The Government recognizes two major energy challenges: the need to “tackle climate change by cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and the need to ensure we have secure energy supplies” (1). Wind power fails on both these counts and neither can it end the oft-made “threat of nuclear power..." (2)
1) Wind farms produce little electricity for a huge ‘footprint’, and it is unreliable
A large wind turbine generates 2.0 megawatts (MW) or more and, with an average wind limitation figure of near 25% (load factor), will produce a running average of 0.5 MW. Compare this with a big power station of 1500 MW which gives a running average of 1000 MW, or more. It would need at least 2000 turbines to displace this and at 0.2 km2 per turbine would require 400 km2 of land to provide about 2% of UK average generation! Into a bad bargain, the conventional station cannot be closed, as is needed to cover low wind-speed periods as discussed below – the problem of intermittency.
2) Wind power has minimal impact on CO2 emissions
The Government's own figure for saving of CO2 emission by renewable power generation, mainly wind, is just 9.2 million tonnes per year by 2010. That amount is less than the emission from a single middle sized coal-fired power station, and more tellingly, it is less than four ten-thousandths (0.0004) of global total CO2 emission and stands no chance of altering atmospheric CO2 concentration, still less deflecting climate change (3a & b).
3) Wind power is intermittent and unpredictable
A recent report from UCTE, the European transmission coordinator put the matter succinctly: - “The variable contributions from wind power must be balanced almost completely with other back-up generation capacity located elsewhere" (4). Because the UK has a small capacity grid-connection to Europe, the back-up generation will need to be fossil fuel power stations in this country – some indeed dedicated to supporting wind.
4) Wind power cannot replace nuclear generation
This is dismissed by the Sustainable Development Commission which wrote: - "... it would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity..." (5). Nuclear generation is ideally suited to providing base-load generation, running continuously at peak output except for servicing. Intermittent wind power cannot do this.
5) Wind power is expensive
Wind power is two to three times as expensive as conventionally generated electricity (6) a problem which is addressed by the covert subsidy of the Renewables Obligation, and associated extras. "Without the renewable obligation certificates nobody would be building wind farms." (7). All electricity consumers pay substantially for this in their bills, providing a subsidy to the wind industry which will total more than £1 billion/year by 2010 (8). In 2005, the Commons’ Committee of Public Accounts criticized this arrangement: - "The Renewables Obligation is currently at least four times more expensive than the other means of reducing carbon dioxide currently used in the United Kingdom......Requiring users to source supplies from uneconomic providers has the same affect as taxing users to subsidize the providers, but is not as transparent or amenable to parliamentary control."
6) Wind power is economically damaging
The target renewable figure for 2010 will require more than 6500 turbines (2.0 MW) in some of the finest coastal and upland landscapes (necessary for high wind availability). The impact will be enormous. Many parts of Britain depend on tourism, for example in rural Wales it is probably an order of magnitude more valuable than agriculture and there is evidence that wind development will deter tourists. A Scottish survey suggested that more than a quarter might be deterred from returning by ‘turbinisation’ whilst, in 2003, the Wales Tourist Board concluded from a survey of businesses in mid-Wales that "Just over half of the respondents thought wind farms have already and will continue to have an adverse effect on visitors coming to the area" (9a&b). The financial implication is dire. The maximum predictable earning by wind electricity, e.g. in Wales, is much smaller, by more than 30 times, than that of the tourism which it will harm.
Property values may also be at risk. A study of its members' opinions by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in 2004 concluded that "60% of the sample suggested that wind farms decrease the value of residential properties where the development is within view..." (10) In mid-Wales, individual properties have been shown at valuation to lose perhaps 25% of their worth (11).
7) Wind power is environmentally damaging
In addition their impact on the landscape, there is unequivocal evidence that wind farms in some places kill large numbers of birds and bats. Soaring raptors and other large slow-flying birds are particularly at risk. The RSPB is at last beginning to oppose some planning applications on such grounds, e.g. on the Isle of Lewis where there is risk to eagles (Birds August 2007). Altamont Pass in California has taken a gigantic toll of raptors - including more than 75 golden eagles per year, and wind farms are known to be killing hundreds of bats per year in the US (12 a & b).
Many planned wind farms are situated on areas of deep blanket peat which are made up of stored carbon compounds which have accumulated over many thousands of years but are prone to rapid oxidation if they are drained, as is almost inevitable if access roads and deep wind turbine foundations are constructed. Though the energy and carbon payback time of a wind turbine is only a year or so (13), in deep peat areas this may be much more than doubled by the oxidative loss of stored carbon (14) – a paradoxical situation in which CO2 is emitted to save its emission!
Conclusion
Government policies with regard to wind power development are fatally flawed. This damaging industry can provide only a tiny electricity supply of low grade 'wobbliness', at huge expense and needing subsidy paid by all consumers. Furthermore, the economic, environmental and, ultimately, political damage are unacceptable.
References
1. Energy White Paper: Our Energy Future (2007).
2. Yes2Wind website.
3. a. DEFRA (2004) Consultation on the review of the UK Climate Change Programme (the report actually gives a figure of 2.5 Mt carbon/year saved by renewable electricity generation [mainly wind]. This is equivalent to 9.2 Mt CO2). b. OECD Factbook 2005. Economic Environmental and Social Statistics (c. 24,000 Mt CO2 total global emission p.a. of human origin – by ratio the UK renewable electricity target saving is 0.00038 – about four ten-thousandths).
4. UCTE (2007) European Wind Integration Study: Towards a Successful Integration of Wind Power into European Electricity Grids.
5. Sustainable Development Commission (2005) Windpower in the UK.
6. PB Power (2006) Powering the nation (an update of RAE’s 2004 report, The Costs of Generating Electricity.
7. Paul Golby, CE of E.ON UK quoted in Daily Telegraph 26/03/2005.
8. Energy White Paper:Meeting the Energy Challenge (2003) S.4.7
9. a. VisitScotland (2003) Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Scotland. b. Wales Tourist Board (October 2003) Investigation into the Potential Impact of Wind Farms on Tourism in Wales. Summary report;
10. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2004) Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land.
11. Remax Estate Agency (2005). Report on a sample of properties inspected near a proposed wind farm at Esgairwen Fawr .
12. a. Center for Biological Diversity. Altamont Pass is the most lethal wind farm in North America for raptors. B. Scientific American February (2004) When Blade Meets Bat (the author is a writer for Windpower Monthly).
13. House of Lords (2004) Science and Technology Committee Fourth Report.Appendix: energy payback times.
14. Hall, M. J. (2006). Peat, carbon dioxide payback and wind farms. REF.
(Dr Etherington was formerly Reader in Ecology, University of Wales)
No comments:
Post a Comment