Attacks on wind energy ignore reality of costs and subsidies
By EWEA Communication Director Julian Scola
In recent months there have been many media articles claiming that wind energy is more expensive and less reliable than other power sources, and that it receives heavy government subsidies. Such claims damage the perception of this cheap and clean form of energy.
The reality is that wind energy, and renewables in general, are successful because investors see that onshore wind is increasingly competitive with new gas and coal and is cheaper than nuclear, in an environment in which governments have made commitments to reducing carbon emissions, and where the public wants a safer, cleaner world without constant fluctuations in energy prices. Current data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance says that “funding of green energy projects rose by 5% last year” to $260bn worldwide. Another Bloomberg quote says “the best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators; the average wind farm will be fully competitive by 2016”.
In a telling commentary on nuclear energy, Citibank has said “We don’t see new nuclear in the UK being commercially economic for public market investors unless the UK Government is willing to fully underpin construction, power price, and operational/safety risk – something the government so far is looking to avoid”. The bank touches on several important factors financiers consider when looking at the energy market – government subsidies, construction cost, power price and operational safety/risk.
On the construction costs of wind energy, Steve Sawyer of the Global Wind Energy Council recently told Recharge magazine that “Downward price pressure on wind turbines will continue and with the rise of just about everything else, wind power will be directly cost-competitive with new-build for any other technology in an increasing number of markets. This will occur despite the absence of a global price on carbon, despite conventional technologies not having to price their water consumption, water pollution, air pollution and land degradation; and despite conventional technologies continuing to receive hundreds of billions in government subsidies”.
The reality about subsidies is that they are a massive advantage for non-renewable energy sources, and create equally large market distortions against renewables. According to the International Energy Agency’s 2010 World Energy Outlook, “Fossil-fuel consumption subsidies amounted to $312 billion in 2009”, while renewable energies received just $57 billion of “government support”. In other words, renewables got just $1 for every $5-6 given to fossil fuels. Right now in Spain, the “harmful and illegal application” of Spain’s controversial subsidies for power producers using domestic coal has boosted CO2 emissions and led to a surge in coal imports, according to NGO Ecologistas en Acción.
On energy price, a major advantage of renewables, and wind energy in particular, is that costs are predictable. The wind itself is of course free, and 75% of wind energy costs come from the costs of the turbine, the foundation, electrical equipment, grid connection etc. This one-time investment is very different from a natural gas power plant, for example. There, 40-70% of costs are operation and maintenance, including the price of fuel.
I must admit, I was dismayed to see some of the coverage of wind energy over the past few weeks. Good to see a response to it.
I am not sure where to start, how does this is the biggest pack of lies I have seen in a long time do. How can the EWEA expect anyone with a brain to take this as anything other than utter crap. Billions in subsidy for conventional power, wind gets about 100% in subsidy, even with it needing those nasty concentional power station for the 75% amount of the time they in effect produce nothing. Please all you believers have a heart transplant powered by the wind, we will easily get rid of lots of idiots who believe this utter rubbish. Wind is very expensive, yes the public wants “a safer, cleaner world without constant fluctuations in energy prices” but wind with its inability to produce power when we want is has been shown to be near useless ans has led to Denmark having the most expensive electricity in the world. Theor wind power is so useless it is dumped at near to no cost to the rest of the European grid. Its like a glut of strawberries, electricity is only of any value or use when it is generated when you need it. Wind energy is like a taxi that comes to your house at 2 oclock in the morning on christmas day to pick you up for your holiday in Spain in July, but the driver tells you it will save the world because it is very cheap, cheap it may be but it is of no use to any one.
Dear Neil,
Thank you for your interest in wind power. Your main argument seems to be that wind power is unreliable. Did you know that wind power already provides nearly 6% of the EU electricity demand rising to over 25% in some EU countries? In the UK wind turbines last year generated enough electricity to power three and a half million homes – more than in Greater London. The European Commission predicts that in Europe the level of wind-powered electricity will rise to 32-49% by 2050.Europe needs better electricity grids in order to do this, but plans are already underway. Better grids will also enable Europe to trade electricity as you mention is the case in Denmark this will lead to lower electricity prices thanks to greater competition. Grids across the EU would also allow a windy day in Scotland to power homes in the south of England balancing out supply and demand.
On costs, you say both that wind power is “very expensive” and that it is “cheap”. Onshore wind is already competitive with fossil fuels and cheaper than nuclear, moreover, fossil fuel costs are generally likely to rise while wind power will never get more expensive. Did you also know that every European citizen pays €706.8 a year to import fossil fuels? That’s not to mention the amounts government’s pay in subsidies to fossil fuels (compared to the lower amounts renewables receive) mentioned in the blog post.
Dear Zoe
Yes I have read these widely quoted misleading figures. The big problem is that the figures are just that misleading. Why are you instructed by the EWEA to make statement like “Did you know that wind power already provides nearly 6% of the EU electricity demand rising to over 25% in some EU countries” There is a huge difference between demand and actual generation, this is the biggest weapon of the wind industry, they always quote this totally unachievable figure which is what a turbine would produce if the wind blew all the time which it never does. If politicians had a brain and understood this, and the fact that the cost of standby generation for wind in terms of CO 2 emissions almost negated any CO2 reductions and that the financial cost is huge, there would be no more turbines built paid for by the public. I am not sure what planet the EWEA and your good self are on but the prospect of wind energy reducing the cost of electricity is another pipe dream. Please let us have the figures that prove this could ever happen. The EWEA and every national equivalent take the public as complete fools. With generating companies in the UK bare facedly blackmailing the government by saying they will not build any generating capacity that will be left in low paid standby for the wind without huge subsidies shows how false your statements are about costs. You go on and on about comparative costs as if it is a case of wind or gas/nuclear. This is not the case, we MUST have expensive spinning reserve to back up wind it cannot be used by itself. This spinning reserve is the same as a car that is sat at the traffic lights, it is ready to drive off but does not know when or if it will need to but is still belching CO2 and pollution and all these emissions are producing NO ENERGY. This is a truly bad scenario lots of emissions and no power produced. The true figures are known by governments but apart from stating that anyone who questions how good wind is is wrong we have never had any PROOF. That is one this the wind industry does not deal in, we get complaints of lots of “myths” and nasty objectors and nimby’s, but never a legally provable FACT. The fact is that because wind energy is not a power source merely a “negative demand”. If you switch on your lights wind turbines cannot be called on to supply this requirement. In fact the reality is that just as we switch on out lights the wind can fall away to nothing and far from supplying our demand can lead to a grid destabilizing dip and we then need to call on the output of a true conventional generator like coal, gas or nuclear. Yours last statement about the cost of importing fossil fuels is again misleading, this may be the cost across the EU for all fossil fuel imports but is a huge exaggeration of the amount of fossil fuel imported for electricity generation, I am certain your bland use of crap data does not take any account of fossil fuel imported for the processing of exported goods in the same way as the savings in CO2 emissions the wind industry and governments claim that “renewable” energy makes take no account of the increased emissions in China wher not only the pollution but the jobs have e=been exported to..