Why We Still Need Fossil Fuels, Despite Reuters Propaganda
By Paul Homewood
Today’s misinformation from Reuters, who once upon a time used to be a trusted source of news:
Wind farms have been the primary source of electricity in the United Kingdom for the past two consecutive quarters, marking the longest stretch on record that renewable energy has surpassed fossil fuels in U.K. electricity generation.
Total electricity generation from wind sources during the first three months of 2024 was 25.3 terawatt hours (TWh), compared to 23.6 TWh from all fossil fuel sources, according to data from energy think tank Ember.
Wind power accounted for an average of 39.4% of total electricity during the first quarter of 2024, compared to 36.2% from fossil fuels.
Wind output also exceeded fossil fuel-powered output during the final quarter of 2023, marking the first time that wind power has generated more electricity than fossil fuel plants in the U.K. for consecutive quarters.
When combined with output from solar farms, total electricity output from renewable sources in the U.K. was 27.1 TWh during Q1 2024, the highest quarterly total ever for the U.K. and a record 42.2% share of total electricity generation.
WIND LULL OVER SUMMER
Due to seasonal lulls in wind speeds during the summer, that renewable electricity generation total may start to decline over the coming months.
In 2023, wind generation during the second and third quarters were 46% and 34% lower respectively than during the first quarter, and similar declines in wind generation are possible in 2024 if normal wind speed patterns unfold.
Higher solar output during sunnier periods will offset some of the decline from wind farms, as solar output in the U.K. tends to peak at around 5 TWh during the second quarter of the year, compared to just below 2 TWh during the first quarter.
But as wind farms typically generate roughly six times more electricity than solar farms in the U.K., total renewable generation is still likely to dip notably during the middle of 2024.
Utilities looking to keep fossil fuel use to a minimum during the summer may deploy greater quantities of electricity generated by nuclear reactors, bioenergy facilities and hydro dams to ensure total generation loads remain stable.
It has utterly no relevance at all how much electricity wind power produced over the quarter. What is relevant is that we still needed a full fleet of CCGT stations to fill the gap when the wind did not blow.
Their naivety in believing that you can simply tap into nuclear power in summer is shocking, coming as it does from an outfit that advises the imbecile Ed Miliband. Nuclear plants cannot be switched on and off in this way, and certainly would not be economical.
That is why we are still wholly reliant on natural gas to provide enough electricity when we need it.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Is that why power bills are skyrocketing?
Is that why power bills are skyrocketing?
There is almost certainly sufficient expertise on this board to accurately estimate UK power bills using an alternative grid based primarily on traditional thermal power stations.
I suspect imports are the primary source of energy. Oh! And the light bulb up in the sky.
Spot on as always Paul.
Might be worth doing a piece on how, as our ability to generate electricity ourselves has declined, the reliance on interconnecters has blossomed. Now going beyond 20%.
cheers
Yep, 22.57% from interconnectors this morning as at 09:50.
wind 7.14%
ccgt 26.17%
nuclear 17.29%
“nuclear reactors”
A government that makes nuclear reactors operate intermittently will soon own them and either fees or taxes will increase. Great plan!
nuclear reactors operate intermittently
My GUESS is that the start-up time from cold to grid-connection for a UK nuclear power station could be in excess of one day, possibly well in excess of one day.
in Germany during maintenance, it was noticed that the casings of the nuclear rods were buckled as a result of metal fatigue caused by frequent, rapid, reducing output then increasing it to back-up intermittent wind.
Danger! Will Robinson.
The rods are designed for continuous use in stable temperatures – the most efficient use of nuclear.
Primary Source of Electricity?
Wind turbines do NOT produce any energy at all, FULL STOP.
The First law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another.
So called ‘renewables’ should more accurately be called energy collectors. They collect energy that already exists, in the form of wind or sunlight, and convert what little there is into electricity.
Therein lies the perpetual problem. If it is dark, still and cold, typical midwinter conditions, there is no energy to collect, thereby literally leaving us in the dark!
As we discovered recently, in still, frosty December, and again this January, wind ‘energy’ is a technological dead-end.
The intrinsically better sources have what is known as greater Energy Density.
For example, water is 800 times denser than air, so hydro is always going to give a much greater conversion capture than wind. Coal is intrinsically denser than wood, so much more thermodynamically efficient. A coal fire burns much hotter than wood.
Nuclear, working at atomic level wins the energy density stakes hands down.
The other hugely-damaging problem with parasitic ‘unreliables’ is their truly voracious material, maintenance, repair, replacement and land requirements.
At present, all the world’s energy plants occupy around 0.5% of the Earth’s surface. Trying to capture all our energy from solar and wind would require an astonishing 50% of the Earth’s surface!
This will leave virtually nowhere for farming, food production, forests, fishing, nature, wildlife habitats, recreation or us.
Before the planet is completely carpeted, and wrecked with ‘renewables’ it is high time the collective density of our deluded, ever-so-green, politicians realised this!
Of course they are ignoring the 8 [ I think ] , power stations which burn Bio fuels , and are all classed as renewable generation for subsidies .
Like Drax , which burns wood from America , the total from all these power stations make up a lot of the generation capacity , and are probably putting out as much if not more than wind and solar .
But it does fit their propaganda to say wind and solar is more than fossil fuels
What a truly stupid article. Where do they find such writers?
Hi Phillip, do you know how I can forward some emails I have from the Met Office onto Paul? I do not seem to have any means to contact Paul and would prefer not to put these in the public domain on here just yet. I note Paul regularly H/T’s article to you so apologies if this is a bit of a long shot. p.s. I have confirmed written proof of non existant “climate stations” and mis descriptions of many weather stations.
I thought that there was a ‘contact’ button on this website, but I cannot find it. I would just leave a message asking Paul to contact you.
Hi Philip, thanks, have tried that twice and also put a note on the “About” page but to no avail. Perhaps I’m on the naughty step!!
considering the initial capital outlay, subsidy and maintenance costs, wind and solar generation should be so far ahead. But rational thinking folk know it will never be…
Are there weasel words and being economical with the actualitè here?
They talk about generation which may not include the interconnectors. If you assume that the interconnectors are used because wind isn’t available and gas isn’t used for political reasons then it’s all propaganda.
Gridwatch says wind 2% at the moment. Maybe the ‘WIND LULL OVER SUMMER‘ started early 🙄
Yep, high pressure around. The Met Office provided weather on GB News mentioned the lack of wind and the reason.
according to data from energy think tank Ember
You can trust what they say. Wait . . . .
Independent of what?
So close the fossil fuel plants. Else, what’s your point?
energy think tank Ember?
Could be interesting to see what the relationship is between this “think tank” and the Great and Good in our political parties.
“Sabina Assan · Nicolas Fulghum · Frankie Mayo · Neshwin Rodrigues · Aditya Lolla · Bryony Worthington · Muyi Yang · Michele Trueman.
Name I recognise
“Bryony Katherine Worthington, Baroness Worthington, (born 19 September 1971), is a British environmental campaigner and life peer in the House of Lords
Political party Independent (since 2017)
Other political affiliations Labour (before 2017) .. so Corbynista ?
Her Twitter is a bit inactive
Co-Chair, Peers for the Planet. former roles incl author of UK Climate Change Act, Director of Quadrature Climate Foundation.
Her third to last tweet FALSELY claims there is a ban on UK onshore wind
…doh onshore has been built in almost every year
Who funds them is of more interest.
A political green just showed me a graph that he said showed Portugal electricity was 100% renewable powered in the last quarter of 2023
Look Portugal does have loads of hydro
However when people start throwing around figures like 97%, 100% that doesn’t look real world
He of course gave no source
I tracked it down to chart on the electric corp’s website of the mix they serve to Green Tariff customers
On the same page they had a general business customer chart that showed electric mix to them was 35.6% NATURAL GAS
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNz8gGVW8AAzjab.jpg:small
https://www.endesa.pt/particulares/quemsomos/Origem-de-Energia
Electricity map shows for 2023
https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/PT
12.9 TWh wind
9.9 TWh gas
9.88 TWh hydro
3.61 TWh solar
1.17 TWh pumped hydro which provably required about 1.6TWh of pumping
Hydro is among the better recent years: some years have been little more than 5 TWh. Overall production has dropped from about 55 TWh in 2017/18 to 43TWh as they phased out coal that accounted for 60% of output.. The previous export surpluses to Spain have evaporated: they may now be net importers. This year is a good one for hydro. The surplus has been driving Spanish prices close to zero in recent weeks and months.
This morning we’re getting just over 6GW from the interconnectors.
Does anyone know how much we’re paying for this or how to find out?
According to euenergy . live https://euenergy.live/country.php?a2=PT :
Currently, Portugal has one of the highest electricity prices in Europe, with prices for households and small businesses significantly above the EU average.
This is partly due to the country’s heavy reliance on imported energy, which makes up around 65% of its energy consumption.
I don’t know if the source is reliable
Household prices nay be different, but this useful source shows that wholesale prices have been tracking Spanish ones downwards.
https://ember-climate.org/data/data-tools/europe-power-prices/
You will need to set the chart options appropriately.
No serious person doubts fossil fuels will continue in use much as they are now.
Just looked. Wind contributing 6.79% to UK grid. As impressive (grin) as that sounds it is 1.90GW out total demand of 27.98GW.
The main problem is the people writing these reports do not know that GW is the unit of energy, the GWh is the unit of consumption, and so confuse capacity to generate with ability to generate.
I assume they don’t know, otherwise they are not telling the truth.
Units of energy: Joule, Watt-second, Wh, kWh, MWh, GWh, TWh, calorie, kcal
Units of power: Joule/second, W, kW, MW, TW
Power is the rate of flow of energy.
Energy comes in many forms but the unit remains the Joule
Kinetic 1/2mv^2
gravitational potential mgh
Photon hv
Rotational inertia I ω^2
stored in a capacitor 1/2CV^2
electrostatic potential q1q2/4πε0r
mass energy mc^2
etc.
DC power we know as VA=W.
AC power is basically the same, but because the voltage and current are fluctuating and may be out of phase with each other and potentially of different signs we have to average the main positive flow when they are the same sign, known as real power, and the negative flow when they are of different sign known as reactive power, Useful energy delivery is from the real power, while reactive power goes to heating up the lines via ohmic resistance.