Productivity and Efficiency matters
The history of the productivity of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” as opposed to the performance of conventional generation technology, (Coal, Gas, Nuclear) in Europe over the past decade is shown below. There is no evidence that the poor productivity of “Renewables” can radically improve in future.
In 2022, the EU(27)+UK fleet of Weather-Dependent “Renewable” generators totalled ~438GW, contributed power output to the Grid equivalent to ~78 Gigawatts. 2022 was another poor year for Wind power generation with a combined Weather-Dependent “Renewables” productivity of 17.8%. Data: eurobser-er.org – ref.org.
This level of the productivity of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” as recorded show precisely how persistently dilute, variable and ineffective the Wind and Sun are as power sources for the continuous support of a developed economy.
The imposition of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” onto a Nation’s power generation fleet degrades the normal ~90% overall productivity for the whole electrical power generation sector, with the outcome results as follows:
- Germany: overall power generation fleet productivity has been degraded down to 30% from~90%
- the UK: overall power generation fleet productivity has been degraded to 45% from~90%
- France: even with its massive Nuclear generation, overall power generation fleet productivity has been degraded to 55% from~90%.
When compared to Conventional power generation capable of running at ~90% productivity, 24/7, the measured productivity level of ~18% means that it takes more than 5 times the size of “Renewable” installations with all their associated extra costs to deliver the same amount of power to the Grid. Even then, there is no ability to control the timing of that power production whether the output is useful at that moment in time or not. So, when their recorded productivity is taken into account, the true costs of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” to supply a unit of power to the Grid, installations are certainly very much higher than Gas or Coal firing: they even exceed the costs of Nuclear power significantly.
The recorded productivity / capacity percentages, (actual annual power output divided by installed nameplate of values Wind and Solar “Renewables”) since 2012 are shown above. The 2022 low productivity value of 17.8% above is nonetheless quite close to the average performance 18.8% achieved throughout in Europe over the last decade. There may be some Weather-Dependent variations year on year in “Renewables” productivity but in general their performance remain close to the established 10-year averages shown above.
The recorded hourly generation performance in 2023 for the DE UK FR ~114GW of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” installed is shown below. As an single example of intermittent unreliability, for an extended 41 day period at the end of August – September 2023 the combined wind power productivity fell to ~11% producing on average ~ 2 GW from an installed fleet of 27 GW of onshore and offshore wind power.
The recorded hourly generation performance in 2022 for the UK ~40GW of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” installed is shown below. Their hourly variability is clear. To maintain the viability of the power Grid that variability and intermittency has to be accommodated by backup Fossil Fuel or Nuclear Generators, running inefficiently and unprofitably in spinning reserve as a result of the intentional government mandate, (the “Renewables” obligation), to give preference to unreliable “Renewables”.
The hourly UK data for 2022 shown above that there were some 10 occasions when extended poor Wind power performance in the year. As an example of their poor performance, the hourly UK Weather-Dependent “Renewables” performance in August – September 2023 is shown below, when there was an extended ten-day long anticyclonic episode and the 27GW of installed UK Onshore and Offshore Wind power produced less than 5% of their rated output, ~1.3GW, a 20th of their potential. That anticyclonic event extended widely across Europe.
This is an example of the scale of the potential power loss that can occur. The unpredictable performance has been induced by the increasing Government mandated commitment to Weather-Dependent “Renewables”. As electrical power production always has to match demand, such a prolonged failure of output poses major Grid management problems. As many fossil fuel based generators have been demolished by Government dictat, those decisions are increasingly likely to lead to Grid failure.
As a result the policy commitment to impose large installations of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” in the UK has already degraded the total annual productivity of the whole UK power generation fleet to 45%. This performance degradation is rather better than in Germany where productivity degradation had already reached 30% in 2023.
The performance of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” should be compared to the productivity of Conventional Generation, (Fossil fuel based and Nuclear) capable of approaching 90% productivity, when fully utilised, which:
- can generate power 24/7.
- produce much more energy for use by civilisation than the energy they need to build and run: providing very significant Energy Return on Energy Invested ERoEI.
- can respond positively whenever needed to match demand.
- uses small land coverage.
- can be located close to centres of demand.
- use limited materials for their manufacture and installation.
- according to current US EIA comparative costs Conventional power generators are substantially cheaper for their power production, even at current elevated European Gas prices.
- can have massive cheap energy storage on site, with no need for batteries: for example, the stored energy in Coal is ~13,000 times cheaper than a Tesla powerwall weight for weight.
Cost comparisons
The US Energy Administration, (US EIA), publishes comparative figures, expressed in US$, for power generation technologies for both initial capital and long-term costs. When those costs are divided by their achieved productivity and compared to Gas-Firing or Nuclear power, the bare costs can of each unit of power actually delivered to the grid can be seen. The overall Weather-Dependent “Renewables” costs are roughly 5-15 times that of Gas-firing. On this basis Nuclear energy is still cheaper than “Renewables” at providing a but by a smaller factor, only ~2-3 times. With these productivity numbers it is hardly surprising that commercial organisations are unable to maintain viable businesses with Weather-Dependent “Renewables” and are for example no longer willing to bid for Offshore Wind.
A Comparative Cost Model for Power Generation Technologies 2023
The US EIA table translates to costs / Gigawatt in terms of capital costs and 40 year lifetime costs accounting for productivity>
The following graphic shows the comparative costs of Gas-firing or Nuclear power when judged by the costs of provision of the same units of power to the Grid. Offshore wind power is particularly disadvantageous both to install and in the longterm at ~14-15 times. Solar power, because of its very low productivity, is also very expensive at 9-10 times the cost of delivering a unit of power to the grid: that delivered power is inevitably diurnally intermittent and makes its smallest contribution in winter, the times of maximum demand. Onshore wind power can be cost comparable with Nuclear generation, using this bare cost comparison. Offshore wind and Solar power are both more costly than Nuclear generation.
To get the true costs of the power actually delivered to the Grid their measured annual productivity of each technology can be taken into account. Weather-Dependent “Renewables” incur the full installed capital and running costs of their installed generators, rather than the value for their power provided. Nonetheless just using annual productivity are still favourable cost comparisons for Weather-Dependent “Renewables”. These bare costs do not account for:
- the essential the back-up reserve power needed to give instantaneous support the Grid.
- the Grid maintenance difficulties induced by the variability, intermittency and lack of system inertia that helps to secure the viability of the Grid.
- the subsidy costs and preferential mandates applied to Weather-Dependent “Renewables”.
- the additional costs of updating and extending Grid Network connections.
- etcetera.
Comparative Costing of the EU(27)+UK Weather-Dependent “Renewables” fleet
Using the US EIA cost data, the table below estimates the excess costs incurred across Europe for the current 438GW fleet of Weather-Dependent “Renewable” installations. The difference amounts to ~1.4$ trillion in comparison to Gas-firing, (even with Natural Gas priced at 1.5 times USA rates), and ~0.6$ trillion in comparison to Nuclear power. These estimates show the scale of the fiscal damage that has been achieved by Green alarmists and Russian propaganda in managing to negate the exploration for and use of Fracked Natural Gas in Europe.
When the comparative costs account for their achieved productivity, these simple sums show that all claims that Wind and Solar power are low cost and price competitive with Conventional fossil fuel power generation are patently false.
The table below estimates the bare excess costs incurred across Europe for the current 438GW fleet of Weather-Dependent “Renewable” installations.
Using the comparative data from the US EIA, this amounts to ~1.4$ trillion in comparison with Gas-firing, (with Natural Gas priced at 1.5 times USA rates), and ~0.6$ trillion in comparison to Nuclear power.
These figures massively underestimate the true costs of mandating Weather-Dependent “Renewables”
The results above only account for the cost comparisons for capital and running costs of the generation installations themselves and the actual electrical power generated accounting for their measured productivity capability of each generating technology. The significant ancillary costs inevitably also associated with Wind power and Solar PV Renewables result from:
- their unreliability in terms of both power intermittency and power variability.
- the non-dispatchability of Renewables: the wind will not blow, the clouds will not clear away and the world will not stop rotating to order, whenever power is needed by Man-kind.
- the poor timing of power generation by Renewables, it is unlikely to be well coordinated with demand: for example, Solar power falls off in the evening, at times of peak demand, leading to rolling blackouts.
- Winter Solar output is virtually absent even in Southern European countries, in Winter ~1/7th of the output than in the summer.
- the long transmission lines from remote, dispersed generators, incurs both power losses in transmission, further infrastructure and increased maintenance costs.
- requirement for the sterilisation of large land areas, especially when compared with conventional electricity generation, (Gas-firing and Nuclear).
- much additional engineering infrastructure is needed for access.
- the continuing costs of back-up generation, which is essential to maintain continuous power supplies, but which may only be used on occasions and has to be wastefully running in spinning reserve and emitting some CO2 nonetheless.
It should be noted that if there has to be sufficient back-up capacity using fossil fuels to support the grid when wind and solar are not available and it is costly to run continuously, then there is very little point in doubling up the generation capacity, available 24/7, with comparatively non-productive Weather-Dependent “Renewables”, which might substitute some CO2 emissions but they certainly still emit some substantial levels of CO2 for their manufacture, installation and maintenance.
- any consideration of electrical storage using batteries, which would impose extreme additional costs, were long-term, (only a few days), battery storage even economically feasible. This makes any idea of long-term seasonal power storage even less feasible.
- unsynchronised generation lacking the inherent inertia essential to maintain grid frequency.
- Weather-Dependent “Renewables” could never provide a “black start” recovery from a major grid outage.
Importantly in addition these cost analyses do not account for:
- the inevitable environmental damage and wildlife destruction caused by Weather-Dependent “Renewables”.
- the “Carbon footprint” of Weather-Dependent “Renewable” technologies: they may never save as much CO2 during their service life as they are likely to require for their materials sourcing, manufacture, installation, maintenance and eventual demolition.
- when viewed in the round, all these power generation technologies are entirely dependent on the use of substantial amounts of fossil fuels both as feedstocks for materials and as fuels.
- the technologies used in Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are also highly dependent on large amounts of scarce materials with very extensive mining demands.
- the Energy Return on Energy Invested: Weather Dependent Renewables may well produce only a minimal excess of Energy during their service life than was committed for their original manufacture and installation. They certainly do not provide the regular massive excess power sufficient to support the multiple needs of a developed society. Accordingly, Weather-Dependent “Renewables” are inherently parasitic on the use of fossil fuels for their existence.
The supplementary costs noted above are not assessed in these comparative Costings. Accordingly, the bare cost estimates above only indicate the lower bounds of the fiscal damage caused by installing Weather-Dependent “Renewables”. This outcome is the achievement by Green alarmists and Russian propaganda, in interfering with the use of indigenous Fossil Fuel resources and the politically imposed ban on Fracking throughout Europe.
Conclusions
Would anyone sane buy a car costing at least 10 times the normal price to buy and run, that can only work one day in six, when you never know which day that might be ? And then insist that its technology is the only way to power the whole of a developed economy.
The mandating of Weather-Dependent “Renewables” is substituting dispatchable 24/7 electrical power generators giving ~90% productivity with unreliable and alternate technologies that operate at ~20% productivity. This Government Mandate asserts that Weather-Dependent “Renewable” generation technologies with an overall productivity of less than ~20% are essential to make a minor adjustment to Global temperature in the distant future.
These European estimates serve to indicate the scale of the fiscal damage that has been achieved by Green alarmist propaganda in both the Western world and which is now being imposed by elitist Green thinking in the Developing world:
- in the EU(27)+UK ~2 $trillion less costs would have arisen if the use of Fracked Natural Gas for power generation in Europe had it not been negated by Green thinking, mainly supported by Russian propaganda, supporting its Gas exports.
- in the EU(27)+UK ~0.7 $trillion less costs would have resulted from the use of Nuclear power to provide the same level of power output.
Nonetheless, these sums do not account for all the additional cost and operational burdens on the Grid that arise from the unreliability and intermittency caused by the Weather-Dependence of “Renewables”. They do not account for the need for continuous power back-up to replace the Weather-Dependent power whenever the Weather fails.
These calculations only compare the raw costs of supplying a unit of energy to the Grid. They are just the tip of the comparative cost and Grid management iceberg, Weather-Dependent “Renewables” incur all manner of associated costs and operational downsides not shown and detailed here.
With these low levels of productivity and massive ancillary costs, even with huge subsidy support and mandated operational advantages, it is hardly surprising that the major players in the “Renewables” industry are failing to operate profitably and are in the main withdrawing from further commitments. The list of companies now withdrawing from the industry or with major losses include:
- Siemens Gamesa
- Vattenfall
- Oersted / Oersted-Eversource
- Shell: Ocean Winds / EDF
- BP-Equinor
- Avangrid
- etc.
- Onshore Wind Power is in excess of 5 times more costly than Gas-firing. It may be marginally cheaper than Nuclear power in capital expenditure but is more costly in the long-term.
- Offshore wind power is in excess of ~15 times more costly than capital costs for Gas-firing and ~18 times more costly in the long-term. It is about twice the capital cost of Nuclear power and ~5 times more costly in the long-term.
- Solar power because of its poor productivity is ~10 times more costly than capital costs for Gas-firing and ~12 times more costly in the long-term. It is about 1.6 times the capital cost of Nuclear power and ~3 times more costly in the long-term.
The minimal excess costs of eliminating Fracking in Europe as opposed to using Weather-Dependent “Renewables ” is in excess of 1.7 €trillion. The decision to use “Renewables” in Europe as opposed to Nuclear power has cost 0.85 €trillion.
But
Appreciating that future “Climate Change” caused by Man-kind burning fossil fuels can no longer be an existential problem going forward and not reacting to that non-problem in an economically destructive manner would be the very best news both for the World and Western civilisations. The non-problem of future Manmade climate change from CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is set out here.
Never forget:
Sun Tsu’s first art of war:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” That is exactly what is happening as Western governments pursue self-harming Green Energy policies. There is no better way to damage Western societies than by rendering their power supplies unreliable and expensive. Cui bono Who Benefits ??
and
The late Professor Sir David MacKay:
“The dependence on Weather-Dependent “Renewable Energy” to power a developed economy is an Appalling Delusion”.
There’s so much delusion and I think it’s so dangerous for humanity that people allow themselves to have these delusions that they’re willing to not think carefully about the numbers and the realities, and the laws of physics and the realities of engineering… humanity really does need to pay attention to arithmetic, and the laws of physics.”
Arithmetic? Laws of physics? Engineering? They are lost on politicians, to our incalculable cost.
Data: updated July 2023