Wednesday 15 August 2012

Gwynt y Môr

MH at Syniadau has already done a mathematical demolition job on the anti-wind campaigners referred to in this story.  I won’t repeat that analysis, with which I agree.  The reportage disappointed me somewhat, however.  Whilst it (I assume accurately) reported the claims and counter claims of the two sides, there was something of a lack of analysis as to whether either or both were right, and very little light generated as a result.
Truth can sometimes be an elusive concept, but in this case, it seems to me that it’s possible for both sides to be right.  However, they’re not talking about the same thing, and therefore one side being right about one thing does nothing to prove the other wrong about something quite different.
One of the arguments about wind is its predictability (or rather lack thereof).  But it isn’t quite as simple as that – wind is quite predictable in the very short term and in the long term; it’s in between that it becomes unpredictable.  Ask a meteorologist what the wind is going to do in the next hour or two, and (s)he will give you a pretty accurate prediction.  Ask how much wind we’ll get over a year, and you’ll get another pretty accurate prediction.  But ask what the wind speed and direction will be at 2.30 on the afternoon of Tuesday 4th September, and you’ll be lucky to get any sort of prediction at all.
The overall predictability of the UK’s wind and weather means that it is perfectly possible to predict with a high degree of confidence how many kwh of electricity can be generated by any wind turbine over a year.  And whilst one may quibble with the detail of the mathematics (see MH’s post), converting that into a proportion of Wales’ total annual need, or even a number of homes whose needs can be met, is just simple arithmetic.  So the claim put forward by those behind Gwynt y Môr is entirely reasonable.
The counter claim by the opponents is based on the proposition that the energy produced may not be available at the time required by those households, and at other times electricity will be produced which those households cannot use.  It means that at times of surplus, the electricity produced will be used elsewhere, and at times of deficit, those households will be using electricity produced from other sources.  So, the argument goes, those households cannot rely on Gwynt y Môr to supply their needs.
That’s also true, but the proposition it demolishes isn’t the one being made; it’s something completely different.  And it certainly doesn’t support the conclusion that wind is therefore a useless source of energy.
Given the starting point of this post, I’ve only referred to wind, but we can actually generalise from that.  Any type of electricity generation based entirely on (free, unlimited) natural renewables (whether wind, tidal, solar, hydro or whatever) will never be able to match the certainty of availability when required which can be obtained from a power station fed by (expensive and depletable) fuels. 
That isn’t an argument for sticking with fossil fuels, nor for rejecting the use of renewables; it's just a feature of a different apporach to energy policy.  What it tells us is that, if we want to use emission-free renewables, we have to think in different ways about our electricity supply and distribution infrastructure.  Up to a certain percentage – as I recall, National Grid figures suggest that to be around 20% – the impact on security of supply is fairly minimal and can be coped with more or less within existing backup and contingency arrangements.  Beyond that, we will undoubtedly need to look at ‘storage’ facilities.  In addition to that, grid interlinks which spread the risk over a wider area are already being built.
We can’t – and no-one is suggesting that we can – rely on wind for all our electricity needs, but we can and should use it as part of the overall mix.

8 comments:

G Horton-Jones said...

John
Grid interlinks are operating down at the 11kv level already.

We are forgetting in all this smokescreen that Wales is self sufficient in electricity but we have no control whatsoever over this asset. the wind as always blows in favour of England and the obsession with such projects is solely to give energy security to England in a world of decreasing oil and gas supplies
God forbid that our children in Wales should inherit an Olympian legacy of abandoned energy structures
We cannot go on being an exploited nation

Ioan said...

"MH at Syniadau has already done a mathematical demolition job on the anti-wind campaigners referred to in this story."

He demolished the strange arguments of John Lawson-Reay, but I don't think he touched the arguments of Janet Finch-Saunders:

"Without the subsidies the companies wouldn’t be erecting these wind farms. Who pays for the subsidy? None other than the energy users themselves so indirectly we’ll all be paying for the efficiency or inefficiency of it."

That's the strangest thing about wind economics - the less wind we have in a year, the less we have to pay for electricity...

Cibwr said...

One of the things that the anti wind, anti alternative energy people seem to forget is that there will be major changes to electricity usage over the coming years. Firstly feed in tariffs will go for new solar systems. Increasingly domestic solar systems will have home based electricity storage rather than just selling the surplus to the grid. Electric car usage will grow substantially, eventually replacing petrol cars. These will effectively be charging at night, which is when the surplus from wind can be effectively used. Indeed the storage facilities of electric cars will be part of local smart grids, dealing with fluctuations in demand. The picture is changing and wind, especially off shore wind will be increasingly part of the mix.

Ioan said...

Cibwr, so you expect demand for electricity at night (i.e. base load) to increase, and the best way you can think of meeting this extra load is wind power???? The only one I can think of that is less reliable than wind for charging all these extra cars at night is solar.

John Dixon said...

Ioan,

"Without the subsidies the companies wouldn’t be erecting these wind farms"

But one could equally say that 'without subsidies, no-one would build nuclear stations', 'without the feed-in tariff, no-one would install solar panels', or 'without someone else paying for the consequences of emissions, no-one would build coal stations'. Your point is what exactly? That people will be more likely to build the type of generation capacity most favoured by the pricing regime? Well, yes. That's the whole point of the pricing regime. There is scope for debate about whether the government has set the pricing regime in the right way, but it is achieving what it was supposed to achieve, isn't it?

"the less wind we have in a year, the less we have to pay for electricity..."

Or, to put it in another way, the more coal-produced electricity we use, the cheaper the bills will be. If you just want the cheapest electricity, and don't see emissions as any sort of problem, then by all means, argue for coal. But if you want to have emissions-free energy then wind starts to look a lot less expensive. It just depends what you're comparing it with.

G Horton-Jones said...

John
Cibw has a very valid point
Technological change can be very rapid. Aviation 1914-1918
In 1968 in Manitoba. My car used a plug in block heater to aid starting and save fuel admittedly in severe cold conditions
A visit to Bethesda in Pembs last week shows a village where all roofs are cloaked in solar panels it is quite a sight but I believe in the very short term roof construction itself will incorporate solar panels as will wall surfaces Thus eliminating the need for example of slate or tile material
There are of course major political and business forces at work to prevent rapid change

Ioan said...

John said:
"Your point is what exactly? That people will be more likely to build the type of generation capacity most favoured by the pricing regime? Well, yes. That's the whole point of the pricing regime. There is scope for debate about whether the government has set the pricing regime in the right way, but it is achieving what it was supposed to achieve, isn't it?"
I guess that's exactly what I am arguing for!

At present the Feed in Tarifs are:

Energy Source Feed-in Tariff
April 1, 2012 to July 31, 2012 August 1, 2012 - September 30, 2012
AD biogas 9.9 to 14.7p/kWh 9.9 to 14.7p/kWh
Hydro 4.9 to 21.9 p/kWh 4.9 to 21.9 p/kWh
Micro-CHP 11p/kWh 11p/kWh
Solar PV 8.9 to 21.0p/kWh 7.1 to 16.0p/kWh
Wind 4.9 to 35.8 p/kWh 4.9 to 35.8 p/kWh
Previously installed systems 9.9 p/kWh 9.9 p/kWh

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed-in_tariff#United_Kingdom )

Why are we pushing the market towards wind? If all 'carbon free' technologies had the same tariff, the market would then decide what works and what does not.

I accept that this would not help my friends in Brynsiencyn who are fighting Peter Rodgers' application for turbines in a field in front of their house - but that's a different story...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rogers_(Welsh_politician)

John Dixon said...

Ioan,

I'd certainly agree with you that there is scope for debate about how we set the subsidies for different types of generating capacity. And I'd certainly be in favour of more openness and transparency around both pricing and subsidy - and the feed-in tariffs aren't the only element.

I'm not sure about treating all renewables the same however - and I'm not sure that would achieve what you want either. In the short term, newer technologies (such as tidal power) are likely to need higher subsidies than established ones in order to stimulate the market - I think we need to keep that flexibility in the system.