|
|
HSGWAG. Helmdon, Stuchbury and Greatworth Wind Farm Action Group
Is Wind Power viable ?
Why is Wind Power becoming increasingly common?
In response to the threat of Global warming the current UK Government signed up to a European Agreement which binds us to provide 20% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. To encourage this to happen, the UK government set targets for energy companies and there are penalties if those targets are not reached, just as there are also lucrative financial rewards if they are met. The UK Government financial incentive strategy has thus far been for wind power in preference to the multitude of other options.
In 2003, the Energy White Paper introduced the concept of "Renewables Obligation". In essence this forced suppliers (like Scottish Power, British Gas, Eon etc) to purchase a proportion of their electricity from renewable sources in the form of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). This obligation started at 3% but rises to 10% by 2010 and then increases by 1% per annum thereafter.
If energy suppliers don't buy ROCs they pay a financial penalty to the suppliers of Renewable energy (which incidentally they pass back on to you and me in our electricity bills).
This environment is financially lucrative to anyone wanting to go into the wind energy market. Not only do they get to "sell" their electricity, they also get a bung of money for it being "green" electricity. That bung comes from you and me in the form of higher electricity bills (roughly adding £60 per year).
So what's the problem?
Whilst the set up intentions were good, the financial rewards from setting up a wind farm are so lucrative that it has now encouraged wind farm applications across the country in places which would previously have been considered unsuitable, for example;
- Areas of low wind (Enertrag, the German company proposing the Sulgrave-Weston site has confirmed this is the least windy part of the country).
- Remote and exposed places are running out and wind farms are coming closer to habitation, bringing with them the associated issues of living so close to large scale industrial machines.
Doubt over Lower Carbon Emissions
Wind energy's premise has always been that it will reduce carbon emissions because it reduces our reliance on the traditional power stations and of course at the point of electricity generation, the turbines produce no CO2 output. But consider Denmark as an example:
Last year, the Guardian ran an article stating that wind power has actually led to an increase in carbon emissions in Denmark. It stated:
"Denmark has the most intense concentration of wind generation in Europe. At peak output, its wind farms can account for nearly 64 per cent of Danish peak power, but that rarely occurs.
Last year, Danish carbon emissions rose as the Danish grid fell back on older, coal-fired power stations to plug the energy gap left by underperforming wind farms. Its power stations used 50 per cent more coal than in 2005 to cover the failings of wind power, and its wind turbines generated a mere 22 per cent of electricity, down from 29 per cent in 2005. The increased demand for coal and the fact that it was burned in old, unmodified stations meant that Danish carbon emissions rose by 36 per cent in 2006. ....I suspect that Danish investment in clean coal is imminent."
To date, no conventional power plant in Denmark has been shut down. Due to the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. They cannot be ramped up or down when required because this would increase the CO2 output. Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported.
Aase Madsen, Danish MP and chair of Energy Policy is on record as saying, "for our Industry it has been a terribly expensive disaster"
Why is Wind Power becoming increasingly common?
In response to the threat of Global warming the current UK Government signed up to a European Agreement which binds us to provide 20% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020. To encourage this to happen, the UK government set targets for energy companies and there are penalties if those targets are not reached, just as there are also lucrative financial rewards if they are met. The UK Government financial incentive strategy has thus far been for wind power in preference to the multitude of other options.
In 2003, the Energy White Paper introduced the concept of "Renewables Obligation". In essence this forced suppliers (like Scottish Power, British Gas, Eon etc) to purchase a proportion of their electricity from renewable sources in the form of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). This obligation started at 3% but rises to 10% by 2010 and then increases by 1% per annum thereafter.
If energy suppliers don't buy ROCs they pay a financial penalty to the suppliers of Renewable energy (which incidentally they pass back on to you and me in our electricity bills).
This environment is financially lucrative to anyone wanting to go into the wind energy market. Not only do they get to "sell" their electricity, they also get a bung of money for it being "green" electricity. That bung comes from you and me in the form of higher electricity bills (roughly adding £60 per year).
So what's the problem?
Whilst the set up intentions were good, the financial rewards from setting up a wind farm are so lucrative that it has now encouraged wind farm applications across the country in places which would previously have been considered unsuitable, for example;
- Areas of low wind (Enertrag, the German company proposing the Sulgrave-Weston site has confirmed this is the least windy part of the country).
- Remote and exposed places are running out and wind farms are coming closer to habitation, bringing with them the associated issues of living so close to large scale industrial machines.
Doubt over Lower Carbon Emissions
Wind energy's premise has always been that it will reduce carbon emissions because it reduces our reliance on the traditional power stations and of course at the point of electricity generation, the turbines produce no CO2 output. But consider Denmark as an example:
Last year, the Guardian ran an article stating that wind power has actually led to an increase in carbon emissions in Denmark. It stated:
"Denmark has the most intense concentration of wind generation in Europe. At peak output, its wind farms can account for nearly 64 per cent of Danish peak power, but that rarely occurs.
Last year, Danish carbon emissions rose as the Danish grid fell back on older, coal-fired power stations to plug the energy gap left by underperforming wind farms. Its power stations used 50 per cent more coal than in 2005 to cover the failings of wind power, and its wind turbines generated a mere 22 per cent of electricity, down from 29 per cent in 2005. The increased demand for coal and the fact that it was burned in old, unmodified stations meant that Danish carbon emissions rose by 36 per cent in 2006. ....I suspect that Danish investment in clean coal is imminent."
To date, no conventional power plant in Denmark has been shut down. Due to the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants must be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity. They cannot be ramped up or down when required because this would increase the CO2 output. Denmark is just dependent enough on wind power that when the wind is not blowing right they must import electricity. In 2000 they imported more electricity than they exported.
Aase Madsen, Danish MP and chair of Energy Policy is on record as saying, "for our Industry it has been a terribly expensive disaster"
Related links
What can you do !