So Much Wind (eBook)

Total operational wind farms: 355 (6,839.98MW)

Total wind farms currently under construction: 79 (4,396.07MW)

Total Consented Projects: 277 (6,255.21MW)

Total projects in planning: 369 (10,895.73MW)

(Tables taken from Renewable UK website – August 2012 http://www.bwea.com/statistics/)

But even the experts struggle to justify such unrealistic targets. The Adam Smith Institute and the Scientific Alliance recently noted that to deliver 18 or 19 GW of offshore wind, the Government would need to construct another 5,000 turbines before 2020. With only around 120 days per year suitable for offshore construction, that means five turbines will have to be installed every day until 2020. It is just not possible.

In defence of their energy policy the Scottish Government often cites Denmark as a ‘success’ story. Denmark has put massive investment into onshore and offshore wind power and wind has become a major component of their energy mix, but it still only comprises around 20% of all power generated, although they only ever use half of what is generated. Alex Salmond sees Scotland overtaking Denmark to become the ‘green energy capital of Europe’ (European Energy Review 27/08/2012). This obsession with wind power may lead to blackouts in the future and, in any case, Denmark simply cannot be compared to the UK or Scotland. By virtue of its geographical position, Denmark lies in an ‘electrical transit corridor’ with Sweden and Norway to the north and Germany to the south. The benefit of this corridor is that when wind power in Denmark exceeds the limit that their grid can cope with, the power is simply sent to Scandinavia and Germany. Conversely, when Danish wind farms are not working, there are net power inflows, mostly from Norwegian and Swedish hydropower, which balances the Danish grid system and prevents electricity chaos.

The amount of wind the UK experiences is similar to Denmark and our wind farms have similar load factors. However, geographical positioning is the all-important issue. The UK is not in an electrical transit corridor. It is part of an ‘electricity island system’. Therefore, balancing the grid is much more difficult. In Scotland, if we generate too much wind energy, we risk overloading the grid, because of the limitations of the cross-border interconnector. A similar problem exists north of Beauly. That is why the National Grid has to pay millions to power companies to shut down their turbines when there is too much wind.

Grid instability is a serious problem. It is also a costly one. In Germany, sudden fluctuations in the power grid cause major damage at large industrial firms. This has led a few companies to invest in their own individual power generators and regulators in order to reduce the risk of costly damage. Many more executives are now considering freeing themselves completely from Germany’s electricity grid in order to avoid the negative consequences of transitioning to renewable energy. The problem for the Germans is that their grid operators simply cannot predict how strongly the wind will blow (Der Spiegel 16/08/2012). Needless to say, Scottish grid operators will encounter the same problem.

There is also another glaring discrepancy in the Scottish Government’s energy policy. Energy Minister Fergus Ewing recently said that subsidies paid to Scotland’s wind farm operators and landowners come from consumers ‘spread across the UK … since this is how the Renewable Obligation operates and will continue to do so’. So what if Scotland becomes an independent nation before 2020, fulfilling the SNP’s other key objective – who will have to meet the costs of our renewables then? Does Fergus Ewing really expect us to believe that the English would be happy to continue footing the bill for Scotland’s prohibitively expensive and ludicrously ambitious energy targets?

But challenging the new renewables religion is a high-risk strategy. There is a common perception, particularly amongst city dwellers, that wind turbines are clean and green. The usual myths are trotted out: ‘They actually enhance the rural landscape and in any case beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. Such assertions are generally made by people who have only ever seen wind farms on the TV, or at a distance while speeding along the motorway in a car. These are the same people who believe that being opposed to wind turbines is the moral equivalent of climate change denial or voting BNP! They are certainly not people who have to live next to a wind turbine the height of a 65-storey tower block and who have seen their health suffer and the value of their homes plummet as a result.

The city-dwelling wind farm champions describe those who oppose wind turbines as ‘a vocal minority’. This is true inasmuch as it is a minority who inhabit the countryside nowadays and have to live next to these industrial monsters. And so we hear government ministers at Westminster and Holyrood constantly reminding us that repeated surveys show a majority of citizens favour wind energy. We can hardly be surprised that any urban survey of people who never see a turbine will reveal that they are in favour of its use. But once they begin to understand the truth about the inefficiency of these turbines, their disastrous impact on the countryside and the billions in subsidies they absorb, coming directly out of the pockets of consumers, then perhaps in years to come the chattering classes may cease their chatter and change their views.

Rising Demand

Member states of the International Energy Agency (IEA) (including the UK, USA, Australia, Japan and 22 other countries) consume 45% less energy than they did in 1973 to produce the same unit of economic output. Energy consumption per capita has fallen by about 30% in the same period. However, absolute demand for energy continues to rise. Consumption by EU member states is predicted to increase by 30%, that of the USA by 42%, and that of developing countries by around 130%. By 2030, the predicted increase for China is 119% and for South Asia...