Wind Farms: Sorting the Wheat from the Chaffinches
Wind farms - certainly here in the UK anyway - seem to generate far more heated a debate than perhaps any other form of sustainable energy.
There are three arguments against their construction: namely, their ineffectiveness per se as a means of generating energy; their apparent ruination of idyllic countryside by their very presence; and the debate as to whether they pose a real danger to wildlife.
Is wind as a renewable energy worth it?
This is certainly one of the contested facts regarding the whole subject. Here is some information, kindly supplied by the British Wind Farm Association (BWEA).
A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but understandably, it generates different outputs depending on the wind speed.
Over the course of a year, about 30% of the theoretical maximum output is achieved. This is called its load factor. Compare this with the load factor of conventional power stations which average 50%.
Wind energy is one of the cheapest of the renewable energy technologies. It is competitive with new clean coal fired power stations and cheaper than new nuclear power.
The cost of wind energy varies according to many factors. An average for a new onshore wind farm in a good location is 3-4 pence per unit, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new nuclear (4-7p). It should be noted however that electricity from smaller wind farms can be more expensive. 1 pence roughly converts to 2 cents.
One wind turbine at a reasonable site can produce over 4.7 million units of electricity each year, enough to meet the annual needs of over 1,000 households.
Efficiency is a redundant concept when applied to wind energy, because we don’t of course pay for wind. The primary concern is not the efficiency of the wind turbines. We should instead be looking into improved productivity. This would then bring down the price per unit.
Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and with every doubling prices fell by 15%. Wind energy, as already stated, is competitive with new coal and new nuclear capacity, before any environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear power are considered.
Concerns over wildlife
Are wind farms a danger to wildlife?
The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) stated in 2004 in an information leaflet entitled Wind farms and birds, that “in the UK, we have not so far witnessed any major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms”.
Wind farms are always subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and BWEA members follow the industry’s Best Practice Guidelines and work closely with organisations such as English Nature and the RSPB to ensure that wind farm design and layout does not interfere with sensitive species or wildlife designated sites.
It should be noted however that the following statement is given on the RSPB’s website:
The available evidence suggests that appropriately positioned wind farms do not pose a significant hazard for birds. However, evidence from the US and Spain confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines.
Because of this, the RSPB has objected to 76 wind farm proposals (on and offshore) between 2000-2004 and has raised concerns about a further 129. The RSPB recently objected to a proposed 234 turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis in the Hebrides, on an extremely fragile and special area for wildlife.
A previously idyllic scene… Now ruined?
Whether you think a wind turbine is attractive or not will always be down to personal opinion. However, studies regularly show that most people find turbines an interesting feature of the landscape.
On average 80% of the public support wind energy, less than 10% are against it, with the remainder undecided. Surveys conducted since the early 1990s across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that most people are in favour of wind energy , with support increasing among those living closer to the wind farms.
One case study that springs to mind comes from a discussion I had with the people behind Delabole Wind Farm, situated in the South Western tip of England. The rather heartening attitude adopted by residents there was one of pride to be associated with this technology.
It should of course also be borne in mind that wind farms can be constructed offshore, negating to a certain extent this argument concerning their appearance. Though there are extra costs associated with these sites, regarding power transmission back to the shore, these can be partly offset by a generally higher and more consistent wind speed.
Photo Courtesy of Flickr.
Recent News
The Ministry of Defence has raised last minute objections to wind farms along the east coast of England, amidst claims that there are serious concerns about radar interference from the turbines.
Shirley Siluk Gregory has covered the story here: An Ill Wind Blows in the UK . My thanks to her.
Something which I have often wondered about: Say we get to the happy situation where 50% of the world’s energy is produced by wind. That’s a lot of energy. If we are effectively removing that energy from our weather systems, isn’t there a risk that we do some damage in upsetting the earth’s natural weather balance? Has the effect of large scale wind energy on the weather ever been modeled? I’m slightly curious about that…
VERY interesting. I am researching (using term loosely) four areas: (1) burning coal with zero CO2 emmissions (coke transient), (2) solar panel removal of reradiation (initial energy 1300 watts sqm) as energy is ‘absorbed’, (3) wind turbine issues (intermittent output, threat to birds, mortality in construction/maintenance, energy transport from remote areas incl substa/trans lines, visual pollution or delight, intrinsic hazard - loss of blade, higher wind blade feathering creating a cap on output, AND energy removal between descending and rising masses of air or the ‘helicopter effect’), and (4) actual non-sunk, total costs of electric vehicles (battery manufacture energy required/disposal, call for reduction of electric use contradicted by auto plug-in, health care for incrementally more serious traffic incidents in SMALL cars, energy cost/loss to drive axle comparing electrical generation/trans- mission/transfer to auto and change to mechanical energy vs. loss/cost of oil production/distribution/ transfer and change of thermal to mechanical).
My primary concerns are aggregate and comparative climatic effects of energy capture by the ’shading’ of areas of land by solar, removal of energy from the wind, and ignoring the ‘coking’ of coal for energy which is atmospherically non-polluting. Peripherally, I wonder about NET energy considering all cost and energy inputs to the entire chain/channel serving the eventual outlets that power an axle or light bulb or whatever.
Finally, meteorologist are NOT permitted to discard their sophisticated dialogue/models involving the extreme sensitivity of system initial conditions (butterfly effect) and ignore wind power (what I call ‘helicopter effect’ vs. ‘butterfly effect’).
Now I will confess my PhD is in business and not the ‘hard’ sciences (which I find easier), but we did touch upon math (!) and had a few requirements to think sytemically/systemmatically and actually have our arguments make sense. Maybe our preoccupation with the ENTIRE cost picture (e.g., supply chain, value chain, manufacture + channels of distribution, and so on) makes us chuckle at these many ’sage’ evaluations presented in splendid isolation. I can prove anything if you let me toss a few costs.
Finally, finally - there can be NO sensible (even sane) legislation that does not honor any component of the system. You don’t get to cherry-pick energy methods and survive the BS test (there are other names for the test).
Thanks. GREAT question. Butterflys anyone?
[...] construction of 31 offshore wind farms, to be ready by the year 2012, is not being totally accepted by [...]