The Renewable Energy Foundation are an interesting campaign group. They are pro-renewable, but anti-windfarm. While their concern about carbon emissions are genuine, they seem excessively opposed to wind, while citing tidal power, solar power and biofuels as alternatives. But tidal power is a technology that needs a couple more decades to become viable, solar power is next to useless in a country with so little sun in winter, when it most needs it, and biofuels need plenty of resouces - to produce the 12GW of electrical power needed to reach the government’s 2010 renewable target (of just 10% of our power being generated by renewables), at 200 GJ per hectare per year (a rough estimate of grown biofuels’ capability), we’d need 1.89 million hectares of land - that’s nearly a third the UK’s current arable farmland. The 5000 wind turbines needed would only take up 120,000 hectares.
So being pro-renewable and anti-wind doesn’t leave much room for manoeuvre, really, which is why perhaps they advocate the highly renewable option of, er, scraping as much North Sea oil as we can and relying on CO2 sequestration, another technology that is still in early stages, to cover for it.
Alright, they could just be concerned citizens who object to windfarms for aesthetic reasons (while being more than happy to see our countryside turned into a giant oilseed rape factory), but given they’re backed by “anonymous wealthy individuals” (the only prominent one being Noel Edmonds), it makes one suspicious. I get even more suspicious when you find out David White, the author of their scientific report on the inefficacy of windfarms, is an oil refinery expert who spent over 30 years with Exxon. The report itself is scaremongering, although individual windturbines are variable in output, that variability is balanced across the system (especially over a large landmass like the UK), and no data are given to show how much ‘backup’ from coal-fired power stations, that supposedly will wipe out the carbon savings, is actually needed.
I’m not excessively pro-windfarm - it’s unlikely they can provide more than 20% of our electricity without becoming costly, and the REF are right in saying that electricity generation (the largest emission producer) is only part of the solution - reducing emissions from transport and improving energy efficiency, while investing innovation in other renewable technologies, are also important. Windfarms are one part of a multi-threaded approach, but are still an essential part - we are the windiest country in Europe, the technology is mature (Denmark, a far less windy country than us, gets 18% of its power from wind) and you cannot ditch windfarms when there is no viable short-term alternative to producing energy without producing CO2 emissions.
Subscribe via RSS
March 9th, 2005 at 20:24:24
Solar is probably only worth considering for domestic renewables, although a roof of photovoltaic panels will provide much of domestic requirements. The suggestion that there is not as much power available during the winter is only partly true - the reason that it is colder is that the sun is at a shallower angle to the earth, although it might be more cloudy as well, I haven’t checked. The light intensity facing the sun is around the same on a clear day in summer as in winter, and the cold temperatures help the panel operate more efficiently. As roof panels are on a slope, they will generate most power at a certain time of the year when the sun is at the correct height. Right, I will stop being pedantic now.
The real problem with solar power is that it is far too expensive. Currently a solar roof will cost £10000-£20000 to install, of which 50% can be claimed back from the DTI. Even so, assuming a 25 year lifespan, the electricity will still cost double what it costs from the grid. If we spent as much on solar energy research as we do on nuclear fuel disposing and reprocessing then we could improve the technology no end.
Max
March 10th, 2005 at 11:11:48
While being only faintly aware of the organisation you refer to, I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally wrong in objecting to windfarms for aesthetic reasons.
A large number of windfarms, many with a large number of turbines, are being proposed for some of the most unspoilt and desolate landscapes in Britain (before you mention it, you are quite right - the ones that are particularly exercising me are planned for some of the most unspoilt and desolate landscapes in Scotland. So far as I can tell, Little Chef and the Ford Mondeo ruined much of the rest of it a long time ago). There is a well-meaning rush to windpower, without (as you correctly highlight above) much thought being given to reducing emissions in the first place. There is a point beyond mere aesthetics - many of these regions (such as e.g. the Scottish Borders - a stunningly attractive area) depend heavily on tourism for their income (demise of traditional industries, failure to invest in transport links, continued thrall to the miserable overpopulated South East rant rant rant). It would be a double outrage if the advent of windfarms were to reduce the economic as well as the aesthetic value of the landscape/ asset on which areas like this to a greater or lesser extent rely. That said, some communities (particularly in the islands) have made money from their own schemes - however, are these not smaller and more local than the ones the energy companies are proposing?
Some wag came up with a plan recently to site wind turbines on Salisbury Crags, in central Edinburgh (and wittily near Holyrood, the Palace and Parliament). That was intended to highlight much of the nimbyism that surrounds the debate, and which pushes landbased farms to more remote areas. There are, though, equally sound reasons for not planting farms in those more remote areas.
Solutions? Use less energy in the first place. Tackle other sources of emissions (er…aviation? Replace Alastair Darling with a speak-your-weight machine). Invent things - like that little miniturbine someone (from Edinburgh, I think) invented to put on top of your house and generate power - sound plan. Put windfarms offshore. Or in extremely ugly places of no natural interest whatsoever, where nobody in their right minds would either live or visit (this definition cleverly excludes all of rural Scotland, while including rather less attractive areas)
March 10th, 2005 at 13:57:12
Solar power is quite good actually. Considering all of the surface area that’s sitting around unused on top of people’s houses there’s the potential to generate a huge amount of electricity, even in cloudy Britain during winter. To do this you’d need to increase production by several orders of magnitude which would also help with efficiencies of scale and such like. It would help if the government put more investment in this [cf Germany's 1 million solar roofs project] to help kickstart progress.
Another advantage with solar roofs is that you don’t lose energy through grid transmission which is a big problem with wind farms [particularly the more efficient offshore variety].
If you look at the RCEP report on this sort of thing you’ll see that to really tackle this problem we have to completely change something about our energy infrastructure. They suggest community heat production plants to more efficiently produce space-heating for homes, but I’m not sure how that’d work.
The government hasn’t even begun to think about how we’d change our energy infrastructure in such radical ways [perhaps replacing electricity grid transmission with hydrogen gas transmission to generate heat and electricity at source of use?] which is going to be necessary within the next few decades.
March 10th, 2005 at 14:46:44
The reform of the national electricity grid to a more decentralised system is a good idea, not just as it might enable solar but it would also make for easier urban deployment of other renewables, like small wind turbines in people’s homes and gardens (as well as shops and office blocks and the like - the onus should not just be on domestic users). I am still doubtful that the low amount of sun, especially given how pitfully short winter days are up here in Scotland, and the relatively small area of urban development relative to its energy needs, can make solar that viable, but I could well be wrong.
The local heat plants - I’ve read that in some government white papers, it looks a nice idea in theory but is strictly on the drawing board at the moment. Piped hydrogen would be a massive disruption (either laying new pipes, or converting the existing gas system), I’d prefer research into fuel cells (which could be used to store excess wind and solar energy), which would also help target the transport problem.
March 10th, 2005 at 15:55:33
This may well be an impractical suggestion as my knowledge of engineering is somewhat lacking, but wouldn’t it be possible to put wind turbines on top of buildings in cities?
March 10th, 2005 at 23:56:52
Almost certainly it would - but with an indolent time-server like Margaret Beckett around (she’s the Environment Sec, btw, not that anyone would ever know), how will we ever find out? A huge part of the problem is that this Government, like all those in my living memories (hardly a stellar cast) find it politically useful to pay roughly annual lipservice to “green” issues (some warm words from Toni usually meet the bill), while continuing to do next to nothing of any substance.
March 11th, 2005 at 11:36:28
Is it any wonder that windfarms are suggested for desolate windswept plains, and not places with (a) less wind, and (b) higher land costs?
Personally, I think the middle of nowhere is an ideal place to stick them.
March 11th, 2005 at 15:02:02
But these places aren’t “nowhere” (on the extremely interesting point that nowhere, strictly speaking, is nowhere), they are often quite delicately balanced natural environments. What wouldn’t help is if the people from the less windy places simply tip up, say “We’re going to plonk a windfarm here so we can boil more kettles thousands of miles away” and then go home again.
March 15th, 2005 at 00:50:14
I can’t speak for windfarms in the UK, but those in the US can be VERY noisy at times. On the rare chance that all of the turbines are working at once, it can sound very much like you’re standing behind a C-130 prior to takeoff. The noise tends to scare off every living creature within earshot, except humans of course. People seem to enjoy subjecting their hearing to such assaults.