Ofgem, MoD attack pricey terror-friendly windmills

Military, regulators take Quixotic stance


Britain's fledgling wind power industry has suffered blows from two directions over the weekend. The energy regulator, Ofgem, has attacked the system of subsidies given to wind-farm operators, saying it channels excessive profits to owners and does little to stimulate new build. On top of this, the ministry of defence (MoD) has said that wind farms cause unacceptable gaps in radar coverage, to the extent of leaving Blighty vulnerable to 9/11 style airborne attacks.

The Financial Times reports this morning that energy investors are scrambling to acquire wind capacity because of the massive subsidy payments they bring. The paper quotes one analyst as saying: "It's a bonanza. Anyone who can get their nose in the trough is trying to."

The trough in question is kept filled by electricity consumers, though this is not made clear on the bills. The mechanism by which it occurs is called the Renewables Obligation (RO) under which suppliers must get a proportion of their energy from renewables operators. Wind farms are the main way this can be met in the UK, but the scarcity of the farms has pushed the prices to record levels.

Andrew Wright, markets honcho at Ofgem, told the FT that this wasn't working the way it was supposed to.

“The RO is a very expensive way of providing support for renewables," he said, adding that wind farms could make revenues of £100 per megawatt-hour at present.

That price equates to 10p per unit at the point of supply to the grid, without any allowance for transmission, supplier costs, profits and so on. Such prices serve to significantly increase the average price paid per unit by consumers. (Fossil and nuclear power stations can produce energy at well under 5p per unit.)

The idea is that consumers should pay the extra in order to encourage the building of wind farms; but according to Ofgem, this isn't happening. New windmills are not being built, and the extra cash paid by consumers is simply pouring into energy firms' coffers.

“If you did not have the RO, you would not see any wind farms being built," responded Kevin McCullough of RWE Npower, a large UK wind-farm operator. He also disputed the Ofgem figures, saying that his firm's windmills actually pulled in 7.5 to 8.5 pence per unit.

Power companies are very receptive to the UK's policy of having a mandated, smallish proportion of energy supplied by renewables. This allows them to sell limited amounts of high-priced energy and large amounts of cheaper juice from coal, gas or nuclear into the same market. The end result, as in any case where a product can be sold at different prices, is more money to the seller than would otherwise be the case. (This is why companies love to charge UK customers higher prices than in the US, and why many products are sold with premium branding and also via unbadged channels.)

Thus the energy companies' incentive to build new wind farms is limited in scope; they would rather have small numbers and high prices in this sector, widening the gap between renewable and cheaper supplies and so maximising profits.

Another reason new wind facilities are not being built is delays caused by planning permission, and it has emerged that MoD is behind many of these. The defence authorities have objected to many new planned turbine farms on the grounds that the whirling blades have terrible effects on their low-level air defence radars, creating blank spots.

The MoD fears that, if large numbers of wind farms are built, it will be unable to detect and track aircraft across significant areas of Blighty. This could leave the RAF unable to intercept suicide-piloted airliners or other airborne threats. It could also, according to defence chiefs, make military low-flying training unacceptably dangerous.


Other stories you might like

  • North Korea pulled in $400m in cryptocurrency heists last year – report

    Plus: FIFA 22 players lose their identity and Texas gets phony QR codes

    In brief Thieves operating for the North Korean government made off with almost $400m in digicash last year in a concerted attack to steal and launder as much currency as they could.

    A report from blockchain biz Chainalysis found that attackers were going after investment houses and currency exchanges in a bid to purloin funds and send them back to the Glorious Leader's coffers. They then use mixing software to make masses of micropayments to new wallets, before consolidating them all again into a new account and moving the funds.

    Bitcoin used to be a top target but Ether is now the most stolen currency, say the researchers, accounting for 58 per cent of the funds filched. Bitcoin accounted for just 20 per cent, a fall of more than 50 per cent since 2019 - although part of the reason might be that they are now so valuable people are taking more care with them.

    Continue reading
  • Tesla Full Self-Driving videos prompt California's DMV to rethink policy on accidents

    Plus: AI systems can identify different chess players by their moves and more

    In brief California’s Department of Motor Vehicles said it’s “revisiting” its opinion of whether Tesla’s so-called Full Self-Driving feature needs more oversight after a series of videos demonstrate how the technology can be dangerous.

    “Recent software updates, videos showing dangerous use of that technology, open investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the opinions of other experts in this space,” have made the DMV think twice about Tesla, according to a letter sent to California’s Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Senate’s transportation committee, and first reported by the LA Times.

    Tesla isn’t required to report the number of crashes to California’s DMV unlike other self-driving car companies like Waymo or Cruise because it operates at lower levels of autonomy and requires human supervision. But that may change after videos like drivers having to take over to avoid accidentally swerving into pedestrians crossing the road or failing to detect a truck in the middle of the road continue circulating.

    Continue reading
  • Alien life on Super-Earth can survive longer than us due to long-lasting protection from cosmic rays

    Laser experiments show their magnetic fields shielding their surfaces from radiation last longer

    Life on Super-Earths may have more time to develop and evolve, thanks to their long-lasting magnetic fields protecting them against harmful cosmic rays, according to new research published in Science.

    Space is a hazardous environment. Streams of charged particles traveling at very close to the speed of light, ejected from stars and distant galaxies, bombard planets. The intense radiation can strip atmospheres and cause oceans on planetary surfaces to dry up over time, leaving them arid and incapable of supporting habitable life. Cosmic rays, however, are deflected away from Earth, however, since it’s shielded by its magnetic field.

    Now, a team of researchers led by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) believe that Super-Earths - planets that are more massive than Earth but less than Neptune - may have magnetic fields too. Their defensive bubbles, in fact, are estimated to stay intact for longer than the one around Earth, meaning life on their surfaces will have more time to develop and survive.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022