Home | Links | Country Guardian | Environment | Effectiveness | Guides | Climate | Energy | Library | Case

The Case against Land-based Wind Power in Britain

By Dr John R Etherington, formerly Reader in Ecology, University of Wales.

Summary

The British Government has been given misleading scientific and economic advice on the deployment of land-based wind turbines as a source of renewable energy in relation to limitation of CO₂ emission and control of climatic change. No good purpose is being served by increasing pressure to build more wind power stations in upland and coastal areas. A publicly scrutinised cost-benefit analysis is a matter of urgency.

Introduction

The British Government's love affair with wind generated electricity effectively began in 1989 with Privatisation and the implementation of the Electricity Act which introduced the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) and its support by subsidy.

During the 1990s we have seen growing pressure to deploy wind turbines, in particular in upland and coastal parts of Britain, especially Wales. Targeting of sites has been driven by conditions for subsidy.

A Government document (New Prospects February 2000) undertakes a 5% contribution from renewables by 2005, rising to 10% by 2010, and the Utilities Act (2000) replaces the NFFO with a Renewables Obligation (RO).

A consultation paper in late 2000 contained the sentence …increasing the uptake of renewables has to be a non-negotiable element for further energy use… In other words great pressure is to be brought by central government on the planning process in the regions.

Wales has already taken more than a fair share of wind power installations and some attempt was made to address this, before Devolution.

In 1993-4 the Welsh Affairs Committee Second Report on Wind Energy was presented to the Commons during Mr Redwood's residency at the Welsh Office. Some crucial points in that report were limitation of height of turbine towers (at that time, not much over 100 feet), regulation of inter-visibility between sites and avoidance of visibility from National Parks. Sadly, and presumably looking to economic growth, the then Conservative Government rejected these recommendations.

Now that Wales has devolved government, the Assembly is responsible for the relevant planning decisions, but energy policy itself remains the prerogative of the English Government. This seems desirable, providing that good advice is sought and acted upon. However it does expose Wales to external pressure which may be hard to resist. Mr Meacher, English Minister of the Environment, recently made a public statement referring to the….trap of dismissing renewable energy schemes on the grounds that an individual scheme could only supply a fraction of the UK energy needs.

This statement and other comments by Mr Meacher have already been used as ammunition in public enquiries to deflect discussion of the quantitative aspects of this matter and so to avoid cost-benefit comparisons, which are very pertinent to local communities.

The remainder of this document presents evidence for the limited effectiveness of land-based wind generation in combating atmospheric CO₂ enrichment, controlling climatic change and its potentially adverse effects on landscape and tourism.

Wind turbines: installed and realised power output

The turbines installed during the 1990s had installed capacities of c. 0.3 MW and were little over 100 feet high. In 2000, most planning applications are for 1.5 MW machines, some of which exceed 300 feet.

Realised power output (capacity factor) is much less than the installed capacity, consequent on too little or too much wind and on down-time. The industry accepts a factor of about 0.3, relating realised to installed capacity. This means that a modern 1.5 MW machine will not exceed an average power delivery of c. 0.5 MW. In passing it is noted that the older 0.3 MW machines (for example at Llandinam and Cemmaes) yield 0.1 MW or less.

Power delivery, targets and numbers of turbines

The average power consumption of the UK is c. 40,000 MW, rising to much higher values in bad winter weather and showing transient surges of 2000 MW, or more, related to synchronised events such as the end of popular TV shows and cups of tea.

The Government target of 10% from renewables thus demands 4000 MW of generating capacity and, with an average realised yield of 0.5 MW from modern machines, this represents some 8000 turbines. In the worst case scenario, this must also be backed-up by the instant availability of 4000 MW conventional generation as the whole UK is sometimes more or less windless.

The implication of these figures is frightening. Spread uniformly over England and Wales, these 250-300 foot turbines would be spaced at less than three miles. In practice they would be clustered on literally every available hilltop, plateau or cliff summit in Western and Northern Britain. The damage to landscape and potentially to income from tourism is likely to be huge.

I have assumed that it is unlikely, within this time scale, that tidal resources will feature largely in the equation, most hydroelectric potential is already exploited whilst biomass as fuel, can yield only a small amount of energy.

Wind generation, CO₂ and climatic change

It is beyond dispute that atmospheric CO₂ has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution. It is less certain that serious climatic warming is a consequence, but the precautionary principle dictates that we should assume that it would be.

However this threat must also be considered on a realistic time scale. The residence time of CO₂ in the atmosphere-ocean system is such that the predicted warming and sea level rise will continue for the next century or so, irrespective of any action to reduce fossil fuel burning.

The UK Government has decreed that we should attempt to reduce CO₂ emissions. Despite the above reservation, this is sensible and calculations based on energy conservative measures show that we could cut emissions by at least a quarter without serious consequences other than economic impact on the energy industries. This amount would far exceed the savings to which we are committed in the Kyoto Agreement. In the same context, wind generation offers next to nothing. Even if it were feasible to install it, the 4000 MW of wind generated power represents only 0.3 % of world electricity consumption.

We must remember that this is but a fraction of total contribution to CO₂ emission. Road, rail and air transport, together with direct fuel burning, contribute about three quarters of all emissions. Thus, our UK wind generation programme could not reduce world CO₂ emission by as much as 0.1%. This is minute in comparison with the landscape loss to our over-populous country and what is more, the growth, of electricity generation in the developing world dwarfs such a saving. China alone increases its electricity related CO₂ emission by this amount every few months at present! ⁵

It appears that the UK is making a political statement rather than solving any problems. We are now committed to a course of action which Government describes as ...non-negotiable..., but to no useful end. In the process we shall destroy many of our last remote places, to the justifiable wrath of future generations.

Power yield, planning and economy

It is clear that no other industrial development would be considered in the sites targeted for wind power stations but Government energy policy demands that these machines be installed. Any debate of power yield in relation to planning and local economy is being stifled. This cannot be right and must be altered.

Visual amenity of landscape cannot easily be given an economic value and to many of us it is priceless. This is why National Parks, AONBs and even green areas, outside settlement envelopes, have been held sacrosanct for many years.

However, an accurate valuation can be placed upon the tourist industry of many upland and coastal areas. One example is the 14 million pounds a year estimated to be earned by the Coastal Path of the Pembrokeshire Coast National Park. If the southern part of Mynydd Preseli were industrialised with wind turbines, causing no more than a 5% reduction in use of the Coastal Path, there would be a loss of c. £700,000 p.a. This would offset the total domestic tariff value of electricity from three or four 1.5 MW turbines during an amortisation period of ten years. The Coastal Path represents but a small part of the total tourist income generated by the area, and it is obvious that a proper cost benefit analysis should be undertaken in such places.

The output, capital cost and running cost of turbines is an essential part of the arithmetic and cannot be given a.…non-negotiable… privileged status.

If Government is determined to force this issue we also face the further problem that draconian powers will have to be taken to overrule the local planning process. Very substantial opposition now exists to most new schemes, for example the recent application at Devil's Bridge in mid-Wales brought the Ceredigion County Council 180 letters of objection, and just four of support, from private respondents. Is this huge majority to be ignored?

The permissions that are currently being sought all over Britain raise a further problem. Once a substantial wind-generating array is permitted, it becomes increasingly difficult to refuse further applications on landscape grounds, and without an inter-visibility restriction, such developments will creep inexorably to all possible sites. Applications for other types of industrial development may also follow on the wake of landscape degradation.

Conclusion

The figures in this document are unassailable. The logical conclusion is that the wind generation programme should be put on hold whilst a proper cost-benefit analysis is made, with public participation.

The analysis must address capital cost of turbines, their realised power generation and its tariff value, potential impact on tourism and value of domestic dwellings. Some landscape areas should be identified for protection from future planning applications, to avoid the immense expense and waste of time, which is apparent at present.

John R. Etherington B.Sc., A.R.C.S., Ph.D., D.I.C.