Efficiency & Viability

The rationale for the building of wind turbines is that they should displace conventional generating capacity and reduce CO2 emissions, thus contributing to the fight against global warming.

There are big drawbacks to wind power:-

• Wind farms are an intermittent source of energy because the wind does not blow all the time. Due to the vagaries of wind in the UK, fossil fuel power stations must be retained and operated in parallel at reduced power and efficiency. The starting and stopping actually increases their CO2 emissions for a given output because they must take over the load when the wind is not blowing.

• Wind Farms are very costly and are highly subsidised through the ROC system (Renewable Obligation Certificates). They are only being developed because the operators get more than twice as much in subsidy as they do from selling the electricity generated. Building onshore wind farms is an easy and cheap route to large handouts for the developer and the land owner. Wind farms are not the only alternative to current energy sources. Money is siphoned away from other more reliable technologies such as bio-fuels, tidal and hydro power etc. This quote from Country Guardian gives a details explanation into how the subsidy system works: "A single 2 MW wind turbine operating at 30% load factor would, on the basis of the above figures, receive an annual subsidy of over £235,000". To read the whole article here ... Country Guardian - Subsidy System

• Wind farms will never make a significant contribution to reducing CO2 emissions even if we have 5 or 10 times the current number. And the cost in terms of trashed landscape, blighted lives and missed opportunities is just not worth it.

The wind power industry claims that wind turbines are 30% efficient. True - a few in the windier parts of the country are. The majority are much less efficient, with the average being 26% (24% in the East of England). Some are much less efficient than that even!

It is claimed that each MegaWatt of wind power generated electricity will save 2,260 tonnes of CO2 per year. This assumes all electricity is generated using dirty coal. However, the majority of power stations are now either gas or nuclear. The real 'saving' is 1,130 tonnes per year, half of the wind power industry claim! (That is before factoring in the need to keep conventional power stations running.) Some research contends that the net reduction in CO2 emissions is NIL! (David Tolley of Innogy Plc. "NETA The Consequences - A Keynote Address" - Institution of Mechanical Engineers, January 2003) Calculations are based on figures from 'DEFRA Fuel Conversion Factors for Grid Electricity'.

The economics do not stack up, except for power companies.

INTERESTING FACTS:

• Wind Turbine Efficiency Europe - Denmark has now withdrawn government subsidies to land-based wind-farms.

• It is more cost effective to give every householder an energy saving light bulb than it is to pay such huge subsidies to wind turbine operators. Calculations based on 'The Case Against Wind Farms' - Dr. J. R. Etherington (2006). Read here ...

• Subsidies are too high. A 3 MegaWatt wind turbine (STW is proposing up to 2.5MW) will receive a subsidy of up to £350,000 per year! This calculation is based on Dr. J. R. Etherington's The Case Against Wind Farms (see above).

• A detailed analysis paper by White in 2004 written for the Renewable Energy Foundation noted that the European experience over 20 years had shown that "wind generated power to be variable, unpredictable and uncontrollable" and that annual electricity production was "routinely disappointing" and "this does not auger well for the UK's chance of achieving significant emissions abatement."

• The experience in Ireland has been similar (Impact of wind power generation in Ireland on the operation of conventional plant and the economic implications; 2004). Operating gas turbine power stations with powering up and down generated more CO2 per kWh of electricity than if the stations were operated on the normal planned load. This frequent powering up and down of the power stations had not been anticipated at design: such operation not only increased CO2emissions, but also increased wear and tear - shortening the period between overhauls and leading to higher maintenance costs. General Electric, who manufactured the gas turbines used in the Irish power stations, have drawn attention to the adverse consequences of operating gas turbines in this way. The Irish evidence shows that as the installed wind power capacity increases, CO2 emissions actually increase as a direct result of having to cope with the variation in wind power output.

• No long term economic benefit in employment. Only some temporary jobs will be generated during the construction phase, but once operational the project will not create any full time jobs locally.

• The National Audit Office already recognises that onshore wind offers over-generous subsidies to developers. With electricity prices at current levels and subsidies via the ROC system at about £47.50 per MWh, it is estimated the Infinergy and Ridgewind power stations would each generate revenues of more than £2.1m per annum, of which almost £1.25m would come from subsidy. Nearly 70% of this sum is the excess profit that accrues from the current subsidy system.

• For recent press coverage on the profitability of onshore wind turbines, please see the Sunday Times article of 27th January 2008 - 'Wind farms turn huge profit with help of subsidies'. Read here ...

• www.peopleandplanet.net published an article on 12th August,2008 on India's lack of success with wind energy. 'India's wind power boom is failing to deliver' - Read here ...

• An article in the Wall Street Journal by Edgar Gartner, a specialist in energy and chemicals based in Frankfurt, points out the irregularity of wind turbine generated electricity and suggests that wind power is no answer to our energy security. Read here ...