Just look at your area, windmills being installed today make an earlier generation (less than a decade ago) uneconomic.
This is true of windfarms built in the 80s, but not those built since the second half of the nineties, which benefitted pretty much from the same incentives than we have now (the feed in tariffs in Germany and some other places go down by a few per cent each year for new projects).
With the cost of material and equipement going up, today's windfarms probably produce power at a cost which is not that much lower than those built ten years ago - but lest that sound bad, the increase has been much less than for other power sources in recent years, so wind has still become more competitive, relatively speaking.
Plus, wind turbines built 10 years ago have been amortised by now and produce essentially free electricity today. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
In northern Europe, the vast majority of the machines installed from the 90's on are still running in the same cash cow mode. (I can't speak for Spain.)
Now, let's get to one of the key hidden points of the BP "serious analysis," regarding renewables. Hayward states:
While biofuels, wind and solar energy are growing rapidly, they comprise a tiny share - less than 2 per cent - of global energy production.
The usual silly argument that renewables are still small and therefore will remain so. We have not tried yet to make them big. To a large extent, renewables are still being developed against the common wisdom of the serious people and against ferocious lobbying by traditional sectors (both the coal and nuclear industry spend a lot of effort lobbying against wind) and prominent NIMBYs, and they have never been a priority of policy (there are policies in place, and they work, but they are still seen in Washington, Brussels and other capitals like London or Paris as something that you do to look green rather than because it makes sense). As I've argued many times, wind is cheap, understood, and able to provide a lot more of our energy than generally admitted, but that idea has yet to sink in, and Hayward's argument is typical of that.
From the policy side, it has been obvious for decades that the battle against renewables is not on the merits, but rather on the social aspects; centralized generation and delivery vs. decentralized, widening of the profit field and the invasion of new players, and a general lack of social control that comes (mostly undiscussed) with decentralized renewables.
Had many of the utilities not swept windpower aside, they would have already been the controlling players of the industry, instead of as currently fighting for position. Though it's impossible to prove, one must suspect that the major oil players suffer from the same myopic disease. They have been involved with renewable projects for at least a decade, at least haltingly, and have been on the fringes of the industry for far longer.
So they already know the true value of renewables, and that they are not going full force forward shows their underlying unwillingness to drive the train.
In the specific case of BP, they have had a poor marriage with windpower, as they have chosen Clipper Windpower as their major investment. I know personally how closely they are following the technical development of the company, the turbines and the projects. This can not be a good experience for them.
But they are a significant enough player to have had detailed discussions with many of the other majors, and are well aware that the Clipper experience is not typical of the rest of the industry.
I say they are compromised when they are involved in renewables, and it shouldn't take a genius to figure out why. I know of decisions they could have made for significant advancement of the industry, and they chose to withhold.
It will not be the oil majors who lead us to a renewably powered civilization. Skennah Kowa
BP has never been a player
Total has ignored the market, as have the Americans.
The Europeans seem to be looking more seriously at solar, and some at second generation biofuels, but altogether the effort seems puny. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
At least Total is going into nuclear energy. Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
I think Jerome had it right above with the "Areva sells carbon-free energy". That's what all these companies have in common Also, they are used to high capital investments and low running costs, as opposed to the low(er) capital investment and high(er, from fuel) running costs of the other companies. When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done. — John M. Keynes
this is like whoring out family members, or selling children into slavery while sitting on a goldmine in your backyard.
going for darwin award... The person who says it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it. Chinese Proverb.
