renewable energy debate
Merits or otherwise of windfarms
Published: 07/04/2011
IT WOULD seem to many that the debate over the merits, or otherwise, of Scottish windfarms, which have transformed the country’s landscape, generates more energy than the controversial installations themselves.
Scathing new research by Scottish conservation charity the John Muir Trust has poured petrol on the flames by claiming the output of windfarms often falls to 10% capacity as opposed to the average 30% claimed by the industry. The trust claimed there was only enough energy, at times, to boil just over 6,000 kettles.
Objectors approach the windfarm debate from varying perspectives: some dislike change at any price, others are horrified by what they see as the desecration of Scotland’s spectacular landscape, to the detriment of tourism, while many question the political-economic justification for such investment and the dubious statistics for actual energy output from these farms.
On the other hand, development of renewable energy was a major priority for the last Scottish administration, to dovetail with existing oil and gas production. Future nuclear energy plans have been banished in Scotland.
In the meantime, the debate rages on about Scottish ministers and local councils placing so much reliance on wind energy – and its effectiveness. On the face of it, it seems a simple and clean way of harnessing the elements, but the system is at the mercy of the elements, too. This is why people are not convinced, believing that it is inconsistent and uneconomic.
The report appears to confirm this, but it requires a detailed response from government to explain if trying to catch the wind does have a future or if the industry is simply flying a kite.