Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Overblown claims

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 April 2008
Every wind electricity generation site proposal by developers is supported by a claim that it will provide electricity for thousands of homes and will save a quantified level of carbon dioxide emissions by displacing fossil fuel power generation.
Analysis of these claims and adding up the alleged total number of homes supplied shows that well over one million homes (almost half the total in Scotland) should now be powered by wind-generated electricity. To fulfil the claimed emission reductio
n benefit, one of our fossil-fuelled power stations should have been closed by now – but it has not.

This surely exposes the lack of credibility and veracity in the environmental benefit claims regularly made by politicians and the wind lobby. The despoiling of our countryside, plus huge subsidies for wind turbines and consequent higher electricity costs, would seem to be for no benefit whatsoever, except, of course, to developers and landowners.

(DR) GM LINDSAY
Whinfield Gardens
Kinross

Before the election, the SNP promised a cap on wind farm development, so how come, since coming to power, it has approved at least four giant wind farms? This hypocrisy beggars belief.

This latest monstrosity at Gordon Bush, Sutherland and Caithness, will cost consumers around £11.5 million a year in subsidies. Including the sale of electricity to the grid, the gross income will be about £23 million a year. To add insult to injury it will not supply one house in the area with electricity or make the slightest difference to global carbon dioxide levels.

Alex Salmond has clearly decided that wind turbines are the SNP's weapons of mass destruction.

ROBERT GRAHAM
Craigsview
Orton, Moray



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 April 2008 8:03 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

P Gardner,

glasgow 14/04/2008 11:44:24
Dr Lindsay's argument is wrong on two counts. Firstly, we're not trying to close fossil-fuel power stations: we're trying to use them less. Of course, the owners of those power stations which are producing less electricity and earning less money might decide to close them, but that's their decision. The important point is that there will be less fossil fuel burnt, and so less atmospheric emissions.

Secondly, electricity demand is rising at roughly the same rate that we are building new renewable generation. So we are running hard just to stand (approximately) still. If we really want to reduce atmospheric emissions, we have to build renewable generation AND use less electricity. Stop buying those gadgets.
2

RCro,

Edinburgh 14/04/2008 12:16:27
P Gardener is correct on both counts, I don't understand why the Scotsman continues to print such dishonest arguments. There may be valid arguments against wind power, but this is not one of them.

I feel I should also point out that in addition to P Gardeners explaination, wind farms are spread out around the country, not all lumped in one place. They might be supplying enough power for 1 million homes, but these homes could be anywhere in Britain.

In addition, using the same argument as put forward in this letter, we would not expect there to not be very many gas fired plants in the UK. These power plants generally only operate at peak times of the day, not 24/7 because this is when power is most expensive. Somehow they manage to stay open despite this.

To clarify this once and for all for everyone:

For every one MW of power produced by a wind farm one MW is not produced in a fossil fuel power plant, so some CO2 is not released into the atmosphere that otherwise would have been. You can argue that wind power is bad because it is more expensive than fossil fuels (at some times of the day) or it is bad for some other reason, but you cannot argue that it does not produce significant amounts of power or that it does not reduce the amount of fossil fuels that would otherwise be burnt. This is simply wrong and the Scotsman should stop perpetuating this myth by giving air to this particular argument.
3

Geomac 1,

Kinross 14/04/2008 13:05:20
#2 Rcro says: "For every one MW of power produced by a wind farm one MW is not produced in a fossil fuel power plant, so some CO2 is not released into the atmosphere that otherwise would have been"
This is simply not true - even wind company EoN has admitted that 1MWh of wind does not displace 1 MWh of fossil derived electricity - in a recent annual report EoN admitted that for every 1MWh of wind electricity there had to be 800kWh of standby electricity available from other sources.
4

Daibhidh,

Edinburgh 14/04/2008 13:49:33
...and let's not forget that until the Beauly/Denny and Western Isles/Beauly powerlinks have been approved and constructed (which they will be - sorry to break the bad news all you tree-huggers out there), a lot of the windfarms which have been approved (such as the ones on Lewis) won't come online...such simplistic arguments - clearly designed to sling mud at the SNP - don't hold any water...
5

Geomac 1,

14/04/2008 14:04:34
Oops - got my last post wrong - tsk tsk! I should have aid that the efficiency of generating the 1MWh from back up (spinning reserve) by fossil fuelled generators is much lower than if the fossil fuel generators were used as base load - after allyou don't shut down the boilers - only the turbines!
6

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 14/04/2008 14:54:39
5. If the turbines are not spinning there is no spinning reserve.
7

Geomac 1,

Kinross 14/04/2008 15:35:24
Good one Fred!!
8

fred bear,

14/04/2008 16:08:28
"Of course, the owners of those power stations which are producing less electricity and earning less money might decide to close them, but that's their decision."

This is exactly what happened when NETA drove down the price of wholesale electricity. If the effect of wind generation is that coal stations are used less (not a conclusion I share, but lets go with it for the sake of this debate), then the most sensible course of action for owners of several plants is to shut one of them down, not part load all of them, since the fixed costs of the closed plant will thereby be saved. There will then not be the spinning reserve to pick up when randomly variable wind does not blow. Prior to NETA, payments were made to generators for making plant available.

This is one of the reasons that energy policy should not be left solely to the market (note I refer to an energy policy and not an environmental policy).
9

fred bear,

14/04/2008 16:13:41
To clarify, by "shut down" in my previous post I mean "mothball" such that the workforce is disbanded.
10

Geomac 1,

Kinross 14/04/2008 16:20:09
#8 Fred - nor should energy policy be left entirely to politicians. We badly need an energy policy which takes environmental issues into account and not the other way around!!

Why is there always some political activist (#4) who seems to believe that we all have it in for the SNP? They can do enough damage to themselves without help!!
It would seem that no matter what is said some SNP individual takes unbrage and decides to do battle on highly spurious grounds!!
11

Geomac 1,

Kinross 14/04/2008 16:22:01
#9 Fred. I'm glad that you clarified that - we'll need them sooner or later if we're to prevent the lights going out!?
12

fred bear,

14/04/2008 16:50:43
#10 Geomac 1

"We badly need an energy policy which takes environmental issues into account and not the other way around!!"

Agree 100%. That's really what I meant by my comment.
13

Miss H,

14/04/2008 17:36:11
4 Most of the tree huggers I know are for the Beauly-Denny line.
14

Miss H,

14/04/2008 17:38:47
10 Erm .. why don't you read the letter which says Alex Salmond has clearly decided that wind turbines are the SNP's weapons of mass destruction?

I think most folk would take that as an attack on the SNP don't you?



 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.