<\/a><\/p>\nAround half of them are in Scotland. First Minister Alex Salmond and the Scottish government have said they want to get 80 per cent of Scotland\u2019s electricity from renewables by 2020, which means more turbines spread across the country\u2019s hills and moors.<\/p>\n
Many environmental pressure groups share Salmond\u2019s view. Friends of the Earth opposes the Arctic being ruined by oil extraction, but when it comes to damaging Scotland\u2019s wilderness with concrete and hundreds of miles of roads, they say wind energy is worth it as the impact of climate change has to be faced.<\/p>\n
\u2018No way of generating energy is 100 per cent clean and problem-free,\u2019 says Craig Bennett, director of policy and campaigns at Friends of the Earth.<\/p>\n
\u2018Wind energy causes far fewer problems than coal, gas or nuclear. If we don\u2019t invest in green energy, business experts have warned that future generations will be landed with a bill that will dwarf the current financial crisis. But we need to ensure the use of materials like neodymium and concrete is kept to a minimum, that turbines use recycled materials wherever possible and that they are carefully sited to the reduce the already minimal impact on bird populations.\u2019<\/p>\n
But Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, a small but feisty campaign group dedicated to protecting Scotland\u2019s wild lands, also points out that leaving aside the damage to the landscape, nobody is really sure how much carbon is being released by the renewable energy construction boom. Peat moors lock up huge amounts of carbon, which gets released when it\u2019s drained to put up a turbine.<\/p>\n
Environmental considerations aside, as the percentage of electricity generated by wind increases, renewable energy is coming under a lot more scrutiny now for one simple reason \u2013 money. We pay extra for wind power \u2013 around twice as much \u2013 because it can\u2019t compete with other forms of electricity generation. Under the Renewable Obligation (RO), suppliers have to buy a percentage of their electricity from renewable generators and can hand that cost on to consumers. If they don\u2019t, they pay a fine instead.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s a simple beauty about RO for the government. Even though it\u2019s defined as a tax, it doesn\u2019t come out of pay packets but is stuck on our electricity bills. That has made funding wind farms a lot easier for the government than more cost-effective energy-efficiency measures.<\/p>\n
\u2018If you want a grant for an energy conservation project on your house,\u2019 says Helen McDade, \u2018the money comes from taxes. But investment for turbines comes from energy companies.\u2019<\/p>\n
Already, RO adds \u00a31.4 billion to our bills each year to provide a pot of money to pay power companies for their \u2018green\u2019 electricity. By 2020, the figure will have risen to somewhere between \u00a35 billion and \u00a310 billion.<\/p>\n
When he was Chancellor, Gordon Brown added another decade to these price guarantees, extending the RO scheme to 2037, guaranteeing the subsidy for more than a quarter of a century.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not surprising there\u2019s been an avalanche of wind-farm applications in the Highlands. Wind speeds are stronger, land is cheaper and the government loves you.<\/p>\n
\u2018You go to a landowner,\u2019 McDade says, \u2018and offer him what is peanuts to an energy company yet keeps him happily on his estate so they can put up a wind farm, which in turn raises ordinary people\u2019s electricity bills. There\u2019s a social issue here that doesn\u2019t get discussed.\u2019<\/p>\n
By 2020, environmental regulation will be adding 31 per cent to our bills. That\u2019s \u00a3160 green tax out of an average annual bill of \u00a3512. As costs rise, more people will be driven into fuel poverty. When he was secretary of state at the Department of Energy and Climate Change, Ed Miliband decreed that these increases should be offset by improvements in energy efficiencies.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s a view shared by his successor Chris Huhne, who says inflation due to RO will be effectively one per cent. Britain\u2019s low-income families, facing hikes in petrol and food costs, will hope he\u2019s right.<\/p>\n
Individual households aren\u2019t the only ones shouldering the costs. Industry faces an even bigger burden. By 2020, environmental charges will add 33 per cent to industry\u2019s energy costs.<\/p>\n
Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group, says that, \u2018Industry is getting the worst of both worlds. Around 80 per cent of the contracts for the new Thanet offshore wind farm (off the coast of Kent) went abroad, but the expensive electricity will be paid for here.\u2019<\/p>\n
Our current obsession with wind power, according to John Constable of energy think-tank the Renewable Energy Foundation, stems from the decision of the European Union on how to tackle climate change. Instead of just setting targets for reducing emissions, the EU told governments that by 2020, 15 per cent of all the energy we use must come from renewable sources.<\/p>\n
Because of how we heat our houses and run our cars with gas and petrol, 30 per cent of electricity needs to come from renewables. And in the absence of other technologies, that means wind turbines. But there\u2019s a structural flaw in the plan, which this winter has brutally exposed.<\/p>\n
Study a graph of electricity consumption and it appears amazingly predictable, even down to reduced demand on public holidays. The graph for wind energy output, however, is far less predictable.<\/p>\n
Take the figures for December, when we all shivered through sub-zero temperatures and wholesale electricity prices surged. Peak demand for the UK on 20 December was just over 60,000 megawatts. Maximum capacity for wind turbines throughout the UK is 5,891 megawatts, almost ten per cent of that peak demand figure.<\/p>\n
Yet on December 20, because winds were light or non-existent, wind energy contributed a paltry 140 megawatts. Despite billions of pounds in investment and subsidies, Britain\u2019s wind-turbine fleet was producing a feeble 2.43 per cent of its own capacity \u2013 and little more than 0.2 per cent of the nation\u2019s electricity in the coldest month since records began.<\/p>\n
The problems with the intermittency of wind energy are well known. A new network of cables linking ten countries around the North Sea is being suggested to smooth supply and take advantage of 140 gigawatts of offshore wind power. No one knows for sure how much this network will cost, although a figure of \u00a325 billion has been mooted.<\/p>\n
The government has also realised that when wind nears its target of 30 per cent, power companies will need more back-up to fill the gap when the wind doesn\u2019t blow. Britain\u2019s total capacity will need to rise from 76 gigawatts up to 120 gigawatts. That overcapacity will need another \u00a350 billion and drive down prices when the wind\u2019s blowing. Power companies are anxious about getting a decent price. Once again, consumers will pay.<\/p>\n
Wind power\u2019s uncertainties don\u2019t end with intermittency. There is huge controversy about how much energy a wind farm will produce. Many developers claim their installations will achieve 30 per cent of their maximum output over the course of a year. More sober energy analysts suggest 26 per cent. But even that figure is starting to look generous. In December, the average figure was less than 21 per cent. In the year between October 2009 and September 2010, the average was 23.6 per cent, still nowhere near industry claims.<\/p>\n
Then there\u2019s the thorny question of how many homes new installations can power. According to wind farm developers like Scottish and Southern Electricity, a house uses 3.3MWh in a year. Lobby group RenewablesUK \u2013 formerly the British Wind Energy Association \u2013 gives a figure of 4.7MWh. In the Highlands electricity usage is even higher.<\/p>\n
Last year, a report from the Royal Academy of Engineering warned that transforming our energy supply to produce a low-carbon economy would require the biggest investment and social change seen in peacetime. And yet Professor Sue Ion, who led the report, warned, \u2018We are nowhere near having a plan.\u2019<\/p>\n
So, against the backdrop of environmental catastrophe in China and these less than attractive calculations, could the billions being thrown at wind farms be better spent? Undoubtedly, says John Constable.<\/p>\n
\u2018The government is betting the farm on the throw of a die. What\u2019s happening now is simply reckless.\u2019<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
“The true cost of the clean, green wind power experiment: \u00a0Pollution on a disastrous scale” \u00b7 This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s [plus the rest of the world’s] latest wind turbines, and is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem” \u2014Simon Parry\u00a0in China & Ed Douglas in Scotland,\u00a0The DailyMail Online Live (1\/29\/11) On the outskirts of one of China\u2019s most polluted cities, an old farmer stares despairingly out across an immense lake of bubbling toxic waste covered in black dust. He remembers it as fields of wheat and corn. Yan Man Jia Hong is a dedicated Communist. At 74, he still believes in his revolutionary heroes, but he despises the young local officials and entrepreneurs who have let this happen. \u2018Chairman Mao was a hero and saved us,\u2019 he says. \u2018But these people only care about money. They have destroyed our lives.\u2019 Vast fortunes are being amassed here in Inner Mongolia; the region has more than 90 per cent of the world\u2019s legal reserves of rare earth metals, and specifically neodymium, the element needed to make the magnets in the most striking of green energy producers, wind turbines. [The DailyMail Online] Live has uncovered the distinctly dirty truth about the process used to extract neodymium: it has an appalling environmental impact that raises serious questions over the credibility of so-called green technology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[16,173],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12986"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12986"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12986\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12986"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12986"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.windturbinesyndrome.com\/static\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12986"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}