Wind energy costs are rising

[Eyes Wide Open + 3,542]

1 hour ago, turbguy said:

I would find it challenging to "confer" with an entire sovereign country.  I would suspect I would receive an array of opinions, no?

How do you suggest I go about that process?

One would think with your background & pedigree shortcuts would be instinctive. I too would agree engaging with the entire population might be a bit ..boring. But hey ya never know!

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

15 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

I do believe Pubs are the center of concern...no pubs well you decide. But then again simply raising prices seems the quick solution does it not? Beer inflation now that's just wrong. Next thing you know Bud Light may well be  mainstream in Britain, I understand they are having a fire sale. Forgive that might be a tad sharp angled...I just couldn't help myself...Green inflation is bit much..

 

Most pubs in the UK make their money from food sales not from beer. The UK has too many pubs so some natural wasteage of the ones less popular is a reaction to an oversupplied market.

[markslawson + 1,042]

On 7/19/2023 at 5:58 PM, Rob Plant said:

No Mark renewables are cheaper, this has already been covered when Notsonice posted the LCOE which you dont agree with.

Thats your perogative to disagree with it but those are the facts.

Whenever renewables are the predominant source of powergen being used in the energy mix in the UK the cost per KWh drops, you can witness this using live data in the link I supplied.

Didn't bother to read your comments but note this article which appeared a few hours ago. Net zero watch is, of course, very much sceptical about renewable energy as is the Global Warming Policy Foundation, however there is no doubt about the underlying points they make. Vatenfall is one of the very big offshore wind developers. Prof Gordon Hughes has been saying for years that the trends are pointing in the opposite direction to the claims of wind advocates (read article). The links won't work but cut and past into your browser. Leave it with you.

London, 20 July – As one of the world’s biggest windpower developers halts its top UK wind project and warns about further cancellations, Net Zero Watch reminds ministers that they have been warned for years about this inevitable fiasco.

Vattenfall, an international mega-developer of windpower, has put the UK’s giant 1.4 GW offshore wind project Boreas on ice, claiming that rising costs have made the Contract for Difference, awarded last year for £45/MWh (2023 prices), uneconomic (“Key UK offshore wind project axed in blow to climate plans“).

Net Zero Watch, amongst others (see publications listed below), has long warned that the low CfD bids made in the UK had no basis in economic reality. The capital and operating costs of wind power, particularly offshore are still very high. This technology is unattractive and imposes very high system costs when compared to gas generation even at today’s elevated prices. It is completely uneconomic if the gas prices continue to revert to their historic levels.

Net Zero Watch notes that Vattenfall has said it will be considering the future of all is wind projects in the Norfolk zone, with a total of 4.2 GW, placing pressure on the UK government to make extra support available to ensure construction and meet the targets for offshore wind.
 
Professor Gordon Hughes (University of Edinburgh), the author of many of the studies exposing the reality of wind power costs, said:
 
"It is obvious and now increasingly widely recognised that wind industry claims about costs and performance should not be taken seriously. Very high costs have been clear in the financial data for a long time, and are not the result of recent inflation and supply chain difficulties, though these may be making a bad situation still worse."

Dr John Constable, NZW’s Energy Director, added:
 
"It is critically important that the UK government does not succumb to the tacit blackmail of Vattenfall’s announcement. The wind experiment has failed. The consumer cannot be expected to continue propping up this unfolding disaster."

Notes for Editors: Articles and studies on unrealistic offshore wind bids for Contracts for Difference
 
1. Gordon Hughes, Capell Aris, John Constable, Offshore Wind Strike Prices: Behind the Headlines (GWPF: London, 2017)
 
2. Gordon Hughes, Who’s the Patsy? Offshore wind’s high-stakes poker game (GWPF: London, 2019)
 
3. John Aldersey-Williams, Ian D. Broadbent, Peter A. Strachan, “Better estimates of LCOE from audited accounts– A new methodology with examples from United Kingdom offshore wind and CCGT”, Energy Policy, 128 (2019), pp 25-35.
 
4. Gordon Hughes, Wind Power Economics: Rhetoric and Reality: Volume I: Wind Power Costs in the United Kingdom (Renewable Energy Foundation: 2020).
 
5. Gordon Hughes, Wind Power Economics: Rhetoric and Reality: Volume II: Wind Power in Denmark (Renewable Energy Foundation: 2020).
 
6. Andrew Montford, Offshore wind: Cost predictions and cost outcomes (GWPF: London, 2021)
 
7. Kathryn Porter: Addressing the high real cost of renewable generation (Watt Logic 2022)
 
Contact
 
Prof Gordon Hughes
e: gordon.hughes@gmx.co.uk

 

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

7 minutes ago, markslawson said:

Didn't bother to read your comments but note this article which appeared a few hours ago. Net zero watch is, of course, very much sceptical about renewable energy as is the Global Warming Policy Foundation, however there is no doubt about the underlying points they make. Vatenfall is one of the very big offshore wind developers. Prof Gordon Hughes has been saying for years that the trends are pointing in the opposite direction to the claims of wind advocates (read article). The links won't work but cut and past into your browser. Leave it with you.

London, 20 July – As one of the world’s biggest windpower developers halts its top UK wind project and warns about further cancellations, Net Zero Watch reminds ministers that they have been warned for years about this inevitable fiasco.

Vattenfall, an international mega-developer of windpower, has put the UK’s giant 1.4 GW offshore wind project Boreas on ice, claiming that rising costs have made the Contract for Difference, awarded last year for £45/MWh (2023 prices), uneconomic (“Key UK offshore wind project axed in blow to climate plans“).

Net Zero Watch, amongst others (see publications listed below), has long warned that the low CfD bids made in the UK had no basis in economic reality. The capital and operating costs of wind power, particularly offshore are still very high. This technology is unattractive and imposes very high system costs when compared to gas generation even at today’s elevated prices. It is completely uneconomic if the gas prices continue to revert to their historic levels.

Net Zero Watch notes that Vattenfall has said it will be considering the future of all is wind projects in the Norfolk zone, with a total of 4.2 GW, placing pressure on the UK government to make extra support available to ensure construction and meet the targets for offshore wind.
 
Professor Gordon Hughes (University of Edinburgh), the author of many of the studies exposing the reality of wind power costs, said:
 
"It is obvious and now increasingly widely recognised that wind industry claims about costs and performance should not be taken seriously. Very high costs have been clear in the financial data for a long time, and are not the result of recent inflation and supply chain difficulties, though these may be making a bad situation still worse."

Dr John Constable, NZW’s Energy Director, added:
 
"It is critically important that the UK government does not succumb to the tacit blackmail of Vattenfall’s announcement. The wind experiment has failed. The consumer cannot be expected to continue propping up this unfolding disaster."

Notes for Editors: Articles and studies on unrealistic offshore wind bids for Contracts for Difference
 
1. Gordon Hughes, Capell Aris, John Constable, Offshore Wind Strike Prices: Behind the Headlines (GWPF: London, 2017)
 
2. Gordon Hughes, Who’s the Patsy? Offshore wind’s high-stakes poker game (GWPF: London, 2019)
 
3. John Aldersey-Williams, Ian D. Broadbent, Peter A. Strachan, “Better estimates of LCOE from audited accounts– A new methodology with examples from United Kingdom offshore wind and CCGT”, Energy Policy, 128 (2019), pp 25-35.
 
4. Gordon Hughes, Wind Power Economics: Rhetoric and Reality: Volume I: Wind Power Costs in the United Kingdom (Renewable Energy Foundation: 2020).
 
5. Gordon Hughes, Wind Power Economics: Rhetoric and Reality: Volume II: Wind Power in Denmark (Renewable Energy Foundation: 2020).
 
6. Andrew Montford, Offshore wind: Cost predictions and cost outcomes (GWPF: London, 2021)
 
7. Kathryn Porter: Addressing the high real cost of renewable generation (Watt Logic 2022)
 
Contact
 
Prof Gordon Hughes
e: gordon.hughes@gmx.co.uk

 

Again you make a fool of yourself by citing an article in Net Zero Watch who are the loudest deniers of global warming on the planet (other than EWO) they are NOT a reliable unbiased source of information but have a very clear agenda.

You also have a closed mind and by your own admission dont even bother reading other peoples posts (probably because they make your views seem ridiculous). So you probably wont read this either and will continue to live in your own little blinkered world. Enjoy!

Who exactly are Net Zero Watch and why should we be worried about climate science deniers’ rebrand

https://leftfootforward.org/2021/11/who-exactly-are-net-zero-watch-and-why-should-we-be-worried-about-climate-science-deniers-rebrand/

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,135]

1 hour ago, Rob Plant said:

Again you make a fool of yourself by citing an article in Net Zero Watch who //

dont even bother reading other peoples posts

We do not read your blatant lies time after time after time because YOU and REFUSE to do math or account for all the biggest costs.  Instead play make believe on LCOE numbers made up out of thin air by wind advocates because it is fashionable today for blatant fraudsters to go to the head of the line in our utterly amoral society. 

If Wind power was so great, then Vestes, Siemens, GE would be making money... Oh right, they aren't even though the ENTIRE R&D of wind power businesses are ENTIRELY subsidized by the governments of the world and purchase power agreements etc along with ~free "loans". 

Thanks USA government you paid my R&D salary for several years and the R&D subsidies from when I quit the joke of wind power, have only vastly INCREASED since then as it was OBVIOUS to all of us it was impossible to make a profit building wind turbines without government fiat subsidy demanding these wind farms get built.  Those of us with honor went elsewhere instead of continuing the scam.

Vestas, Siemens, GE making these wind turbines are government state institutions who do not have to balance their books.  It is an absurd joke to call any of them profit making companies.  How do they make their "money"... "service fees" AKA maintenance.  AKA performance is NOT guaranteed and governments are on the hook 100% for failures as it is ENTIRELY subsidized anyways.

[turbguy + 1,405]

13 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

One would think with your background & pedigree shortcuts would be instinctive. I too would agree engaging with the entire population might be a bit ..boring. But hey ya never know!

I was expecting your background & pedigree would provide a sliver of guidance.

Guess not.

[notsonice + 1,080]

7 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

We do not read your blatant lies time after time after time because YOU and REFUSE to do math or account for all the biggest costs.  Instead play make believe on LCOE numbers made up out of thin air by wind advocates because it is fashionable today for blatant fraudsters to go to the head of the line in our utterly amoral society. 

If Wind power was so great, then Vestes, Siemens, GE would be making money... Oh right, they aren't even though the ENTIRE R&D of wind power businesses are ENTIRELY subsidized by the governments of the world and purchase power agreements etc along with ~free "loans". 

Thanks USA government you paid my R&D salary for several years and the R&D subsidies from when I quit the joke of wind power, have only vastly INCREASED since then as it was OBVIOUS to all of us it was impossible to make a profit building wind turbines without government fiat subsidy demanding these wind farms get built.  Those of us with honor went elsewhere instead of continuing the scam.

Vestas, Siemens, GE making these wind turbines are government state institutions who do not have to balance their books.  It is an absurd joke to call any of them profit making companies.  How do they make their "money"... "service fees" AKA maintenance.  AKA performance is NOT guaranteed and governments are on the hook 100% for failures as it is ENTIRELY subsidized anyways.

How do they make their "money"... "service fees" AKA maintenance????

you lose money on the product and you make money on maintenance..............Sounds like the auto, bus and truck business

and the airplane business and the military hardware business and the heating and air conditioning business and the ...you get the point

value added services tied to manufacturing is a profitable business...and when you can get government subsidies.......and tax breaks ......and sole source contracts........oh it is like printing money

none of the businesses you mention Vestas, Siemens, GE are government state institutions...they just know how to make a profit.....

Deal with it , it is the capitalistic way of business.

If  you do not like it , I hear that North Korea has an open border policy to defectors......

 

[Rob Plant + 2,635]

11 hours ago, notsonice said:

If  you do not like it , I hear that North Korea has an open border policy to defectors......

I think he's already there!

At least we know his real name now.

Troubled US soldier Travis King seized by North Korea after fleeing across border disguised as tourist

https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/east-asia/american-national-dmz-north-korea-border-b2377237.html