the idea that CO2 emissions matter. They do not; CO2 does not and cannot control the climate. I believe that is the only argument which can defeat the madness of Ed Miliband, and the Net Zero policy.
Thank you David, for your analysis. What i don't understand is why we cannot stop these fools from causing the damage they are.
Yes, we live in a representative (meaning no) democracy, but these ideological obsessions of government are clearly just a tax scam. They are a control system for moving money from the worker to the state. Little else is achieved. It's a bit: we know they're lying, they know they're lying, they know we know they're lying and they know there is nothing we can do to stop them. Why can we not?
Is it because people don't understand their bills and can't see the 70% taxes and levies added to it? Is the intent to brainwash and deceive so desperate that people stop asking the questions that expose the deceit? Why can Miliband and the department for economic ruin not be stopped from this maniac obsession with destroying our way of life?
This is a very good analysis of diminishing returns on power generation of wind and solar. One thing this analysis ignored is Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI). While energy generation gets smaller and smaller, the huge CO2 costs of building the turbines and foundations are high and constant. Given a 10 or optimistically 20 year lifespan, these additional units INCREASE CO2 emissions. Go broke and increase emissions is a truly stupid decision.
Dave, your EROEI article is excellent. As an engineer, the cradle to grave approach is super obvious. Because it damages the green narrative, it is unpopular with the climate cult. Their narrative cannot survive an objective, informed analysis. Beware the Energy Cliff!!!
You are of course right about EROEI. Our electricity system is falling down the energy cliff. I covered that here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/davidturver/p/why-eroei-matters?r=nhgn1&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
If there any reference to the CO2 produced by the consumption of tobacco and related products? If we plant more trees, will they produce more CO2? If we cut more trees down, will that reduce the CO2 production?
The Law of Diminishing Returns in action.
@David Turver Can you do a similar study on power system and rates charged from public on Pakistan? We have lots of hydel, untapped potential of large and small dams also and yet we have over the top Independent power producers IPPs who operate on Captive Power contracts with gov. They operate at 20-30% of capacity and are paid 100% because the grid does not have the capacity to carry the power generated.
And we have wind and solar projects also whereas weather is not suitable for any of them.
Sorry, but I have quite enough on my plate keeping up with UK Government madness without adding Pakistan to my list of countries with insane energy policies.
Quiet Right. I understand. Madness is the New Normal.
All this is meant to increase the national debts of all countries. Ultimately the IMF shall in return of taking up all the debt, shall take over entire national land and resources via its private debt management company. That's One World Govt complete take over of global resources. (WEF slogan...You will own nothing and still be happy).
That's the reason whenever I see Ministers/ Secretarys of various govts enter into talks with IMF, they all come out heads shaking and mumbling I'M F@#$%&.
The analysis appears to exclude interconnector imports. These are I believe officially deemed to be zero carbon. The fact that BritNed terminates right next door to the MPP3 coal and biomass co-fired power station is ignored. Biomass actually gives rise to more local CO2 emissions than coal. While the French interconnectors can reasonably be said to be supplied by the nuclear complex at Gravelines and in Normandy, it is increasingly unclear what the supply for the other interconnectors really is. Norwegian supply is likely to be from hydro, or perhaps from renwables surplus from Germany and Denmark on the occasions they are exporting. The origin of supply from Belgium is very unclear. In future, when NeuConnect opens we might find ourselves trying to cover Dunkelflaute with more coal generation in Germany.
Yes, just focused on UK generation. There is an argument that at times of Dunkelflaute, the marginal generation in Europe that we take through the interconnectors is most likely generated from fossil fuel, because that's the only form of generation that is not already running flat out.
You are right about biomass (wood burning) producing more emissions than coal - strange that the UK calls biomass burning 'clean' - because they are thrilled that it is "renewable".
In theory, biomass is carbon neutral because you can plant more of the trees (and other plants?) to absorb CO2, offsetting the CO2 you just emitted from burning the biomass, the idea being that you essentially form an artificial carbon cycle where you burn biomass which emits CO2 which is absorbed by the biomass you grow for future burning, and so on. Is this in fact achieved with biomass?
Thank you David! Your post seems to be another illustration of the law of diminishing returns. I feel that a pragmatic administration, while wishing to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, might have accepted that having achieved a useful reduction, a further drive to wind and solar would prove increasingly expensive and result in a grid that was progressively more unstable and hard to manage. Instead, we have an "at all costs" approach. The simple truth of intermittency is brushed aside: the unaffordable expenditure will crowd out better alternatives. I am hard pushed to recall similar ideological folly pursued by successive UK governments against such widespread ignorance and acquiescence.
Ah well, at least thanks to you and others I can see what's coming, though I fear only a full-blown crisis will make it apparent to the masses, followed by revolt.
I'm not familiar with wind patterns in the UK, but in the US we are clearly experiencing diminishing returns on new wind "farms" because the best locations of course were taken up first.
Interesting - thank you Al. I don't have reliable averaged information about the UK to hand, but if you wish to dip in occasionally for enlightenment and entertainment the following sites are updated every few minutes and show the state of the wind and (separately), the UK electricity grid: https://www.xcweather.co.uk/observations https://gridwatch.co.uk/demand
Part of the problem with windmills currently is that all the new plantings have been in Scotland but they've done virtually nothing to increase transmission capacity so they can't be utilised. Thus they have to constrain them off and instruct gas back onto the system to compensate. This is largely why emission levels are not following down increase in wind capacity. This is is only going to get worse as there are quite a few windfarms in construction in Scotland let alone all the ones that are planned. The main fix for this is the Eastern Green DC Links which will make a significant different to utilisation of wind, when its available of course!, but these are barely fixing todays mismatch let alone the in construction and planned additions. Thus its very clear that no more generation should be added in Scotland until transmission catches up. This is the sort of sensible approach Millibrain and Starkie should be taking and at the same time have built UK manufacturing capability as well but they haven't. When will they get found out though not until its too late I suspect and the bills have gone up even more fortunately their NZ2030 goal is unachievable so there is a bit of upside!!
What is certain is David will have plenty of material for our Sundays all next year and beyond!!
David, thanks – interesting as always.
Subjectively, it is hard to believe any of the government’s estimates and forecasts – even the so-called sceptics in the Royal Society seem to be relaxed about massaging figures to support pre-determined groupthink conclusions about climate-change issues.
A brief skim of National Audit Office reports would suggest to any disinterested reader that, for decades, almost all major government projects suffer large overspends and delays, to the extent that early project estimates are risibly low. [Cynical entryism is a factor of course.] A modicum of extrapolation from NAO and other hard major project evidence would probably suggest that ALL Miliband’s cost and time forecasts should be roughly doubled. As for those emission forecasts …
Hard to see any glimmer of a satisfactory ending, alas.
To be fair here whilst the projects are effectively underpinned by the consumer they are actually private ventures and have a reasonable track record on construction. Cost wise we rarely get to know how that turned out and can infer only from annual reports what the final costs may have been.
"private ventures and have a reasonable track record on construction" Can you cite any evidence to support this claim?
Thank you for providing my Sunday morning entertainment with facts and clarity that the climate catastrophe doom-mongers don't even try to refute with facts and logic.
Today's post adds yet another inconvenient truth to the mad race towards netzero.
Happy New Year. The only thing is, I believe it will get worse before it gets better. We need the blackout before they accept their project is utterly flawed. And we need famine before they understand that farmers are essential. Both are coming.
Blackouts are highly unlikely as the grid control engineers are very adept at what they do and they have an armoury of tools to manage the system the biggest one being they can throw unlimited amounts of money at keeping the lights on.
I doubt we will see famine but for sure food price inflation and shortages seem highly probable.
Blackouts are highly likely as renewables penetration increases and gas/nuclear decrease, particularly in winter months when demand is highest
In the short term next four years they have more than enough generation signed up under the capacity mkt agreements. Im watching this tears T-4 for 29/30 delivery year as an indication as to what it will take (in cash) to keep the existing CCGT fleet sitting available. If we see the CCGT owners dropping out of the auction then the risks start going up.
I feel your optimism is not grounded in reality. If the governing class keep on the same path they have done for the past 30 years, we will have both power cuts and food shortages. We have come close to this a few times this past year, so as the nuclear fleet reduces then the capacity to cover for a prolonged period of dunkelflaute will be stretched to breaking. And living in a rural area I am all too aware of the war the government are waging on farmers.
Only then will sufficient people wake up to reality. And while the electrical generating system can be fixed relatively quickly, a loss of food production is a decades-long recovery process.
We shall see!
Even mad Ed now acknowledges that we will need to keep 30-35GW of standby generation mainly CCGTs to manage wind lulls in winter. I see this as a positive that the NESO engineers still have significant say in whats needed to keep the lights on and are being listened to. This should also start a conversation of "hang on why do we need two generation systems and how is that going to save us money". Its not of course but even mad Ed has now rolled back on saving us money and is moving the narrative slowly to i know best and you will have to pay more for so I can get accolade of destroying the UK economy sorry saving the planet and now be selected for some grand UN job to complete the task. This is about him and trying to outdo his brother and Starmer and Reeves can't see it. Reynolds is feel is more circumspect but keeping his head down currently.
If we live long enough we shall see but I remain unconvinced that Milliband et al will ever have a grand awakening before it is too late.
Too many people, some who have influence have fully bought into the need for NetZero so it has a long way to go before reality takes hold. But it inevitably will do at some point.
The diminishing return from increasing wind capacity is a problem but the wind drought problem is probably more fundamental because if people had known about the Dunkelflautes they should never have allowed wind and solar power onto the grid. Let alone subsidising and mandating it.
That is arguably the most damaging policy blunder in peacetime because trillions have been spent around the world to get more expensive and less reliable power with massive damage to the planet.
This is a longstanding warning from The Energy Realists of Australia and apparently it has to be repeated because it is not being spread around by any mainstream media including conservative outlets which should welcome it.
Around the Western world, subsidised and mandated wind and solar power have been displacing conventional power in the electricity supply. Consequently, most of the grids in the west are moving towards a point where the lights will flicker at nights when the wind is low. This is a “frog in the saucepan” effect and it only starts to worry people when it is almost too late. It may be too late for Britain and Germany.
https://newcatallaxy.blog/2023/07/11/approaching-the-tipping-point/
Consider the ABC of intermittent energy generation.
A. Input to the grid must continuously match the demand.
B. The continuity of RE is broken on nights with little or no wind.
C. There is no feasible or affordable large-scale storage to bridge the gaps.
Therefore, the green transition is impossible with current storage technology.
The rate of progress towards the tipping point will accelerate as demand is swelled by AI and electrification at large.
In Australia, the transition to unreliable wind and solar power has just hit the wall, while Britain and Germany have passed the tipping point and entered a “red zone,” keeping the lights on precariously with imports and deindustrialization to reduce demand.
The meteorologists never issued wind drought warnings and the irresponsible authorities never checked the wind supply! They even missed the Dunkelflautes that must have been known to mariners and millers for centuries!
https://www.flickerpower.com/images/The_endless_wind_drought_crippling_renewables___The_Spectator_Australia.pdf
There is an urgent need to find out why the meteorologists failed to warn us about wind droughts and why energy planners didn’t check. Imagine embarking on a major irrigation project without forensic investigation of the water supply including historical rainfall figures.
https://quadrant.org.au/news-opinions/climate-change/no-gusts-no-glory/
It is likely that the meteorologists of the world have taken instructions from the World Meteorological Organization which was a first mover in the climate alarmism in the UN. Without awareness of wind droughts the net zero program sets “wind drought trap” where windless nights are an existential threat to the power supply.
I expect Vlad the Invader is well aware of the increasing importance of subsea inter-connectors.
Despite the steady increase in capacity, the output of wind has been fairly flat at just over 7 Gwatts average for the last three years. Solar also shows a marginal increase (circa 100 Mwatt) (Gridwatch.co.uk figures.)
The decrease in output with age may well be factor in these figures? Related to installed capacity it is poor.
I know they won’t read this, but has this been sent to our economic and scientific illiterate leaders? They are committing us to economic ruin.