Are the wind power lobby “ignorant extremists”?

By , Tuesday, 25 August 2009, 15 Comments

Wind turbineWe talk a lot about wind farms on this blog but it’s rare to hear anyone describe their supporters as “ignorant extremists.”

I received a letter last week from a man who was enraged at the comments of an Oxford councillor who was promoting the council’s decision to construct a wind turbine in the city.

The offending quote was ” Wind turbines are quiet, graceful and not a threat to wildlife. Compared to ugly electricity pylons wind turbines are a huge improvement for Oxford’s environment. The real threat to our countryside locally is not wind turbines but climate change.

“I hope everyone will support this wind turbine plan as a practical way of helping to save our planet. Both the City Council and Partnerships for Renewables are committed to ensuring that the local community is central to the development process.”

In response to this the letter said: “You don’t have to read far into the topic to find that the Chief Executive of E.ON (UK) in his recent evidence to the House of Lords Committee on energy matter stated that wind power requires up to 90% of its stated capacity to be built (replicated) in conventional generation in order to guarantee electricity supplies.

“So how can it be argued that building a coal-fired or other power station to meet 90% of the maximum theoretical output of this beloved wind turbine will save any meaningful weight of greenhouse gas emissions, let alone have any beneficial effect on climate change?

“It is quite probable that wind turbines in most locations actually cause more emissions to be released in their overall life cycle than they ever save.”

“There’s nothing ‘green’ about huge structures that kill significant numbers of raptors and other birds, especially those migrating; that emit low frequency noise that distracts those who live near them day and night; that throw out huge chunks of blade fragments when hit by strong gales; that destroy the landscape of vast swathes of rural Britain simply to satisfy a load of ignorant extremists and politicians who have no understanding of power generation, transmission and supply.

“Such people are dangerous to Britain’s environment and now risk driving millions of low income families into fuel poverty. Who will pay their ramped up electricity bills?”

The wind farm debate seems totally polarised between those like the letter writer above and those who support turbine construction. I’m in the latter camp, I believe wind farms can play a large role in Britain’s future energy mix alongside, solar, tidal and *gulp* nuclear.

If we are being ‘brainwashed’ into creating a country dominated by wind turbines then it would surely be the biggest con trick ever pulled by big business and I find such conspiracies hard to believe.

That said, there is a lot of spin regarding the so-called ‘green economy’ surrounding wind farms. The projections mooted by the government are just that – projections – no one can be sure how many will actually be employed by wind farm construction, operation and maintenance. 

As demonstrated by what happened with the Isle of White Vestas factory, the UK has already missed the boat in wind farm construction and any future wind farms built in the UK will be coming from overseas, an action which in itself undermines their green credentials.

Let me know what you think.

Tags: ,
  • Judge Lionel Nutmeg

    Whereas I disagree with much of what the letter writer said, I do think we need to be careful with the siting of windfarms in terms of visual impact and in terms of the amount of energy the can produce, otherwise they have will have little benefit.

  • TUFTED JAKE

    The letter writer is a bit of a nutter?

    I AM TUFTED JAKE

  • http://www.windenergyplanning.com Vicky Portwain

    I don’t believe we have necessarily missed the boat as we do have the power to change things. It will however take very strong will to do so. I read yesterday that the reason Vestas went to America was partly due to the American philosophy ‘Just Do It’. I don’t think that wind farm developers should get consent for everything and anything, however greater certainty is needed to give tubine companies confidence.

    In response to the ill-informed letter a report by the Environmental Change Institute at Oxford University a few years ago said:

    - The development of wind power will result in a reduced need for conventional capacity – with wind power supplying 10% of UK electricity, around 3GW of conventional plant could be retired… for more details visit http://www.windenergyplanning.com/top-ten-wind-energy-myths/

    Even if importing wind turbines, the carbon pay back from turbines would be under 1 years worth of generation and of course many of the materials are locally sourced e.g. for tracks and turbine foundations. However I agree it would be much better if they were locally manufactured.

  • Michael Sceptic

    I think that the wind turbine craze is a mania. The objective is to get something done no matter what to show how “on-side” you are in the great climate change movement. The more visible the better for this purpose regardless of landscape harm.

    The facts are that cli8mate change has happened many times before; there is no proof that this time it is man-made CO2;even if there were there is no point in ourdoing anything when the rest of the world will not; and even if they didn’t windfarms are a crazily ineffuiceint way of going about it compared to nuclear.

    The bext thing to do however is nothing. Any modest effects of climate change should any occur can be dealt with when they do and meanwhile we will save a fortune in taxes to fund these follies as well as our precious landscapes.

    The bottom line is that any cause advocated by the likes Ed Milliband, Jonathan Porritt and Al Gore is worth looking at with considerable scepticism.

    • Rick

      Michael Sceptic – No proof? where’ve you been for the past 10 years? There is an awful lot of academically verified and peer-reviewed evidence that demonstrates that climate change is happening and that it is in part, if not entirely, due to the activities of mankind. It isn’t necessarily proven beyond all doubt but the validity of the evidence is far greater than any evidence to the contrary (as of about 18 months ago there wasn’t a single piece of peer-reviewed evidence disproving that climate change is a man-made phenonoma that wasn’t either funded by those with a vested interest in oil or peer-reviewed by those funded by those with an interest in oil).
      You seem to doubt that climate change is happening? I suggest you need to read the annual UKCIP reports which clearly show that it is. From my own point of view, over the past 45 years of living at the same house the road outside has flooded 6 times – 5 of them in the past 5 years. My annual crop of tomatoes has failed 8 times – 6 of them in the past 10 years. It isn’t conclusive evidence, but tie that to all the other evidence from around the world and you can’t possibly conclude that climate change isn’t happening. It’s naive and dangerous to the future of not just our species but all other species as well to conclude otherwise.
      “The best thing to do however is nothing” – by all means sit and drown whilst the water rises around you – but don’t be so selfish as to suggest that everyone else should also drown just because you can’t be bothered to stand up. Climate change is happening, almost beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore it makes sense to do whatever possible to combat it, not just in terms of reducing the extent to which it happens but also in terms of adapting our physical environment to mitigate the impacts of it. I for one would rather do whatever is necessary to combat climate change and then be proved wrong than to sit doing nothing with my fingers in my ears going “la la la” and be proved wrong.
      No-one is really saying lets put wind turbines everywhere, regardless of the harm they cause – as with any planning decision it needs to be a balance between the benefits (i.e. CO2 savings) and the disbenefits (i.e. impact on landscape). There are potentially far greater CO2 savings to be had through, for example, off-shore wind power – but that isn’t a reason to not exploit on-shore opportunities where possible and where it can be done without a disproportionate impact upon the landscape. Given that the evidence suggests we have no choice but to act, the impact on landscape of not acting might be far greater than the impact of wind turbines.

  • http://www.windenergyplanning.com Vicky Portwain

    I’m sure all those living in flood plains in the UK and those whose lives are at risk in countries like Bangladesh will be delighted by your suggestion to do nothing. Your point about climate change being linked to human activities also contradicts what the majority of scientists now believe.

    • PlanningGod

      There is now overwhelming support in the UK that we should be doing something to slow, halt and even reverse climate change.

      However, the arguement for constructing thousands of wind turbines across the countryside has some way to go to convince the majority of UK residents.

      My own opinion is we have jumped the gun yet again due to commercial and political pressure. Had we spent more time and money researching offshore windfarm technology 10-15 years ago, we could have saved thousands of hectares of UK countryside from the blight that these structures cause.

      Of course, with all the wind turbines in the North and Irish seas there would be no major landowners making money and giving support to government…..

  • TUFTED JAKE

    Ignoring the George W Bush-esque comments on climate change above, there are surely issues regarding the finite supply of fossil fuels and problems inherent in dealing with nuclear waste.

    Even without climate change, there is a need for alternative means of producing electricity. If wind turbines do prove to be a fad (which seems unlikely) they can be removed can’t they? Seems much better for the precious landscape than drilling for oil in Alaska or open cast coal mining.

    I AM TUFTED JAKE

  • http://www.windenergyplanning.com Vicky Portwain

    Planning God – with offshore wind the Crown Estate gets huge license fees from the wind energy companies. It is scary the extent of the UK and surrounding sea bed they control…

    Not only can the turbines be taken down very easily, much of the material eg. steel towers can be recycled – if they are not sold on second hand on e-bay (I joke not).

  • Windy Miller

    In our convenience based society, energy generation has become a bit like food production. People are happy to use it so long as they dont have to think about where it comes from. I doubt if the letter writer would be too concerned whether his power comes from Alaska or anywhere else for that matter so long as it doesnt affect his view of what the Great British countryside should look like. In the same way that TV chefs of late have tried to raise awareness of how meat is produced, we need to be more aware of and accountable for the energy we use. Britain developed by clearing indigenous forests for fuel. We seem to value our currently barren agricultural landscapes, yet we look on in horror at the south americans and others clearing their indigenous forests in the same manner. The industrial revolution and all the towns cities and buildings it created (and are now cherished and listed) was powered by the exploitation of britains coal fields. How many of these would get planning permission without public inquiries today? Post war hyrdo schemes were hugley controversial but are now valued country parks and visitor attractions. More recent prosperity has come from north sea oil and gas which was conveniently out of site and out of mind. However as these and other resources have been used up we have become increasingly reliant on imports. Importing oil, gas, coal, uranium and timber from abroad whilst convenient, is neither economically nor environmentally sustainable. Wind turbines and other renewable technologies allow us to generate at least a part of the electricty that we now rely on from readily available indigenous natural resoures. In doing so it provides an opportunity to generates wealth and employment in often dormitory rural areas. Europe without access to north sea oil and gas has already embraced and invested heavily in renewables for its energy supplies leaving the UK trailing embarassingly behind. The US, China, India also now have major expansion programmes for renewables. Britains economic future depends on having some control over its fuel sources. If we dont develop renewables we will become increasingly reliant on ever most costly imports. Its time to face up to the facts that chickens arent born in shrink wrapped packages and electricty doesnt come from magic fairies.

    • Michael Donnelly

      Windy, that is an excellent piece of writing.

  • Pingback: Oxford Proposes City Wind Turbine | Wind Energy Planning

  • http://www.hightecenergy.com Billy Schwarz

    Wind turbines or generators are a lot better looking than a pole with wires and buzzing transformers.
    The problem is that governments have not found a way to tax the power of the wind. Where I live there is a 5% sales tax on the electric power you purchase. There is 0% on what you generate.
    Its not a matter ignorance but of money
    .

  • http://www.transportable-homes.com transportable homes

    While surfing Google I found your post…very interesting! I enjoy reading about this type of stuff. I’ll certainly bookmark your site for additional review

    • Michael Donnelly

      thanks!

Latest jobs Jobs web feed