Posted on 06/06/2016 1:15:40 PM PDT by Lorianne
England is not windy enough to justify building any more onshore wind turbines, the chief executive of wind industry trade body has admitted.
Hugh McNeal, who joined RenewableUK two months ago from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, insisted the industry could make the case for more onshore turbines in some parts of the UK, despite the withdrawal of subsidies.
But he said this would “almost certainly” not be in England, as the wind speeds were not high enough to make the projects economically viable without subsidy.
Although the Government has implemented its manifesto pledge to end subsidies for new onshore wind farms, the industry believes it should be able to deploy more turbines onshore if it can show that this is the cheapest form of new power generation capacity.
Current wholesale electricity prices are too low to spur investment in any new form of power generation, so the Government has already had to make subsidies available to new gas plants.
If financial support required by onshore wind is less than that required by gas, the industry argues it should no longer be regarded as “subsidy”.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Luckily it’s sunny enough!
Woops! Scratch Cape Cod, because the Royal Family in Massachusetts didn't want them spoiling their backyard view.
Shun the unbeliever. SHUN!
If it’s too winding they can’t operate. If there’s no wind they can’t operate. If it’s too hot they can’t operate and if it’s too cold they can’t operate.
I lived in Yorkshire for a while, and it’s damn sure windy enough there.
No place is windy enough to run these things without massive subsidies and without standby backup generators.
"There's an ill wind...."
 |
|---|
Locate those machines closer to Parliament.
So, are there plans to lift the anchors and tow it someplace more windy?
The obvious solution is to spend massive amounts of tax payer money building wind machines, giant blowers, to power the windmills.....DUH!
Perhaps someone broke the wind?!
We wonder if England has coal. It was produced by solar energy, was put in the "bank" many years ago, and works 24/7 without subsidies.
Much money is wasted on the uneconomically viable, limited to when there is wind, kills eagles, bats, and other birds, and is aesthetic pollution.
This money could have been spent on harvesting the products of combustion of coal to make it clean, dependable energy, 24/7.
Question: Are the power companies actually able to distribute this unreliable wind generated power through their grids or do they just pay for it as a ransom to stay in business?
An island on the Atlantic ocean isn’t windy enough? Really?
all the stats told them that BEFORE they started. idiots
If financial support required by onshore wind is less than that required by gas, the industry argues it should no longer be regarded as “subsidy”.
Ha! That’s certainly creative thinking. So if I borrow less money from the bank than someone else borrowed, it really shouldn’t be regarded as a “loan”, eh?
The next question is whether the British Isles sunny enough to justify solar energy investment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.