via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/0CAVELZ

May 23, 2023 at 05:10AM

From time to time, I take a look at other people’s estimates of the levelised costs of renewable power, particularly offshore wind. The merchant bank Lazard has been a source of particular amusement, their figures being so far divorced from reality as to be entirely laughable.

Another oft-cited source on the subject of levelised costs is the International Energy Agency (IEA), whose latest opus on the subject was published a couple of years back. For comedy value, this is right up there with Lazard. Here is their data table on offshore wind.

Followers of the renewables scene will immediately notice that the capacity factors given are extremely optimistic. They are just about plausible as first-year figures, but certainly not as lifetime averages, which would be expected to be in the mid-30s. Extraordinarily, the IEA claims that “the only technology where efficiency losses have a systematic effect is solar PV”. Here is the UK offshore wind output data by turbine size and year of operation.

Meanwhile, the IEA’s levelised cost figures are staggeringly low. At a 3% cost of capital, the numbers cited for the US fall to around £20/MWh, which is roughly one sixth of what offshore windfarms cost in the UK.

But there’s a second problem here. While 14 (unnamed) windfarms are outlined for the US, unfortunately, out in the real world, Uncle Sam has only got round to building two, both tiny pilot plants. Block Island, the larger of the two, has been so staggeringly expensive it makes even the UK ones look cheap.

So where is the IEA getting these numbers for US offshore windfarms from? I have no idea.

It’s the same for some of the other countries too. France opened its first commercial offshore windfarm only last year, while Australia has yet to open even one! The temptation is to assume that the IEA’s numbers are entirely fictional.

Finally, it’s worth noting that at the time of the report’s publication, half of the world’s offshore wind capacity was in the UK, where hard data on the (very high) costs and the (rapidly deteriorating) operating performance is freely available. Strangely though, the IEA has chosen to include not a single windfarm from these shores.

Go figure.

via Net Zero Watch

https://ift.tt/mz0C7t2

May 23, 2023 at 04:18AM

By Paul Homewood

Tom Burke, founding Director of the climate change think tank E3G, appears frequently in the media.

He faced Nigel Farage a couple of months ago:

Farage does his best, but allows Burke to get away with too many facile claims. Most of it is straight out of the AEP playbook:

• Renewables are super cheap
• Batteries are cheap
• Hydrogen is wonderful
• Subsidies are not subsidies but investment

Farage points out that it is the poor who are most affected by the obscene subsidies paid out to renewable generators, which Burke does not dispute. Instead he deflects by claiming it  will all be worth it in the long run. What he fails to explain though is why renewable energy still needs subsidies, mandates and carbon taxes to be competitive , if it is so cheap.

Burke then goes onto complain that we have not got enough battery storage, without being challenged over the fact it cannot run the grid for the days on end when the wind fails.

He then says we should insulate our homes more, but does not tell us how much this will cost, or who will pay.

Finally he tells us we should be producing hydrogen from all of the surplus wind power we will have in future. Again however he does not tell us how ridiculously expensive this would be be, especially when electrolysers would be working so intermittently. Nor does he say how much it will cost to store all of this hydrogen, or build lots of new hydrogen burning power stations.

When we stand back though, a clearer picture emerges. This is what Tom Burke wrote in 2013:

https://theecologist.org/2013/dec/11/climate-change-about-survival-not-economics

In that article, Burke called for a massive reallocation of investment capital, which would only happen if subsidies were put in place. There was no talk then of renewables being cheap.

And in common with many environmentalists, Tom Burke is opposed to nuclear power, despite its obvious contribution to decarbonising.

http://tomburke.co.uk/2023/03/28/energy-security-from-renewables-requires-consistency-from-government-gb-news/

Tom Burke, by the way, is also a former Director of Friends of the Earth, so anything he says about renewable energy and Net Zero need to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

The simple reality is that he wants to get rid of fossil fuels regardless of the cost to the public.

via NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

https://ift.tt/SBwT1PQ

May 23, 2023 at 04:00AM

NOAA is taking public comments on a massive proposal to harass large numbers of whales and other marine mammals by building a huge offshore wind complex.

The post Feds play shell game with wind / whale impacts appeared first on CFACT.

via CFACT

https://ift.tt/aJFvIYe

May 23, 2023 at 03:47AM