Onshore wind policy is out of puff

By Mike Lowson

Published: 04/08/2010

ENERGY Secretary Chris Huhne is one of those politicians who spin faster than a windmill in a gale. He expended much electoral energy warning that a Tory government would be disastrous, but once the final ballot box was emptied he leaped into bed with his erstwhile opponents as one of Cameron’s creaky coalition cronies.

Lib Dems sat on Westminster’s opposition benches so long that the green leather seats were permanently dented by their honourable members’ backsides. They sometimes talked out of them, too, but now they’ve crossed to the dark side they must tackle real issues rather than moaning about them.

Mr Huhne is in charge of a crucial UK ministerial brief. There are few more important issues than continuity of energy supply. He’s proving, however, that turning one’s face in opposite directions simultaneously can do nasty things to one’s countenance, not to mention one’s brain.

In a newspaper interview, he said he was the man who would keep the lights burning, trumpeting a massive expansion of onshore and offshore wind turbines as the key to long-term self-sufficiency. He might have added that the moon is made of cheese, Jeremy Kyle is a Free Church minister and Elvis Presley is alive and running an Inverness pizza-parlour.

Yet again, wind turbines are being trotted out as a panacea for our energy ills. When will people realise that inefficient, unreliable, expensive and ugly onshore windfarms are a joke, and not a very funny one?

One letter in the Press and Journal last week passionately supported wind power, warning us of “civil war and environmental destruction” if it isn’t embraced. The writer said: “We need to stop being sentimental and start being practical.”

Precisely so. Sentimental claptrap about onshore windfarm development must stop and the money pouring into desecrating Scotland’s irreplaceable countryside redirected to other renewable-energy projects, such as underwater tidal-flow turbines. Tides are reliable; wind isn’t. Wind energy is as practical as a chocolate teapot.

Each application for monstrous turbines states they will provide electricity for thousands of houses, but I’m unsure where these houses actually are. It certainly doesn’t mean they’ll be supplied solely by any new wind turbine development. Such PR nonsense should be challenged vigorously and statistically and not swallowed whole like a sugared painkiller.

Thankfully, some people are studying the facts. A recent study by Stewart Young, of Caithness Wind Information Forum, showed that most of Scotland’s large wind turbines are performing appallingly, delivering on average just 17% of capacity for five months this year and, for a third of that time, 5% or less. That’s pathetic.

As far as I can see, not a single megawatt of traditional generating capacity has been mothballed by the introduction of wind-generated power, nor is it likely to be. Last Christmas, the wind didn’t blow at all, so without other generation sources it would have been cold turkey and no EastEnders for everyone.

It’s good news that Scotland places a high priority on renewable energy, but wrong that onshore wind power is part of the mix. We have enough reliable tidal power surging round our coasts to keep the lights on for the foreseeable future, efficiently and largely invisibly, not to mention some offshore wind turbine possibilities, so there’s no need to erect any onshore eyesores. It would be more efficient to cut energy use than to expend even greater dollops of it erecting turbines and costly infrastructure miles from where most energy is required. Huge turbines are just money-making devices for those who hide behind a green agenda. Their political backers are mesmerised by them, losing all sense of balance in the process.

Helen McDade, head of policy at conservation charity the John Muir Trust, said she believed “vested interests and blind hope” were behind onshore windfarm developments. She’s absolutely right. The tiny energy gains are more than overshadowed by the huge losses in landscape quality, I reckon.

Mr Huhne is just the latest politician to suffer from excess wind. As MP for Eastleigh, near Southampton, his official website makes interesting reading. It says he and his party “believe passionately in maintaining the character of our long-standing towns and villages”.

It adds: “Our local environment is priceless, and Chris Huhne and the Liberal Democrats have an outstanding record in protecting, conserving and improving the natural environment.”

If a monstrous windfarm is an improvement to a priceless local environment and the Beauly-Denny power line is a way of protecting it, I’m the Archbishop of Canterbury.

How many windfarms dot the energy-greedy Sussex, Hampshire and Dorset coasts? Almost none. Cynical ministers are considerably more numerous and as reliable as the weather.

Mr Huhne said: “The lights will not go out on my watch.”

Check that watch closely, Chris. Time’s up for your hilltop turbine policy. Like a flatulent goldfish it’s all wind and no practical use.

Reader's Comments

I live a couple of miles from a wind farm and the idea that they are ugly or eyesores is complete nonsense. They are majestic and beautiful and massively improve the look of the local landscape.
Phil Bennett
Report this comment

Phil Bennett. If turbines, in your words, "massively improve the look of the local landscape", how come every turbine planning application has to provide information on "adverse visual impacts", damage to residential amenity and information on the likelihood of them exceeding noise limits?
Will Gordon
Report this comment

I don't like electricity at all, so not only should these appalling turbines be banned, so also should their pathetic transmission pylons. Eyesores, if you ask me. The existion ones are OK, though because I'm used to them.

Nevermind the fact that wind power is a proven techology, with a 50 year history of providing power to national grids around Europe, I much prefer to wait for underwater and deepwater technology which hasn't even been demonstrated on a commercial scale yet.

Actually, why even bother with that, shortly the ITER reactor will (or won't) be up and running in Southern France and will (or wont) pave the way to a demonstration-scale fusion power plant. We should wait for that, nevermind mucking around with underwater windmills and other such chocolate teapots.

Indeed, with the Large Hadron Collider about to reach full power somewhere beneath Switzerland, there is a chance that, in a few years time, novel physics could result which might point the way to a decades-long research programme which has the possibility to lead to as yet undreamt-of power sources for the future of humanity. We should wait for that. No need to waste billions on expensive and possibly futile fusion research when we might see something even better in the future, I reckon.

Can you see how big a fan of the environment I am? I don't want these carbuncular impositions mucking up my view, just for the sake of electricity! Which I don't even like!

So, having demonstrated my environmental credentials, let me just say that I'm also dead against the Aberdeen bypass. Why oh why are we considering a bypass for Aberdeen, when there are possibilites for hovercars and jetpacks just around the corner which will make the bypass a monstrous chocolate teapot.

Let's have no more sentimental claptrap from the roads lobby about economic growth and congestion and fastlinks and other such PR nonsense which the council and government swallow whole like a sugared painkiller. Let's just cross our fingers, wish real hard, and maybe Santa will bring us our jetpack. We have been good all year.

Psychogeography for Aberdeen!


Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Oh dear, Ludwig. Smartypants satirical stuff seldom works with the punters who actually have to worry about the cost of the bills. As for your assertion that, "wind power is a proven techology, with a 50 year [exaggerated] history of providing power to national grids around Europe", can I give the other half of the story: Wind power generation in Germany and Denmark has not substituted for more than a tiny percentage of coal- and gas-fired capacity. Check the figures. Nor has it prevented more than a vanishingly small percentage of carbon emissions. The German Greens told us that big wind would close down nuclear and much of coal-fired capacity. It hasn't happened. In fact the Germans are having to build many new coal- and lignite-fired power stations in order to stabilise their grid. Denmark's coal consumption in 2007 was only about 4% lower than it was back in 1981 before the wind bubble inflated. The Danes have had enough - their government proposes ending subsidies for onshore wind in 2012 and putting the money into biogas, hydrogen and solar cell development. "The government's ally, the Danish People's Party, welcomed the proposal, pointing out that the subsidies had cost residents and electric companies billions of kroner. "Party group chairman Kristian Thulesen Dahl said consumers had paid huge additional charges on their electric bills for almost three decades, based on an ideological desire to promote the development of wind turbines." (Copenhagen Post, 21 September 2009). The Danes are currently panicking because Sweden has approved the construction of 10 new nuclear power stations which will destroy the market for their hugely expensive wind power. Jyllands-Posten summed it up: "New nuclear power stations in Finland and Sweden are poison for the Danish wind industry, but good for electricity prices." (18 June 2010). So, 30 years behind the curve, we have learned nothing from other countries and are repeating their mistakes. Just as they are beginning to see the error of their ways and change tack!
Will Gordon
Report this comment

Oh dear, Will.
You should read what I have actually written, rather than just attempt to gainsay what you thought I wrote.

FWIW, I'll put down my marker and spell out that, if I did like electricity, I would be advocating nuclear power, and I would have been advocating it 10 years ago.

The subject of my ire is this organ's insistence that underwater turbines and deepwater windmills are a better bet than onshore wind power, today. They are not, because they quite simply do not exist.

Psychogeography for Aberdeen!
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Well, Ludwig. Confusion is the price of not expressing yourself clearly. IFIMAA, I am deepley indifferent as to whether you like electricity or not. If you don't, I suggest you go back to your quill and inkstand and stop writing sarcastic nonsense on your electricky keyboard.
Will Gordon
Report this comment

Well, Will.

Why do you think I'm confused? And what makes you think you have the authority to advise me what I should and shouldn't write? Are you a thought-policeman?

If you're offended by what I've said, why not use the "Report this comment" link below my sig? IIRC, sarcastic nonsense is not prohibited under the P&J's terms of service, so I think they'll let it stand... But you should give it a go! Why not!

Or is it that you're trying to tell us that it is you (rather than I) who is confused? It's impossible to tell which from your garbled comment. Your comment does make a little more sense if we approach it with the understanding that you wrote it when befuddled. Not expressing yourself clearly is a characteristic of that sort of confusion. So take your time, think about what you've read, and then think about what you're going to write (but do write - it's great stuff you come out with!) And then we'll all get on just fine!

Indeed (practising what I preach), now that I think carefully about it, I actually am a bit confused by what you've written: What does an Italian trade body representing financial professionals have to do with anything we're discussing? Or was that a typo? Ah, yes, it's probably a typo; your post is littered with them. Now, there's nothing wrong with typos, we all let them slip from time to time, and I certainly wouldn't ever misintepret what you've mis-spelled as some sort of sarcastic attempt at the sort of smartypants satirical stuff which you hate so much.

As you clearly despise and want put a stop to people expressing thoughts like that via their electricky keyboards [spelling?], you wouldn't ever lower yourself to the levels of inferiority required to mount an attempt upon writing such nonsense, now would you?

FWIW most modern internet browsers have a spell-checker function. To avoid the confusion resulting from the vanishingly slim possibility that readers might mistake your posts for some sort of effort at having a go at trying your hand at writing something humourous (however strained), I suggest you turn it on.

Psychogeography for Aberdeen!
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

Will Gordon, I can't see your logic. Having to provide information on possible adverse visual impacts doesn't mean there are any. For some bizarre reason, a minority of people don't like the look of wind turbines, which I find very difficult to understand. They are extremely graceful looking and I don't think anyone could really argue that a coal or gas power station looks anywhere near as good. Here, there are always people who've come to look at the wind turbines when I drive past them. Why would that be the case if they weren't attractive?
Phil Bennett
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.