Some Very Quick Number Crunching.

OK, so going to wind is going to be expensive, I think we all knew that, yes?

The switch to windpower could see £6 billion a year added to the nation’s power bills by 2020 – equivalent to around £250 per household, the government’s own figures have revealed.

That\’s calculated from the subsidy being given to those windmills.

OK, UK emissions are around 500 million tonnes CO2-e (these numbers are very rough and from memory, very rough indeed).

It\’s what, a third of emissions are from electricity production?

And that number is the one to get us to one third of electricity production from wind, yes?

So emissions saved (assuming that wind power emits no CO2-e, which it doesn\’t, it\’s low carbon not no carbon) would be 500 million x0.3 x0.3, yes?

Very rough and ready?

45 million tonnes.

The social cost of carbon is £25 a tonne or so. So at the expense of £6 billion a year in subsidy we\’re saving £1.1 billion a year.

This simply doesn\’t make sense. It\’s an entirely stupid thing to do.

Note that I\’ve left out all of the other problems: that wind power isn\’t consistent, that it needs back up, that we\’ll have to redesign the National Grid.

It\’s simply nonsense to pay 6 times more than the benefits that we\’ll get from the project.

OK, so, any supporters of wind power want top point out what I\’ve missed here?

3 thoughts on “Some Very Quick Number Crunching.”

  1. In today’s Daily Telegraph re suppliers gouging their customers we learn that a typical EDF customer in the UK pays £442.07 p.a. for electricity while the figure for France is £332.50. Add £250 to the former and it seems we can enjoy wind generated electricity for only £692.07 p.a. Who could resist such a bargain?

  2. “we can enjoy wind generated electricity for only £692.07 p.a.”

    As they say, Terms and Conditions apply. Such as the wind blowing.

  3. The simple fact that wind has to be backed by “turning standby” gas-powered generation, running effectively very inefficiently, would tend to suggest that, in reality, the savings in CO2 are going to be vanishingly small.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *