How sincere are they?

Tweet

Yesterday’s announcement by Plaid that it would seek to produce 100% of Wales’ electricity needs from renewable sources within 20 years sets a clear and achievable target which I’d entirely support.  Coupled with proposals for reducing demand, it sets the scene for an approach to energy in Wales which will help to decarbonise our economy as well as creating jobs in a more sustainable economy.  There is nothing in the announcement by Llŷr Gruffydd with which I would disagree, and if the party is serious about it, it would draw a very clear line between Plaid and the other parties currently represented in the Assembly on the issue of energy.

There is inevitably, however, a question about the extent to which the policy is credible.  Is it one supported by the party as a whole, or only by its energy spokesperson and friends?  If we vote for Plaid Cymru candidates, are we voting for this policy, or are we voting for whatever the individual candidates say, which may well be very different from the stated policy?

There are two large holes in the party’s credibility on this issue, and there was nothing in yesterday’s statement which gave me any confidence that the party intends to plug those holes.

The first and most obvious is Wylfa B.  How can anyone who is planning to generate 100% of Wales’ electricity requirement from entirely renewable resources support the building of a new nuclear reactor in Wales, particularly if such a reactor is likely to meet Wales’ electricity needs anyway?  It makes absolutely no sense at all.

And the second is that making use of renewables includes more use of wind energy, yet Plaid politicians are often prominent in opposing wind energy schemes wherever they’re proposed.  Supporting something ‘in principle’ and then opposing it in practice doesn’t make for credibility.  And I’m not even sure that many of them support it in principle.  I’ve certainly heard some of Plaid’s elected members repeating the lies and half truths of anti-wind campaigners.

It frequently sounds as if the party is in favour of wind turbines only where no-one wants to build them and against nuclear power schemes only where no-one wants to build them – the latter being a point I made in the party’s 2010 conference.  Simply announcing a new policy does nothing to bridge that yawning credibility gap.

I’d be delighted to be able to vote for the policy announced yesterday – and in some parts of Wales, voting for the Plaid candidate might amount to the same thing.  But in wide swathes of Wales, voting for the Plaid candidate would be, effectively, a vote against the policy the party announced yesterday.  For sure, all parties have problems at times with individuals who disagree with the party line on a particular issue.  But in this case, the problem is much more fundamental and widespread than that, to the extent that claiming that ‘the party’ has a policy is rendered meaningless.

Windy Tories

Tweet It was always understood that the subsidy regime for the wind power industry was intended to create the conditions for the industry to mature, and that, when it was sufficiently mature, the subsidies would be reduced or removed.  And that’s not a policy with which I would particularly quarrel per se.

Whether the industry has actually got to that point or not is another matter.  I don’t believe that it has, but I accept that others may interpret things differently; and it’s not a question which has a simple yes/no answer - it's inevitably a matter of opinion, not fact.  It is, though, a question which doesn’t even seem to have been asked before the Tories announced their latest policy on abolishing subsidies if they win the next election.  The announcement seems to have little to do with energy policy as such, and everything to do with what they think will be popular amongst their target electorate.

The closest that they come to serious consideration of energy policy in the announcement is to declare that, if all currently consented turbines are built, agreed EU targets will have been achieved.  That’s one of those statements by politicians which is ‘true’, but completely misses the point.  The objective of using renewable sources is to reduce carbon emissions, not simply to achieve a negotiated EU target which is, by its nature, inadequate to achieve the necessary level of carbon reduction; but as so often happens, the target seems to be being treated as an end in itself.  Achievement of the agreed target is obscuring the objective which the target was meant to promote. It's a common problem with a target-based approach.

I don’t doubt that the abolition of the subsidies to onshore wind will be welcomed by shire Tories, in Wales as in England, who want all the benefits of clean electricity produced ‘somewhere else’.  But the subsidies (and massive ones at that) paid to keep the cost of producing energy from fossil fuels low will continue unabated – basically because the subsidies are not so visible to the end consumer, and the environmental costs of production are elsewhere.  They are effectively proposing to switch the balance of support to more carbon-intensive sources of electricity.

Time will tell whether this is really the election-winning strategy that they hope; but it is certainly not much of a carbon reduction strategy.

(As an aside, it’s interesting to note that, having declined to devolve planning control over wind turbines to the Assembly in the interests of maintaining a ‘national’ strategy for EnglandandWales, they are also proposing to devolve all control over all wind projects to local authorities.  There’s nothing like consistency in politics – and this is indeed nothing like consistency.)

Providing the right incentives

Tweet I came across this report a while ago, but never quite got round to reading it properly until this week.  It suggests that the actual life of wind farms might be only 10 to 15 years rather than the 25 years generally assumed.

At one level, a shorter life might not actually matter very much; if the economics still stack up over a shorter period, and if they still achieve the planned emissions reductions, they’d still be viable.  At another level, “re-powering” them more often brings its own costs (and unpopularity) in terms of traffic disruption, and the carbon cost of construction.

The detail of the report, however, is not quite as black-and-white as the conclusion some might draw from it.  And it raises a few other interesting questions as well.

It’s based on looking at already installed capacity in both the UK and Denmark.  It may well be the case, as some detractors of the report have claimed, that the performance of new technology will be better, and so conclusions cannot be drawn based on previously installed equipment.  Perhaps; but it’s one of those things about which we won’t be certain for some years.

The big question for me was what actually causes the observed degradation in performance.  As the report itself makes clear, the answer to that question is by no means straightforward.  The performance of individual turbines seems to vary greatly, and there is a significant disparity between the situation in the UK and that in Denmark, both in terms of overall averages and in the disparity between the best and worst performances.

This suggests to me that there is something else at work here other than merely wear and tear and maintenance schedules.  And that brings us to the nub of the question.  Much of what the report is dealing with isn’t actually the mechanical life of the turbines, but the economic life.  For sure, the economic life is impacted by the technical life; poor maintenance and excessive wear and tear will shorten both.  But they are not the same thing.

The economics are affected greatly by the financial regime under which the wind farms operate – and it may well be that the differences in financial arrangements between the UK and Denmark explain, partially at least, the differences in performance.

Two things about the UK’s ROC regime leapt out at me from this report in relation to the financial framework.

1. The report makes the point “the subsidies provided by ROC’s are sufficient to underwrite investment in inefficient plants…  Those subsidies are extremely generous for plants that operate close to the efficient frontier.  As location is likely to be the main factor that determines the performance of a specific plant relative to all the plants, the inference must be that many wind plants have been developed on sites with poor characteristics...  In effect, the financial regime appears to be encouraging investment in plant which is installed in suboptimal locations”.  (It seems to me that the opposition to siting them in the most optimal locations is a significant part of what drives developers to those suboptimal locations.  It’s somewhat ironic that windfarm opponents are not succeeding in preventing wind developments from taking place, merely in driving them to the wrong locations.) 
2. The financial framework means that “wind operators will have a strong incentive to decommission plants after no more than 15 years and replace the turbines with newer equipment”.  That again is an economic driver not a technical one.

In summary, the report is not so much an argument for not building turbines – as some have inevitably claimed, seizing on the headline – as an argument for reviewing the financial framework to ensure that we incentivise the “right” windfarms in the “right” places, and incentivise maximising useful lifespan rather than premature replacement.

It’s hard to disagree with that principle.  This is a useful contribution to debate – it’s not the killer argument against wind that some have claimed, but neither should it be simply dismissed.  I’m not at this stage convinced what the right financial framework might look like but it certainly does seem that there is cause for reconsidering the nature of the current financial framework.

Trenches and trenches

Tweet There are increasing demands for the link from wind farms – both locally in Carmarthenshire and in Powys – to be taken underground.  From the point of view of minimising the impact on the scenery, it makes a lot of sense.

It does however add to the costs (although there is some dispute about the extent of that addition).  Whether it’s a cost worth paying is ultimately a matter of opinion.  Personally I’d like to see the detail of the cost impact before taking a firm view – it might be that the combination of overhead cables in some areas and underground cables in others will offer the best trade-off between cost and scenery.

There are however two major inconsistencies in some of the statements being made by those demanding that the links be underground.

The first is that the same people are also complaining about the high cost of energy, and wind energy in particular.  Yet they are demanding action which will effectively increase the cost.

The second is that some of those who now want to dig a trench across Carmarthenshire to bury electricity cables were implacable opponents of digging a trench across Carmarthenshire to bury gas pipes.  To me one trench looks much the same as another; insofar as it is damaging, it’s the trench which does the damage, not what is buried in it.

There are some hard facts that we cannot easily avoid:

·         We need to move away from carbon-based energy and base our economy on renewables

·         Effective use of renewables – wind, tide, hydro, solar – means siting the generators where the renewable energy is available.  That often means in the countryside.

·         All energy production and use has an environmental impact; the decision we face is either not to use energy, or else to decide which environmental impacts we’re prepared to support.

·         Energy costs may vary from time to time, but over the long term they are headed in only one direction – upwards.

Pretending that one or more of those things are not true, or that the consequences of them being true can somehow be avoided, may help politicians to win votes in elections, but it doesn’t make for a coherent energy policy.

CO2, fracking, and fig leaves

Tweet Supporters of fracking – and the increased use of natural gas in general – frequently assert that burning gas produces fewer CO2 emissions than burning coal.  It’s one of those statements which is the truth and nothing but the truth - but it isn’t really the whole truth, particularly when presented in such a way as to suggest that it in any way “solves” the CO2 problem.

It isn’t emissions per se which cause the problem (or potential problem, for those still not entirely convinced).  It is, rather, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  If the earth’s systems – or even man-made systems – could maintain that concentration at a stable level within the right range, we could burn all the coal we like, with complete impunity.  (Well, not quite of course – CO2 isn’t the only problem with coal, but for the sake of an argument, let’s suppose that it is the only thing to worry about the moment.)

But those systems cannot achieve that; and whilst there is still scope for some debate about the impact of an increase in CO2 levels, there are two facts which are not seriously disputed at all.  The first is that CO2 levels are rising; and the second is that burning fossil fuels by mankind is responsible for at least part of that increase.

We know that burning coal and oil adds to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  We also know that burning methane adds to CO2 levels in the atmosphere.  It may add less, but it is still a net addition to atmospheric CO2. What those advocating fracking and a wider switch to gas are supporting is no more than slowing the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.  It is not about stabilising that level, and they don’t always seem to understand that key difference themselves.

Is it better to increase the level slowly rather than quickly?  Well, yes – although I’d use the phrase ‘less bad’ rather than better.  And if the choice is limited to ‘bad’ or ‘not quite so bad’, then it makes sense to choose the ‘not quite so bad’.  What we must not do though is to allow people to frame the debate as if these were the only two options.  It’s a typical politician’s trick; but it diverts attention and discussion away from other options by effectively removing them from sight.

Ultimately, the argument for fracking comes down to it providing jobs and adding to GDP whilst being less damaging than coal.  It’s also a fig leaf behind which politicians who know that burning fossil fuels is a problem, but want to oppose wind farms, can hide.  But a renewables based energy policy will provide even more jobs and might actually start to address the real issue.  We need to keep that real alternative in plain sight.  And take away the fig leaf.

Parasitic Power Consumption

Tweet There was a letter in a recent edition of the Carmarthen Journal – from one of the usual suspects – claiming that wind farms are 'parasitic' users of power from the grid.  'Parasitic' is a word chosen to give a nice negative feel to it. Wind farms still need some electricity, he said, even when the wind isn’t blowing, and they can only get this from the grid – generated, of course, by other types of power stations, usually those using fossil fuel.  As far as it goes, it’s true, of course.  And it’s equally true, but never mentioned in such letters, that nuclear, coal, oil, and gas power stations need electricity – a great deal more electricity, as it happens – to power their offices etc. when those stations are not generating electricity.

So far, so factual.  The unique element about the claim in this particular letter, however, was that wind farms draw electricity from the grid to keep the blades turning, so that we won’t realise that they’re not generating electricity at the time.  The fact that some turbines can be seen turning on “windless” days is evidence, claimed the author, that the operators of wind farms reverse the turbines and use them as motors to turn the blades.  His final ‘proof’ of the claim was that a retired meter reader had told him so.  So now we know!

It’s not a new claim.  I’ve seen it made a number of times before, and the Internet makes it easy to repeat such claims - usually cross-referencing each other as evidence.  I don’t know how and where the claim originated, although that doesn’t seem to be important those repeating it.  It suits their argument, and the extent to which the claim is repeated makes it commonplace; that’s quite enough for them.

It’s not enough for me, though.  I want more than anecdotal repetition – but there is none to be found.  It should surprise me how many people are willing to believe that the companies really would keep the turbine blades turning on still days just to try and convince us that they are working when they aren’t, but somehow it doesn’t.  It’s akin to conspiracy theories, and much of the basis for most of those is the lack of trust (sadly not without justification) of officialdom in general.  It doesn’t help progress though.

Let’s dump nuclear waste in Ynys Môn

Tweet That’s only a half joking suggestion.

Talking about fracking just before Christmas, I noted that it was dishonest for anyone who supports greater use of gas in generating electricity to then oppose fracking.  If we use gas, we need supplies of gas; assuming that we can get them elsewhere is simply dumping our environmental problems on someone else.  The total availability of gas – and therefore the world price – has been transformed by fracking in the United States; and energy policy based on gas thus depends explicitly on fracking, either at home or abroad. 

There’s a similar problem with nuclear power.  Building new nuclear power stations depends on there being facilities available for storing, processing, and disposing of nuclear waste.  It’s equally dishonest for proponents of Wylfa B to make – as many seem to – the implicit assumption that those facilities will be available “somewhere else”.  Supporters of Wylfa B would sound much more honest to me if they were also lobbying to have nuclear waste stored and dumped in Ynys Môn.  I won’t hold my breath on that.

Those of us supporting renewables can’t escape a similar problem either, although some seem to believe that they can.  Building wind turbines means we need infrastructure – power lines and substations – to get the electricity into the grid.  Whilst there’s always scope for debate about the detail, such infrastructure has to go somewhere.  Arguing for wind power and then opposing the infrastructure would again be dishonest.  So as someone who accepts the need for that wind energy, I also have to accept the need for that infrastructure as a consequence of my preferred energy strategy, and I’m prepared to argue for that.

Politicians arguing for any of those three approaches to energy policy and then opposing the inevitable concomitants are not simply dishonest; they are in a sense promising something which they know to be impossible. So let’s hear the argument for nuclear waste storage on Ynys Môn.

How would it be different?

Tweet Shortly before Christmas, both Labour and Plaid renewed their calls for devolution of policy over energy.  Well, actually, over planning consent for energy related developments; not at all the same thing, although one wouldn’t know that from listening to them speaking.

Leaving aside the element of point-scoring and game-playing (particularly from Plaid in this case, who seemed to be preoccupied with “putting Labour on the spot” for failing to vote for a Plaid amendment in the House of Commons), both parties implied, although wisely avoided saying directly, that devolution of consent would lead to a change in policy in some way.

Now, as a supporter of independence, I’m not going to disagree with their call for devolution of these powers – on the contrary, I’d go a lot further than either of them seems to want to.  I’m concerned though about arguing for something on the basis of a false prospectus; it’s not an honest argument for further devolution.

Let’s take for example Wylfa B.  Would a Welsh decision be any different from a UK one?  I doubt it.  With all the Tories, most of Labour, and at least a third of Plaid AMs likely to support the project, the result would almost certainly be exactly the same.

Or how about TAN 8?  Whilst some AMs make a lot of noise about the need to look at it again I don’t believe that there’s a majority in the Senedd for changing the policy.  (And there’d be no complaints from me on that score – I’m as convinced as ever that Wales does need to exploit its potential for wind energy).

Or how about gas power stations?  The Welsh government didn’t oppose the new station in Pembrokeshire despite the known environmental problems and failings.  There were some politicians in all parties actually supporting it – on the basis of jobs.  What part of that exactly would devolution of this power have changed?

Or what about “fuel poverty”?  This was the specific peg on which Carwyn Jones based his latest call for the devolution of these powers, but there was nothing at all in what he said which indicated how, if at all, he and his government could or would use the powers he was requesting to address the issue.  Energy pricing is not devolved, and neither was he calling for it to be devolved.

There’s something more than a little disingenuous about calling for more powers on the back of problems which either those powers would not solve or else those making the call would not be prepared to use those powers in ways which would solve the problems.  The danger in that is that it discredits the idea of devolution itself, quite apart from adding to the mistrust for politicians.

Lies and statistics

Tweet I heard an opponent of wind farms speaking at a meeting recently.  No surprise that I don’t agree with his conclusion; but his arguments were mostly of the sort that I can understand and sympathise with, to do with landscape issues and the view.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course, but landscape issues are an entirely honest basis for opposition.  It’s just that they need to be balanced against the question of how we source our electricity.

However, in the middle of his discourse, he dropped in a statistic.  The areas of mid Wales where wind farms are being built are at such a distance from the National Grid, he claimed, that 30% of the electricity produced is lost before it even gets to the grid.  It reminded me rather of the claim that 78.6% of all statistics used by politicians (including of course that figure of 78.6%) are made up on the spot.

The 30% figure is one often quoted – there are plenty of instances of that or a similar figure to be found on the Internet, but what is the basis for it?  I got involved in a lengthy debate with one of Plaid’s Assembly candidates in another blog post on this very question about two years ago.  He quoted the same figure at me.  His response to my question about the source of the statistic met, initially, with repeated and vehement assertion that the figure was correct and an expectation that I would simply accept it.  Eventually however he admitted that he had no basis whatsoever to justify the use of that figure.

There are losses during transition of course.  The National Grid estimates them at around 2% for high-voltage transmission system and up to another 6% for the lower voltage distribution system, making a total maximum loss of around 8%.  The most usual response of opponents to this is the Mandy Rice Davies rebuttal – “they would say that wouldn’t they?”.  Well, yes, they would; but that isn’t enough to make it untrue.

The higher the voltage, the lower the losses; so at the proposed voltage for the link from the Mid Wales wind farm to the Grid, the loss would probably be in the range of 2 to 6%.  Ironically, the lower voltages preferred by anti-wind campaigners in order to have smaller pylons would actually put that figure closer to the top end of that range that it would otherwise be.  In any event, however, it is still hugely below the 30% suggested.

Apart from my natural aversion to made-up and unjustifiable statistics, does it even matter?  Clearly transporting expensive fossil fuels to the middle of nowhere and then burning them to generate electricity which loses a large proportion of energy before reaching its point of use would be a silly thing to do.  But, even if the loss from wind farms were to be 30%, rather than the more realistic figure of 3-5%, the advantage of wind power is that the fuel is essentially “free” and, for all practical purposes, is unlimited.  So losing part of it en route really isn’t a problem in the way presented.

The 30% figure is not only hopelessly inaccurate; even if it were true it does nothing for the argument in support of which it is being deployed.

Where else should it go?

Tweet Last week's announcement by National Grid of the preferred location for the substation to serve wind farms in Wales brings a long-running dispute to the surface once again.  But like many Welsh political arguments, it is an argument which seems to generate more heat than light.

Many of those I saw interviewed by the BBC were refreshingly honest - they concentrated on issues such as the view from their homes and villages and the effect on property values as the basis of their opposition.  These are issues to which most of us can relate; but ultimately, electricity generation, and the infrastructure to support that, have to go somewhere, and local concerns have always to be balanced with wider needs.

We need electricity, and we need to generate it somehow.  We cannot all assume that the electricity we want and need will be generated ‘somewhere else’.  If we are going to build wind farms in Wales then the infrastructure to connect them to the grid has to go somewhere.  Not building substations is simply not an option.

That in turn brings us right back to two underlying questions.

The first is whether and to what extent onshore wind has a role in the energy mix, and the second is the subsequent question of where it should be sited. 

The second of those is the easier of the two to answer - the best location is always going to be the one where the presence and speed of wind is most consistent.  And whether we might choose it to be thus or not, Welsh uplands are ideal from that perspective.

The first question is rather harder.  It is an issue on which opinion is seriously divided, and raises a number of issues.

Some opponents of on-shore wind don't accept the need to reduce emissions, and reject the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon.  This is, at least, an honest position to adopt.  It may fly in the face of majority scientific opinion, but majority scientific opinion hasn't always been proved right.  If emissions are not a problem, we can simply go on using gas, oil, and even coal.

However, the consequences of rejecting the majority view if it's right are much worse than the consequences of accepting the majority view if it’s wrong.  That balancing of risks and consequences would be enough to convince me that we should act, even if I wasn't convinced that the scientific majority was right.  And once we decide to act to reduce emissions, the fact that, as of today, on-shore wind is the most proven and readily available source of renewable energy is an inescapable fact.

"The benefits will flow elsewhere", we are told.  It’s true of course.  But it's also true of many other things that happen in Wales, whether relating to energy generation or not.  It's an argument (and one I’d entirely accept) for changing the economic model under which we exploit a resource, but it's not an argument for non-exploitation as such.  I want Wales to have control over its own infrastructure, and to be able to make a decent profit from those things of which we can produce a surplus.  But I also want there to be some infrastructure and surpluses for us to bring under our own control.

“It's exploiting Welsh resources for the benefit of England."  Again, possibly true, but over-simplistic.  Exploitation doesn't recognise, or stop at, borders.  If turbines were built on some of the more suitable locations in England (whether as well as, or instead of, is irrelevant in this context), that exploitative (if it is indeed such) relationship between users of electricity and those living close to the points at which it is generated would still be the same; it would merely have become internalised within a different set of human-defined borders.  (In any event, is either the wind or the landscape really 'owned' by those who happen to live nearby, or is it more widely 'owned' by us all?)

"They wouldn't be built without the subsidies."  Again, it's true that the subsidy regime encourages renewable rather than fossil fuel electricity generation.  That's exactly what it is intended to do, in order to reduce emissions from energy generation.  But it's also true that other forms of generation are effectively "subsidised" by being able to externalise some of their costs.  Not all subsidies appear in our electricity bills, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

But perhaps the favourite counter argument is the one about "wind farms are useless".  It is an issue which I have posted on before a number of times.  If it were true, then it would indeed be something of a killer argument against both turbines and the supporting infrastructure.

It is, though, a claim which is often based on selective use of facts, some interesting ‘interpretations’ of facts, and sometimes even simplistic axiomatic assertion.  Whilst a sensible policy wouldn’t go above around 15% - 20% wind in the overall generation mix, the argument that it is completely useless doesn’t stand up to examination.

The argument about whether the sub-station should go on the proposed location will no doubt continue – but it has to go somewhere, and the best form of opposition would be to come up with a more acceptable location rather than simply oppose its construction.

Missing the point

Tweet

A week or so ago, I posted on the question of subsidies for different types of energy generation.  The issue arose again earlier this week.

The protesters against wind power are right to say that the wind industry is receiving significant subsidies through energy bills, and that, without those subsidies, the industry would not be viable.  It does, though, ignore the point that other types of generating capacity are able to externalise the costs of dealing with the pollution they cause – effectively passing it on to the taxpayer.  So the comparison is not an accurate one; subsidies are still subsidies even if they look like taxes.

There were two other elements in this week’s report which interested me more.

The first was that every Megawatt of installed capacity generates around £700,000, but that only £100,000 of that stays in the local economy.  And the second was that more than half of the construction spend goes abroad.  Since this is a UK study, ‘abroad’ means ‘out of the UK’; my guess is that figures looking solely at Wales would reveal an even more alarming gap.  These are damning statistics, and underline the way in which we are not receiving our fair share of the rewards for the energy being produced here.

I remain as convinced as ever that we have to exploit renewable resources in Wales.  But the real battle is to make sure that we gain the benefit of that exploitation.  All the attention is going on the first question – to exploit or not; but we should really be paying more attention to the second – who benefits.

Price not the only factor

Tweet

One of the frequent criticisms of the wind farm industry has been that the turbines would not be built were it not for the subsidies – and the concomitant that those subsidies directly increase the price of electricity to the end-consumer because they are passed on through electricity bills.  As far as they go, such criticisms are valid, but they only tell part of the story.

The Government says that any new nuclear stations will be built without a penny of government subsidy, but that isn’t really true.  Without the government effectively underwriting the unknown costs of ultimate decommissioning and waste disposal, there will be no new nuclear power stations built.  Such costs are unknown, in the future, and paid for through taxation rather than through electricity bills, but subsidy it is, neverthless.

The Government pays no direct subsidy to coal-fired power stations, but the environmental costs associated with coal ultimately fall again on the taxpayers.  Perhaps ‘clean coal’ will overcome such problems; but I somehow doubt it.  As this report said last week, current best figures suggest that carbon capture and storage will only be viable with long term government support – a subsidy by any other name.

The overall picture is not that renewables receive subsidies, of one sort or another, whilst fossil-fuel stations do not; it is that the subsidies are paid in different ways.  Whilst we pay the renewables subsidy through our electricity bills, we pay subsidies for other sources of energy through our taxes.  And that makes it very difficult to compare prices directly in the way that opponents of wind try to do.  All we can really say is that the ‘renewables surcharge’ which affects our bills is more immediately visible than other forms of subsidy.

However, even if it does work out, when all the sums are properly done and all sources of electricity treated on an even-handed basis, does it matter if renewables were to come out more expensive than other sources?  To those struggling to pay their energy bills, price is certainly a major and immediate issue, but the fact then clean energy is more expensive than dirty energy shouldn’t be a reason for choosing the dirty option.  Fuel poverty is, and should be treated as, a separate issue from the question of energy generation policy.

The challenge is not to respond to any price differential by choosing the cheapest option, but how we make sure that we act collectively to use the cleaner option.  It’s another instance where driving policy on the basis of competition rather than co-operation leads to bad decisions. 

Look what the wind's blown in

Tweet

Yesterday’s publication of a report on the comparative cost of different electricity generation scenarios by AF Consult (available by following the link from here) was well-trailed in advance.  It was also well-knocked in advance, as the government and renewables industries got in their pre-emptive first strike. 

The headline from the report is a suggestion that the UK’s binding carbon reduction targets can be met more cheaply by building gas and nuclear power stations rather than wind turbines.  It will be like manna for those opposed to wind turbines, of course.  But then, if it really is possible to meet the UK’s targets by a cheaper means than governments are currently pursuing, why wouldn’t we want to do that?

As ever, it isn’t quite that simple, and although ‘if’ is a small word, in this case it represents a large caveat – or rather, series of caveats.

The first, and most obvious, is that it assumes that the targets set for the proportion of electricity which must come from renewable sources can simply be ignored.  Breaking an international obligation – the target is a binding one – is not exactly a minor issue.  For sure, if the target is the wrong one, then one can argue that it should be renegotiated; but simply to assume that it can be ignored is not a safe assumption to make.

And it is assumptions which go to the heart of the problem with this report.  It’s based on a complex mathematical model.  There’s nothing wrong with that; lots of things are based on mathematical models.  But models are only ever going to be as good as the assumptions with which they start; and in this case, my main argument with the conclusions isn’t the methodology or the calculations performed, it’s the assumptions which act as the starting point.  And if the assumptions are wrong, it's hardly likely that the conclusions will be very robust.

Not all the assumptions are explicitly stated; nor would I expect them to be.  But four in particular are worth more attention.

The first is the question of future fuel prices, and the comparison between fuel prices.  They have used the central estimates from a DECC study.  That’s an entirely reasonable thing for the report authors to do; they have to start somewhere.  The question, though, is whether the DECC have got it right, and on that point, I’m sceptical. 

One of the big advantages of renewables is precisely that they are not vulnerable to fuel price shocks during their operational life (although, obviously, variations in fuel price can affect construction costs, this is a small factor in the overall cost comparison).  Gas prices, on the other hand, can be much more volatile.  The volatility is generally upward as world demand increases, although I’d accept that shale gas – if we decide to exploit it – could change that equation.  But to what extent do we want to gamble on the price – or, potentially worse, put ourselves in a position where we are dependent on fracking?

The second big assumption concerns the cost of decommissioning nuclear plant and nuclear waste management.  Again, the report’s authors have, entirely reasonably, used the assumptions to which the UK Government is working, and which were detailed in a DECC report from Parsons Brinckerhoff in 2011.  They had to start somewhere; my problem with that, however, is that since no-one is yet entirely certain how waste will be managed for the long term, there is a high degree of uncertainty about the costs involved.  Experience suggests that they are more likely to increase than to decrease.

The third big assumption is that at least some of the new gas plants can be fitted with CCS technology.  This assumption is key to achieving the required reduction in carbon emissions, but as the report itself conceded, the technology is to date unproven on the large scale required.

And the fourth is that we do not expand the production on electricity to increase its use in heating and transportation.  If we do make such an increase, then the carbon reduction targets cannot be achieved with the fuel split used in their scenarios.  We would have to use renewables.

I agree with the UK Government assessment that this paper is badly flawed.  The tragedy is that it will, nevertheless, be recycled regularly in the local and national press by anti-wind campaigners who will claim that it ‘proves’ that we shouldn’t be building new wind turbines.  It actually proves no such thing (and didn’t even set out to prove that, merely to compare the costs of alternative approaches of meeting a target).

Wind and carbon

Tweet

I referred recently to two of the arguments most often used against wind energy.  Another standard response from opponents is to argue that wind turbines actually contribute nothing to reduction of carbon emissions, and indeed one commenter on the previous posts raised that very point.

The argument takes various forms – ‘useless’ is a word frequently bandied about – but the underlying question ‘how much difference do turbines make to total carbon emissions?’ is an entirely valid one to ask.  If it were true that they make no contribution at all, it would indeed be something of a killer argument against turbines.

However, whilst demonstrating the invalidity of the claim (that they save no carbon emissions) is relatively straightforward, putting accurate numbers to the difference they do make is much less so, and is, I guess, the main reason that the argument still gets put forward so often and is so readily believed.

The problem, fundamentally, is a lack of agreement around the assumptions which are used to derive any figures, and in the absence of agreement of those assumptions, there is no chance that any figures produced by using them will be universally agreed.

There is no real dispute about the fact that, once built, the electricity from wind farms is virtually carbon free.  So, taking purely the production costs, each Kwh of electricity produced from wind energy saves the CO2 emissions which would be generated from a conventional power station.

That isn’t the whole story of course.  There’s also a carbon cost from site development, transportation, turbine construction, and eventual decommissioning.  However, even on this score, there is no argument against the proposition that wind energy has a very much lower lifetime CO2 cost than equivalent fossil fuel powered plant.  Because the carbon cost of fuel during use completely dwarfs the carbon cost of construction, the carbon cost during the ‘operational’ phase is hugely more significant.

The debate revolves largely around the question of intermittency and the extent to which fossil fuel powered plant has to be kept running at all times in case the wind drops.  This report claimed that use of wind turbines required “17 new gas-fired power stations simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops …  those 17 dedicated power stations, [which] will be kept running on "spinning reserve", 24 hours a day”.

That same claim, in one form or another, runs through all the arguments that I’ve seen against the efficacy of wind turbines.  And, in fairness, if it were true, then there would be no question about it – there could be no case for building wind turbines.  The truth or otherwise of the proposition becomes critical. 

It is, though, simply not true (and was the subject of one of the previous posts).  It seems, in turn, to be based on the assumption that the wind is so variable that wind farms running at optimum capacity one minute can suddenly and unexpectedly stop, across the whole of the UK.  And that simply is not reality.  Wind speeds in a given locality can change quite dramatically, but over a large enough area any degradation in wind speed is much more predictable and gradual.  The actual need for operational backup is thus very much lower than claimed by opponents.

What is true, though, is the rather more straightforward observation that there are times when there is little or no wind across the UK (or large areas of it), that that situation can pertain for days at a time, and that alternative generating capacity is needed to replace wind on those occasions. 

All of that is true, but it undermines the case for wind only to the extent that that capacity would not need to be there if there was not a single wind turbine in existence, and only to the extent that the carbon cost of building power plant which is only used occasionally outweighs the carbon saving from wind. 

Running a complex operation like the Grid in a way which keeps the lights on requires a great deal of flexibility.  There is always going to be significant ‘surplus’ capacity in the system, some of it operational, some of it available at different periods of notice, to allow for situations where one or more other sources of electricity fail, for whatever reason. 

Thus, the extent of that surplus isn’t just down to the use of wind energy.  Even today, with wind at a very low level of penetration (<5% of generating capacity), there is something over 85GW of generating capacity linked to the Grid, against an expected peak demand during an average cold spell of around 56GW.  That capacity is needed in order to cater for periods of maintenance, breakdown – or even lack of fuel or variations in the relative price and availability of fuels.

It is true that adding more renewable energy to the mix will almost certainly lead to an increase in the difference between expected peak demand and total attached capacity. But that isn’t just because the wind doesn’t always blow, and the increase cannot just be ascribed to backing up wind turbines. 

Other sources of renewable electricity come with similar problems.  PV panels don’t produce electricity at night, tidal flow generators only produce at full capacity when the tidal flow is at peak, and hydro-electric schemes depend on the level of flow in rivers.  It’s why any renewables-based energy policy needs to include a mix of sources, as well as looking at such issues as demand management and storage.

The answer to the question, ‘how much difference do they make?’ will inevitably lie in a range, depending on the assumptions made.  But because the key factor in making the comparison is the carbon emissions during operation, the only basis for claiming that wind turbines produce no overall reduction at all in carbon emissions is to depend on invalid assumptions about the need for backup and for keeping that backup operational at all times.

Madness or not?

Tweet

Earlier this week, I posted on one of the arguments used by opponents of wind farms in support of their case.  One of the other arguments frequently used by them is that because wind energy is intermittent, wind farms need to have substantial back-up from conventional power stations. 

A very recent extension of that is the suggestion – generally presented as fact by some letter writers and campaigners - that Centrica has told DECC that it would need to build 17 gas-powered stations “simply to provide back-up for all those times when the wind drops”.  It’s described as having been the “best-kept secret” of the government’s “obsession with wind”, and of course, as “proving” the insanity of a policy which includes the use of wind energy.

Were it indeed true, I’d have to accept that it’s a pretty good argument against wind turbines – but is it really true?

Thus far, I’ve been unable to turn up the source information for any such statement by Centrica, although I have found a number of news reports on the subject, such as this one and this one.  By now, the suggestion has been copied, from this type of news report, across any number of anti-wind farm blogs and websites, always reported as fact, and never, as far as I have been able to trace, providing any link to a substantive source.  I've failed to establish where the story actually started.

Perhaps there is some substance to it that I’ve been unable to trace, and if anyone knows of such, I’d be delighted to have an opportunity to read what was actually said.  One of the problems with the internet is that it is very easy for an inaccurate, or perhaps misinterpreted, statement to spread and gain credibility.

What are the facts here?

Well, certainly, wind energy is intermittent.  It’s wrong, though, to say turbines only produce electricity 30% of the time.  It’s more like 80%, but the overall load factor – the amount of electricity produced as a percentage of the maximum capacity of a turbine – averages somewhere between 16% and 40% over a year, depending on the technology (age of the turbines, basically, since the newer ones score better), location, and size of the turbine, with an overall average of around 30%.

And certainly it’s true that keeping the Grid running means that wind energy needs some form of back-up, so that, in the event of output from a wind farm ceasing or reducing, the impact on the Grid does not exceed the agreed parameters before alternative generation comes into action.  But that’s true of all types of generation – and the failure of a nuclear power plant can have a much greater impact than the failure of a wind farm.

Does wind energy require more back-up than any other form of electricity generation?  Opponents invariably claim that it does, appealing by and large to the common sense observation that the wind doesn’t always blow when and where we might want it to.  The National Grid doesn’t exactly support that viewpoint though, or at least, not to the same extent.  In this report, they map out the expected contribution of different sources of energy to the Grid by 2020, and consider what measures they need to take in response to that changing mix.

Now their assumptions are, of course, open to challenge; and some of us might not want to see the same mix as they anticipate; but in this context, we can simply treat their scenario as a prediction, not a prescription.  The precise mix of non-renewable sources doesn't significantly affect the argument here.  They assume that wind will rise from 3.8GW out of 85.3GW in 2010/11 to 26.8GW out of 100.5GW in 2020/21.  From 4.5% to 26.7%, therefore, with other renewable technologies providing a further 1.3%.

They say that will create greater uncertainties at times, although, as they point out, the dispersion of those uncertainties over a larger geographical area serves to smooth them to an extent.  There are also other things which they can do, and are planning to do, to reduce unexpected volatility, such as improving their forecasting tools and methods, use of interconnections with other grids on the mainland – again, this is a way of spreading the effect of wind variability over a much larger geographical area and thus reducing its impact – use of smart grids, more storage capacity etc.

The report helpfully includes a little graph showing how much operating reserve is required at different levels of wind penetration into the mix of electricity generation.  At 0%, the operating reserve required by 2025/6 would be a little under 5GW – i.e. that is the level of operating reserve required if there was not a single wind turbine operating in the UK.  If the proportion of electricity being generated from wind by 2025/6 reaches around 30%, however, then the need for operating reserve rises to around 8GW – an increase of a little over 3GW.

Does that equate to 17 gas powered station?  No, it does not.  The capacity of such stations can vary – but the one being built at Pembroke, for instance, is rated at 2GW – which would mean a maximum of two extra gas stations to provide operating reserve to 30GW of wind turbines.  Quite a different picture.

So, where does the need for 17 extra gas-fired power stations come from?

I’ve traced this report from DECC, which talks about the need to build 20 new power stations (fuel unspecified) by 2020.  But it isn’t based on the need for operating reserve – it’s based on the fact that “A quarter of Britain’s capacity will need replacing before the decade is out, as old coal and nuclear plants come to the end of their useful lives” and the suggestion that “Demand for electricity could double by 2050, as we opt for electric vehicles and heating”.

There’s also this speech from the boss of Centrica, which argues that the fuel for those new stations should be gas.  There’s perhaps just a hint of vested interest around that one, of course – “Major gas supplier says gas is the answer” would hardly be a surprising headline.

Then there’s this submission by Centrica to the Select Committee, which argues, inter alia, that since new stations are likely to be cycled on and off more frequently - because of the increased contribution from renewable generation - and to have longer periods when they’re not producing electricity, the operators should be incentivised (paid) to build the most flexible types of plant – which just happens to be gas-fired.

Even taken together, it’s hard to see how all of these factors could lead to the sort of categorical statement being made about 17 new plants for backup to wind, although I can see the glimmer of a basis for wilful misinterpretation.

I suspect though that the derivation of the 17 is much simpler than that.  It is axiomatic to wind turbine opponents that there is a need for 100% operating reserve at all times for every turbine, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.  If wind is projected to supply around 30GW of power, and if CCGT plants generate around 1.8GW each, then a simple division gives a number remarkably close to 17.  The logic is impeccable, and the conclusion flows naturally from the premiss. 

The problem is that the premiss is unsubstantiated, and not supported by those involved in actually running the system.  It’s another example of the rule that arguing from axiomatic and unsubstantiated starting points generates more heat than light.