I was for wind power, until I started looking into what the introduction of wind turbines would mean in reality.
When green groups such as the Renewable Energy Foundation, Country Guardian and the Ramblers Association are not in favour of large land-based turbines, one has to sit up and take note. They are simply not that green.
People hoping that building wind farms will solve our future energy needs are going to be bitterly disappointed, especially as it’s the extra money on their electricity bills which makes them possible. They are not viable without subsidies, which cost consumers nearly £1billion per year and rising.
Countries such as Denmark and Germany, that have championed wind turbines in the past, are waking up to the difficulties in harnessing wind power on this scale, with them causing more problems than they solve. Back-up power stations have to cope with huge fluctuations in power over a small timescale, i.e. when the wind gusts and drops away quickly.
In November 2006 wind generation was an exacerbating factor when 15 million homes were blacked out in Europe.
Wind turbines do not replace any power stations; you have to keep some other generators running to take up any drop in output from the wind driven generators. When they do produce electricity, they cannot store the generated power, most of the time they will be lying idle or producing very little.
The rose tinted information given out by Infinergy stressed what the ‘maximum’ efficiency would be, knowing that this is rarely achieved.
Going by Government figures of what is more likely to happen, we would need not 10 but around 1,700 of these monsters working to produce roughly the same amount of power produced by the new power station at Burton on Trent.
So the comment made at the planning meeting at Melton (giving the go ahead for a second anemometer mast), about filling the whole of the valley from the Vale of Belvoir right up to Lincoln with turbines would not be far off the mark.
22 November 2007
|Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding