A new report from the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) has highlighted the growth of wind energy across the EU, with 8 per cent of total electricity demand now met with onshore and offshore wind installations.
According to the JRC 2014 wind status report, the connected cumulative capacity of the EU grid reached 129GW last year, equivalent to the annual consumption of the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece and Ireland combined.
The report claims that the growth of wind energy across Europe means it will meet 12 per cent of the EU’s total demand within the next five years, significantly contributing to the EU target of a 20 per cent renewable energy share by 2020.
Over the last two decades, global capacity from wind generation has grown from 3GW to 370GW. Last year saw a record 52.8GW of wind capacity added worldwide, with China accounting for 23.2GW, and EU member states adding 13.05GW.
While China’s wind network is growing faster, the EU still leads the way in cumulative capacity, and 2014 saw Denmark, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, Romania and Germany generating between 10 and 40 per cent of their electricity from wind.
According to the report, European turbine manufacturers accounted for 78 per cent of the non-China world market in 2014. A reduction in the costs of project financing is helping to reduce the overall cost of generating wind energy, with this downward trend set to continue.
Dear Colleagues,
It is great to hear about this development in renewable energy. I wish this experience extends to Tunisia, where we have only few experimental wind turbines, but still not at a production scale.
I rely on your cooperation.
Amara Maafi
But at what cost? All these wind farms receive huge subsidies which are added to taxes and to electricity prices. So poor people are paying more for their electricity and suffering from energy poverty so that rich people can make huge profits from the subsidies. Disgraceful.
The wind farms impose huge extra costs on the rest of the system because of their intermittent and unreliable generation. This amounts to another hidden subsidy.
The sad thing about all this is that it is driven by a misguided attempt to reduce carbon dioxide emissions based on the belief that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. It doesn’t. The world has not warmed for the last 18 years in spite of predictions of the worthless computer programs.
But if there was a real reason for reducing man-made carbon dioxide the cheapest and best solution is to convert from coal to gas and to build safe, reliable and environmentally friendly nuclear power stations.
But the environmentalists violently oppose fracking and nuclear power. Have they been bought by wind and solar power developers?
Looking at the abstract from the report Europe has an installed capacity of 130 GW and in an average year generates 265 TWh. Taking a year as 8760 hours I make that an average output of 30 GW which is a capacity factor of ~23%. I thought that Europe had a reasonable amount of offshore wind that should increase the capacity factor? Is this the difference between the headline news and what is really achievable?
Best regards
Roger
“The global warming ‘pause’ has ended, and according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration never happened in the first place; it was an artifact of the way surface temperature measurements were taken, it argues.”
This paper from NOAA has been discussed in many places and the alternative view is that the ‘pause’ was too embarrassing and they massaged the numbers to get rid of it. The IPCC currently accepts the existence of the pause. We will see what AR6 says.
Best regards
Roger
This is excellent news. Seems a shame that we will miss the 202020 target. I thought most nations were doing well.
I guess whether you think subsidising things are worth it when you look at the additional cost of doing shoreline defences as well as moving to 100% renewables. With expected sea rises in the next 100 years we are likely to have to pay 100bn£. Surely it is cheaper to just pay for renewables and get off the carbon fuels asap and hope to reduce the sea level rises and not have to pay for sea defences? We are already hearing that certain sea side towns are being left to the vagaries of their own devices. Eg Faireborne in Gwynedd.
We, unfortunately, are wasting 72bn£ of tax payers money decommissioning the old nuclear power stations. Shame we are wasting millions more on uninsurable unsafe new nukes. Seriously bad move.
“The global warming ‘pause’ has ended, and according to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration never happened in the first place; it was an artifact of the way surface temperature measurements were taken, it argues.”
The raw data was changed to match a hypothesis. Could let NOAA look at the greek finance minister’s books and it could turn out Germany owes Greece trillions
Without storage, wind and solar energy are massive drains on the economies of the countries using them: massive capital costs and unusable power to be paid for.
In addition to the cost of back-up for the rapid changes in generation that occur and non-reliability.
The NOAA is discredited and its views, as noted above are against IPCC; they also go against the Met office and satellite results. A little balance in editorial comments please!
But seriously, the article is very useful as information about the rapid development of wind generation.
I read that JRC abstract. Offshore costs almost double what onshore costs, and I don’t know how the cost compares to other sources! That could also be the headline.
The headlines are INSTALLED power not power produced. Thanks for the maths, Roger. Feeling like someone is overselling …
To the editor: according to NOAA the global warming pause never existed. According to the IPCC and the five accepted temperature records (Summarised at climate4you.com) it most certainly did – and still does – exist. So take your pick – a single record that most authorities regard as having been seriously manipulated or well-established records supported the IPCC.
Regardless of that, my comment that it is hugely subsidised and impoverishing poor people still stands. This is the most disgraceful aspect.
Richard: as I pointed out, if, for some strange reason you do want to limit carbon dioxide then nuclear power and fracking are the best ways of doing it.
The enormous rises in sea level that you propose are the figment of the imagination of those driving the computer models. In the real world, sea level rise is steady at around 2 mm per year – as it has been for more than 100 years. no sign of any recent increase in rate.
In case you didn’t know, the records show that nuclear power stations are the safest major form of power generation by a very large margin.