"They work and are quick to build: let the wind blow". Daily Telegraph, Thursday, July 16th – Dave Andrews is and independent energy consultant and head of the Claverton Group energy think tank

This article originally appeared in the Daily Telegraph, Thursday, July 16th, page 5

(they have billed David Andrews as Head of The Claverton Group Energy Think Tank – this is not accurate…there is no “Head “as such)

ANALYSISBy Dave Andrews

Wind farms as is well know only work when the wind blows. This means that a turbine will on average, produce electricity on only one day out of three. However, this is not of itself an overwhelming disadvantage – as is often claimed.

Wind farms can still compete with other forms of electricity generation because although turbines are expensive to build, they have very low running costs.

The other argument against turbines is that they require back up when the wind is not blowing. This, too, is true. However, again it is not really a problem, since the power stations needed to provide backup have already been built, and are cheap to keep on standby. Wind farms just make sure we use less of the fossil fuel than we would otherwise, therefore cutting emissions.

So what of the “Nimby” problem? I think we can safely say that no one wants a wind farm in their back yard.  Offshore wind solves this problem but onshore wind is cheaper and is a key part of government strategy.  It is worth remembering that relatively little land is needed. After all, it needs an area of 70 square miles ( Note: the original article as submitted stated “an area of size of a square of side 70 miles by 70 miles” which is 4900 square miles not 70, but was badly sub edited by someone whose maths is poor) to be able to generate all of Britain’s power requirements.

For the calculation see: http://tx1.fcomet.com/~claverto/cms/what-areas-of-wind-turbines-would-be-needed-in-reasonable-sites-in-the-uk-to-in-one-year-generate-all-uks-power-demand.html

“Wind farms just make sure we use less of the fossil fuel than we would otherwise, therefore cutting emissions”

Unfortunately, the best place for a wind turbine is likely to be an area of outstanding natural beauty, but there are plenty of places of marginal value land, where the wind is good enough.

Wind turbines mounted on houses are also an option, although the idea of putting one up in a fashionable are of London such as Notting Hill – as David Cameron tried to do – is unlikely to work. Wind turbines will work only if they are in are high or remote rural areas.

New research funded by the Energy Saving Trust (EST) suggested that only 450,000 households could benefit from small-scale wind turbines.

People may not want them in their back gardens, but it is one of the few technologies that we know works, has no hidden dangers and, crucially, can be built very quickly if we put our mind to it.

Anyway, the Government’s dithering over the years has left us with precious few other options.

  • Dave Andrews is and independent energy consultant and head of the Claverton Group, an energy think tank.

7 Comments

  1. Reply

    I am somewhat surprised about your statement that “we can safely say that no one wants a wind farm in their back yard”.

    I suppose a lot hinges on the definition of back yard, and I dare say taken in a literal sense most people’s back yards are obviously not big enough to accommodate a wind farm, but I can assure you that there is plenty of support for wind farms just beyond people’s literal back yards, as evidenced by the Leicestershire and Northamptonshire Pro Wind Alliance and similar wind support groups. For details see http://prowa.org.uk/

  2. Reply

    70 square miles is a ridiculously small area in which to generate all of Britain’s power requirements. The inaccuracy of this, which is off by a factor of 70, has attracted a nomination for a ‘Hot Air Oscar’ for ‘most inaccurate numbers in a right-wing newspaper’. For more information see: David MacKay’s blog Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air at: http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2009/07/most-inaccurate-numbers-in-right-wing.html

  3. Reply

    Dear Slap, – if you read the version posted on the Claverton web site (the one you have just commented on) you will see that the stupid Telegraph incorrectely printed what I had writtne . I clearly said ” 70 miles by 70 miles.

    Ta

    Dave A

  4. Reply

    Dear Slap, – yes, and if you read David MacKay’s blog (the one you just linked to), you’ll see that David MacKay also says that the Telegraph sub-editor screwed the article up. Look before you leap. Read before your blog. Don’t trust anything in the newspapers. Have a nice day!

  5. Reply

    This kind or error is common :

    ” (…) une surface de 300 kilomètres carrés au Sahara, équipée de miroirs paraboliques, suffirait théoriquement à couvrir les besoins en énergie de la planète entière (…)”
    http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/07/13/quand-l-europe-se-chauffera-au-soleil-du-sahara_1218125_3244.html

    300 x 300 km is quite diferent to 300 km2 🙂

  6. Reply

    Whoever made this comment is clearly a fool and in any case cant write proper english. The article in question, submitted by me said you could run Britain with a square of closely spaced wind turbines of side 70 x 70 miles. this = in my head – 4900 square miles, not the stupid and imathical ( a word I just made up) 70 square miles which the Telegraph idiots came up with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these <abbr title="HyperText Markup Language">HTML</abbr> tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>