By Viv Forbes
Solar power only works while the sun shines – it is part-time power.
Wind power only works when suitable winds blows – also part-time power.
Batteries only work when charged – part-time power again.
Hydro fails in droughts – more part-time power.
And using full-time power like natural gas to fill the inevitable supply gaps from part-time power forces backup gas to operate like part-time power.
Moreover, on sunny windy days, wind and solar generators spew out electricity at little extra cost. These erratic surges of part-time power drive electricity prices so low that even low-cost full-time producers like coal cannot operate profitably at those times. They are throttled back and forced to operate as yet another part-time power plant.
24/7 electricity users such as hospitals, trains, factories, refineries, fuel and water pumps, cash registers, infrastructure and mines cannot operate on part-time electricity.
Moreover, every part-time power producer (using sun, wind, batteries, hydro, gas or coal) consumes money full-time for operations, standby, maintenance and replacement. Each also has to fund its own specialised generators, transmission lines, access roads and workforce. Electricity becomes both unreliable and expensive, and consumers suffer.
Using taxes, subsidies, dictates and mandates to replace a full-time power producer like coal with up to five part-time power producers only makes sense in the part-time minds that inhabit Greentopia.
Government cannot improve any of this with more laws and regulations – they must REPEAL all the legislation, regulations, subsidies and taxes that created the mess in the first place. State governments too should repeal their silly energy laws, and stop shutting and destroying power stations. More laws and regulations can only make things worse.
Wind farm equipment shuts down Interstate 25 in Colorado
The Colorado Department of Transportation is working to reopen I-25 in Pueblo. The accident has several lanes of the highway shut down between Abriendo and Central avenues.
A semi was involved in an accident. A large piece of equipment from the Vestas wind farm fell onto the road. Large equipment has been brought in to remove the load.
h/t to WUWT reader “littlepeaks”.
Africa’s Largest Wind Power Plant Rejected By Kenya
By Paul Homewood
This is a highly relevant story coming out of Kenya this week:
Kenya’s failure to approve the development of a 600MW offshore wind farm in Malindi, south-east of the country, has resulted in the developers considering moving the project to Tanzania.
Swedish firm, VR holding AB, which was set to construct Africa’s largest wind power plant in Malindi, southeastern Kenya at a staggering Kshs. 253 Billion ($2.4 B);making it the most expensive private funded project in east Africa; has since changed it’s plans.
According to Kenya’s Business Daily the firm is moving the project to Tanzania, which shares the coastline with Kenya citing frustration to their efforts by Kenyan authorities. An executive at the company, Victoria Rikede said “We have opted to look for offshore solutions for Tanzania, Kenya is proving to be a very difficult place and besides the grid is too weak to absorb all the power produced and therefore mini-grids is the solution right now.”
Kenyan officials are reported to have seen issues with the plants viability. The officials argued that the power plant would leave the country with excess power thus forcing consumers to pay billions annually for under utilized electricity. According to the official, it would defeat the purpose of clean cheap energy.
“The company was to give us a proposal for a smaller capacity plant of 50MW. They are yet to do so,” said Isaac Kiva, the director of renewable energy at the ministry.
Kenya’s renewable energy framework only provides for small and medium sized projects under the feed-in-tarrif (FiT) system which fixes prizes for wind and solar energy of up to a capacity of 50 megawatts. Therefore at a cost of 3.2 Million Euros or Kshs. 423 Million per megawatt the 600 megawatt offshore project would be too expensive.
In rejecting the mega power plant, the ministry considered a phased implementation that brings power on stream gradually, in tandem with growth in consumer demand. Kiva added: “Wind is an intermittent power source and, therefore, we cannot approve such a big plant in one location since it will come with huge costs tied to power supply reliability and transmission.”
The only other renewable energy project above 50 megawatt in the country is the 310 megawatt project in Lake Turkana built at a cost of Kshs. 70 Billion. Although completed, the plant unfortunately is yet to be utilized due to a lack of a transmission line costing consumers approximately Kshs. 5.7 Billion in fines.
However, once operational the project is set to provide the 310 megawatts (MW) of renewable power to the Kenyan national grid. “It is the largest wind farm in Africa (and) it has 365 turbines,” Carlo Van Wageningen, director and board member at Lake Turkana Wind Power, told CNBC’s Sustainable Energy. “We are hoping to soon see the transmission line completed so that Kenya will be able to benefit from this cheap source of power,” he added.
Tanzania’s acting commissioner for Energy and Petroleum Affairs, Innocent Luoga, told The Citizen that the investors had yet to officially communicate with his office. Luoga said: “When it happens, I am sure they will most definitely approach Tanesco [Tanzania Electric Supply Company], who will in turn inform us [the government] to plan a meeting.”
The potential of wind power in terms of reducing carbon emissions is significant. According to the Global Wind Energy Council, in 2016 wind power helped the planet avoid more than 637 million tonnes of CO2 emissions. Although Kenya may lose out on this project the country is still in the race towards cleaner sources of energy ranking third globally in geothermal energy capacity and number one in Africa by the Renewables Global Status report, 2017.
Meaning whichever of the two countries gets to house the project, the goal is ultimately to reduce carbon emissions even further, which is a win win for all parties involved.
As I have acknowledged in the past, there is certainly a role for wind and solar power on a small scale in rural parts of Africa and Asia, especially those which have little or no reliable connection to the grid.
But the decision by the Kenyan government highlights the very real problems which could be brought about by large scale development.
It is not clear how the proposed offshore plant would be financed, whether paid for outright or by payment for electricity. Either way though, the Kenyans seem to have realised that uncontrollable surpluses of wind power will have to be paid for in one way or another.
The latest analysis from the US EIA shows that electricity output in Kenya was 8.5 TWh in 2013.
- According to the International Energy Agency’s latest 2013 data, 60% of Kenya’s population living in urban areas has access to electricity; while a mere 7% of the rural population has access to electricity. Electricity net generation was 8.5 billion kilowatthours in 2013, of which 69% derived from renewable sources (hydro, geothermal, biomass, and wind) and 31% from fossil-fuel sources. The vast majority of the population, particularly in rural areas, relies on traditional biomass and waste (typically consisting of wood, charcoal, manure, and crop residues) for household heating and cooking.
- Kenya is one of two countries (including Ethiopia) that produce geothermal energy in Africa. In 2013, geothermal accounted for 21% of Kenya’s total electricity net generation. Kenya’s Great Rift Valley is believed to contain significant amounts of unexploited geothermal resource potential. Kenya currently has three geothermal power plants, with a total generation capacity of 290 megawatts (MW), according to the Kenya Electricity Generating Company.
The proposed offshore project could increase this generation by maybe 10%. But even at this low level, it clearly risks destabilising the grid.
And all the Global Wind Energy Council can say is “the goal is ultimately to reduce carbon emissions even further, which is a win win for all parties involved.”
I would have imagined Kenya might find a better use for $2.4bn.
Wind Power In India
By Paul Homewood
From the “Wouldn’t it be nice if we were all like China and India” Dept:
India has ranked consistently in the top 5 markets globally in terms of total installed wind capacity for most this decade. During 2016, India set a new national record with 3.6 GW of new installations, 2016’s 4th largest market. Indian wind installations accounted for a 6.6 percent share of the global market in 2016. By the end of August 2017, the installed capacity has crossed 32.6 GW across the country. Among renewables, wind power accounts for almost two-thirds of the installed capacity.
India, arguably one of the most exciting markets for the next few years, recorded USD 9.7 billion in 2016. India was also among the top 10 investing countries in renewable energy. In its 2017 report E&Y lists India as one of the top 5 markets under its ‘most attractive renewable energy markets’.
Official projections for 2022 are to see a total installed capacity of 60 GW of wind power in India. Looking towards a strong clean energy future India has published its offshore wind policy. We closely support the central government and the states of Gujarat and Tamil Nadu to facilitate the advent of an offshore wind sector at the earliest. FOWIND is at the forefront of this work.
Jolly big figures, but what does it all mean?
According to BP data, India had wind capacity of 28.7 GW last year, producing 44.8 TWh, translating into a capacity loading of 17.8%.
With total electricity output of 1400 TWh, wind supplied just 3.2%.
If we now fast forward to 2022, when 60 GW of wind power is targeted, this figure will only rise to 6.7%. And this assumes that total electricity production does not increase, which is highly unlikely.
Renewable lobbyists like to talk about how quickly wind power has grown in places like India. But from what? It hardly existed a decade ago.
An additional 31 GW by 2022 is about the equivalent of three large CCGT plants. In an electricity market four times the size of the UK, this is piffling.
Fiji to Issue 100% Clean Energy Climate Change Bond
By Eric Worrall
Fiji hopes to raise $US 50 million by selling sovereign climate bonds, to fund its transition to 100% renewable energy.
Fiji has announced it will issue a sovereign green bond of US$50 million to raise funds for the Pacific nation to tackle climate change.
Fiji hopes to raise US$50 million (A$62 million) by selling a batch of “green” bonds to investors to help tackle the environmental threats it faces from climate change.
They will finance projects to help achieve 100 per cent renewable energy by 2030, in line with Fiji’s adherence to the Paris climate change agreement.
Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said his nation lived on the front lines of climate change.
“The rising seas, changing weather patterns and severe weather events are threatening our development, our security and the Fijian way of life, along with the very existence of some of our low-lying neighbours,” Mr Bainimarama said.
“We are also sending a clear signal to other nations that we can be creative and innovative in mobilising funds and create win-win outcomes for countries and investors in adapting to the serious effects of climate change,” he said.
The announcement comes as Fiji prepares to chair the 23rd Climate Change Conference in Germany in early November.
Five year bonds will return a four per cent interest rate, and 13 year bonds have an interest rate of 6.3 per cent.
No doubt virtue signalling politicians across the world will leap to purchase Fiji’s climate bonds with your money.
Telegraph’s “Sponsored” Articles For Renewables and Electric Cars
By Paul Homewood
I have increasingly been aware of sponsored articles in the Telegraph from various renewable interests.
The one above is from e.on, assuring us that there will be millions of charging points for EVs, from which e.on will no doubt benefit hugely.
Does the proliferation of these “sponsored” advertising puffs explain why the Telegraph’s coverage of energy and climate issues has been so dire lately?
Over 100,000 People in Green Energy South Australia Now Receive Food Donations
By Eric Worrall
Power prices in the Australian Renewable Energy Paradise of South Australia have driven 102,000 South Australians to beg for help from food charities, according to a major South Australian Newspaper.
More than 102,000 South Australians seeking food donations, forced to skip meals to pay bills
Liz Walsh, Sheradyn Holderhead, The Advertiser
October 15, 2017 11:31pm
MORE than 102,000 South Australians seek help from food charity Foodbank every month, as parents skip meals for days on end so children can eat and utility bills can be paid, astonishing figures show.
About one quarter — or 26,877 — of those seeking food assistance are children.
The alarming figures have been released today in Foodbank’s 2017 Hunger Report, which also shows that demand from South Australians needing food has increased 21 per cent over the past 12 months, up from 84,847 last year and 56,000 the year before.
Foodbank SA chief executive Greg Pattinson said the high number of those needing assistance was staggering, but not surprising, because more and more SA families were being forced to make the heartbreaking decision to either “heat or eat”.
“We’ve heard it from so many people; the power bills come in and they have to decide: ‘Do we feed the kids today or do we not?’” he said.
“One lady told me that she earned $1000 a month and had just received an electricity bill and simply couldn’t afford to eat for this month — and that’s only 10km south of the CBD.
“Anecdotally, we regularly see that kids are sent off to school and they are OK, but mum and dad don’t eat … one woman told me that she had only Vegemite sandwiches for the week.”
The full Foodbank report is available here.
This Aussie energy price madness is very quickly becoming a major political issue. Pauline Hansen, the upstart leader of the One Nation Party, has refused to endorse any national policy which leads to higher energy bills.
Pauline Hanson’s Sunrise climate clash with Sarah Hanson-Young
CONTROVERSIAL One Nation leader Pauline Hanson has clashed with a Greens senator on Sunrise about the origins of climate change.
ONE Nation leader Pauline Hanson has had a fiery exchange with a Greens senator on Sunrise, where she claimed climate change is not caused by humans.
Senator Hanson told Senator Sarah Hanson-Young on the breakfast TV show that she was wary of claims made about climate change and its links with pollution. She was also adamant that it does not come from human existence.
“I’m very sceptical of this (climate change) because the science isn’t there, and that’s been proven,” Ms Hanson said on Sunrise.
“Climate is changing, but it’s not from humans Sarah — get this through your head.”
She argued that Australians were sick of high power bills. She also confirmed to Kochie that One Nation would not support the Coalition’s proposed clean energy target.
“People can’t afford it, it’s putting so much pressure on families and businesses,” she said.
‘How can a fish and chip shop afford $14,000 a quarter in electricity? How can these pubs in outback Longreach afford $20,000 electricity a quarter? Wake up.
My prediction – renewable energy is finished in Australia. Some green pork will continue, for now, but it would be political suicide to allow energy prices to rise any further. People struggling to feed their kids must be wondering how this avoidable catastrophe could ever have been allowed to occur. Despite the usual Australian media subservience to the greens, politicians like Pauline Hanson and former Prime Minister Tony Abbott are getting the message out to voters, about who is responsible for their misery.
Mainstream politicians who put the green religion ahead of constituents struggling to feed their families, like the green leaning socialists currently presiding over South Australia’s misery, will have an increasingly difficult time winning elections in Australia.
Global Warming Madness: A lot of pain for no gain
Enough is enough, at least for some Australians who are seeing through the alarmist propaganda smokescreen pushed by many of their recent leaders as an excuse to spend fortunes in the vain pursuit of unrealistic climate targets.
Finally the green madness that’s threatening our ability to turn on the lights and air conditioners is being exposed as a con, writes Julian Tomlinson (via The GWPF).
Global temperatures have risen nowhere near the rate at which even the most conservative models predicted, and finally a group of warmist scientists have admitted same in the Nature Geoscience journal last month.
Bear in mind the current mess Australia finds itself in with regards to power generation and business-killing high prices is a result of blindly following these flawed models.
What’s worse is that sceptics have been saying for years the models were wrong, and these people were not only ignored but savaged by warmists, Labor, The Greens and the media. Don’t hold your breath for an apology from these attack dogs though, that’s never been their style.
Even in Queensland, the story broke this week about the Labor government: “Households and businesses face being told to set their airconditioners to 26C and having power to some hot water systems and pool pumps switched off to save the state from blackouts this summer.” All because green groups have bluffed politicians into throwing the rest of the population under the bus in a misguided belief we can reverse the world’s temperatures.
The folly of this madness was exposed by former Prime Minister Tony Abbott in a speech this week to the Global Warming Policy Foundation. He said: “Even if reducing emissions is necessary to save the planet, our effort… is barely-better-than-futile because Australia’s total annual emissions are exceeded by just the annual increase in China’s.”
So due to global warming alarmism, Australia has sacrificed a huge competitive edge of some of the lowest power prices in the world, to now having among the highest. And yet all this pain and billions of dollars to cut emissions will have absolutely no effect on global climate.