Renewable Energy: the question of capacity 

Posted: March 4, 2016 by oldbrew in Big Green, Energy

'Big Wind' on the move [credit:]

‘Big Wind’ on the move [credit:]

This report from Ed Hoskins contains a lot of data and analysis, and rather than try to explain it we’ll link to it and show the conclusion. Suffice to say it does not paint a rosy picture of the renewable energy obsession gripping many countries at present. Note the huge difference between capacity and actual output.

Accordingly it can be seen that Solar energy can cost about 63 times as much as Gas Fired generation for the amount of power it is capable of generating but Offshore Windpower is about 45 times as much. Whereas Onshore Windpower is more effective at only about 16 times as much for the power it can generate.

When the weather dependent Renewables across Europe are assessed in combination, their capital cost effectiveness is about 30 times more than conventional Gas Fired electricity generation. These comparative ratios still do not account for the inevitable intermittency and non-dispatchability inherent in the poor performance of Renewables.

If the objectives of using Renewables were not confused with “saving the planet” from the output of Man-made CO2, their actual cost in-effectiveness and inherent unreliability would have always ruled them out of any consideration as means of electricity generation for a developed economy.

Full report: Renewable Energy: the question of capacity | edmhdotme

  1. graphicconception says:

    Further to the article, an often ignored issue is the decommissioning of these installations. They don’t last for ever. I did a back of an envelope calculation for the USA and I calculated that at some point a few hundred, carbon fibre, non-biodegradable, wind turbine blades would need to be “re-cycled” every day, for ever.

    At the moment the claims are that wind is free so it must be cheap but coal is free as well. It is the rest of the mechanism to turn it into energy where the costs arise.

  2. oldbrew says:

    Meanwhile climate lunacy rampages on, given the chance.

    ‘Germany and Austria call for higher EU 2030 climate ambition’

  3. J Martin says:

    I’d like to see a similarly thorough assessment of the purported co2 savings these so called renewable technologies make in comparison to gas etc. Given that in the case of solar a number of gasses are used that are much greater greenhouse gasses and last much longer, factors of thousands, I read somewhere. Perhaps the part of global warming not caused by El Nino is partially caused by manufacture of solar panels and wind turbines.

  4. tom0mason says:

    Humm, renewables eh?
    So how many windmill components are made using only the energy from these so called renewables? How much energy does it take to manufacture one of these monstrosities?

    EDF trite write-up says —

    The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its construction within three to five months, this compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months.


  5. oldbrew says:

    Energy-intensive concrete is needed to keep a wind turbine in place.

    ‘Concrete and wind turbines have a strange relationship — the material requires tremendous amounts of energy to produce and accounts for 5% of global CO2 emissions, but it is essential for the installation of large wind turbines.’

    ‘Concrete is largely impervious to to damage and rust and is one of sturdiest building materials in the world — but it is responsible for a large amount of emissions in the construction industry. What do you think – does harnessing this durable material to produce green energy justify its use?’